Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/CHMSDKTP.FWX 7/14/2010
Page 1 of 4
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 2 of 4
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 3 of 4
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 4 of 4
Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 22:12:10
PACER
we0083 Client Code:
Login:
List cases for Search Party=Jorg Busse,
Description:
party Criteria: Dr.
Billable Pages: 3 Cost: 0.24
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101050 7/14/2010
Page 1 of 1
http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/srchPtyCase.fwx?ID=610101052 7/14/2010
24
23
22
25
27
7/19/2010 Federal Bureau of Investigation - Tam…
Take advantage of the Get advice and tips for Help us find wanted
many services we protecting your family, fugitives and missing
offer to the public and your community, and persons. Rewards
to law enforcement. your workplace. are being offered in
some cases.
• Criminal Background Checks • New E-Scams and Warnings • Wanted by the FBI - Tampa
• Requests for FBI Records • Reporting Internet Crime • Most Wanted Terrorists
• FBI Training Academy • Sex Offender Registry • Seeking Terrorism Info
• Name Checks • Crime Statistics • Top Ten Fugitives
• Victim Assistance • Submitting Case Tips • Featured Fugitives
• Laboratory Services • Common Fraud Schemes • Crime Alerts
• Fingerprint Card Orders • A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety • Kidnappings, Missing Persons
• More Services • More Tips and Suggestions • Unknown Bank Robbers
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links
Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice.
…googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca… 1/1
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Government Corruption Victim
Dr. Jorg Busse, Public Corruption Victim
07/20/2010
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Defendant Drew Heathcoat
Defendant Supervising Clerk
Defendant Crooked Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Corrupted U.S. District Court, U.S. Courthouse
2110 First Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901
F: 239-461-2179
RE: Extortion, Public Corruption, and Anarchy in U.S. District Court, M.D. of Florida
Falsification and Destruction of Official Records
Criminal Investigation of Public Corruption in District Court and Clerk’s Office
Falsification of $5,048.60 judgment and writ of execution
Concealment and Cover-Up
Forgery of “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”
Dear Sirs:
1. On, e.g., 07/16/2010 and 07/20/2010, Defendant Drew Heathcoat and the U.S. District Clerk
obstructed justice and concealed the non-existence of
a. Any recorded judgment in the falsified amount of $5,048.60;
b. Any genuine writ of execution;
c. Any electronic filing privileges for Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin
Prescott.
2. In particular, Defendant Drew Heathcoat unlawfully refused the perform ministerial acts such
as, e.g., determining:
a. “Did the U.S. District Clerk issue any authentic writ of execution in Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228; Yes or No?”
b. Did the U.S. District Clerk falsify any writ of execution in Case No. 2:2007-cv-
00228; Yes or No?”
c. “And if so, what was the amount?”
d. “Did the Clerk alter or illegally modify the judgment in the amount of $24.30 issued
as mandate on 06/11/2009 in Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 365; Yes or No?”
e. “Has there been any recorded judgment in the amount of $5,048.60 in Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228; Yes or No?”
f. “Is the U.S. District Clerk obstructing the filing of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from
order, Doc. # 213, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791; Yes or No?”
g. “Why is the U.S. District Clerk obstructing the filing of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal
from order, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791?”
h. “Is the District Court obstructing a written statement by the Clerk, who is the
Custodian of Court records, that after diligent search no recorded judgment in the
amount of $5,048.60 could be found; Yes or No?”
i. “Does the District Clerk have any record of any “electronic filing privileges” in the
name of Dr. Jorg Busse and/or Jennifer Franklin Prescott; Yes or No?”
3. The Plaintiffs were entitled to be free of said public corruption and criminal & unlawful
acts by Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat and the U.S. District Clerk.
4. Given the publicly recorded extortion, coercion, and falsification and destruction of
official records and documents by the U.S. District Clerk in Plaintiffs’ Cases such as, e.g., ##
2:2007-cv-00228; 2:2009-cv-00791; 2:2010-cv-00089, the Plaintiffs seek criminal
investigation and stay of any further proceedings in the prima facie corrupt U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Florida.
5. Because of the record coercion, threats of, e.g., arrest and civil contempt, retaliatory
punishment and sanctions, and extortion of money in the falsified amount of “5,048.60”,
the Plaintiffs will no longer respond to any further unlawful communications and crimes of
this Court.
6. The Plaintiffs have left this jurisdiction and are prosecuting in a so far undisclosed venue.
Govern yourself accordingly!
2
PUBLISHED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST DEF. CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL
CORRUPT U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Federal Bureau of Investigation
5525 West Gray Street
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: (813) 253-1000
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Criminal Division
2
MISCONDUCT AND EXTENSION OF RECORD CRIMES AND FALSIFIED “WRIT”
11. Def. Honeywell recklessly extended the record Government crimes and falsified “writ”,
Doc. # 425:
“To the extent that Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, the Motions will be denied.”
See Doc. # 50, p. 4.
12. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that sanctions were not any “issue” but
Honeywell’s record crimes and unlawful acts such as, e.g., extortion, concealment, and
fraud were. In said organized cover-up, Defendant Honeywell concealed that there had
never been any “$5,048.60 judgment” of record and that no “judgment” of record had ever
even referenced any “frivolous appeal”.
13. Honeywell promoted the record culture and policy of corruption, anarchy, lawlessness
and perversion of law and facts. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits, Honeywell
“incomprehensibly” and “disjointedly” copied and pasted together illegal “orders” and
judicial trash without ever addressing the complained about legal issues and claims for relief.
RECKLESS DEPRIVATIONS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & COURT ACCESS
14. For criminal and illegal purposes of obstructing justice, extorting, coercing, and
concealing, Defendant Criminal Honeywell obstructed, and caused other Officials and
Defendants to obstruct, the filing of, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. #
213, Notice of Appeal from “order”, Doc. # 236, Case No. 2-2009-cv-00791:
“The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions.
3. The Clerk is further directed to no longer accept ANY filings from Plaintiffs
in this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED.
4. Finally, the Clerk is also directed to strike Published Public Notices from the
record (Dkt. 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235).”
ILLEGAL DESTRUCTION AND MUTILATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
15. With corrupt intent to extort, blackmail, coerce, defraud, deprive, and obtain illegal
benefits, Defendant Corrupt Honeywell destroyed, mutilated, caused others to destroy and
mutilate, and conspired with, e.g., other Officials to destroy and mutilate official records,
Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, 07/02/2010, p. 3:
“Plaintiffs have also filed several documents entitled “Published Public Notice” (Dkt.
220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, and 235). These documents do not
relate to any pending motion. Further, they are not motions which request affirmative
relief by the Court. They are immaterial to this case, which has been dismissed.
Moreover, some of the documents contain scandalous materials. These notices
should, therefore, be stricken.” See Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 236, pp. 2-3.
MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP
16. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Government Whore Honeywell obstructed, delayed, and
prevented the communication of judicial and Government corruption information relating to
the commission of felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell, M. A.
Pizzo, R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels” K. M. Wilkinson, and
Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat.
DELIBERATE DERPRIVATIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
17. U.S. Defendant Honeywell recklessly perverted express Florida and Federal Constitutional
guarantees of, e.g., the rights to due process, equal protection of the law, to own property,
exclude Governments from private property, redress Government grievances, prosecute by
3
jury trial, be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, oppression, falsification of
records, unlawful seizure of private property under fraudulent pretenses such as, e.g.:
a. Idiotically and brazenly, Def. Whore Honeywell manufactured and conspired with other
Government Officials to pervert express Constitutional guarantees and concoct that
property rights are not fundamental rights;
b. Def. Honeywell concocted and conspired to concoct that Plaintiffs could not assert their
perfected “state claims” against U.S. Agents in U.S. Courts;
c. Def. Honeywell fabricated and conspired to fabricate that Defendant Forger of “land
parcels” Wilkinson had filed a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”. Here, Defendant
Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify dockets, docket entries, and official
records. See § 838.022 (1)(a), Fla. Stat.;
d. Def. Predator Honeywell concealed, covered up, and/or altered official records and
documents, § 838.022 (1)(b), Fla. Stat.;
e. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Lee County Officials and to harm the
Plaintiff record landowners & corruption victims, Def. Honeywell maliciously fabricated
and conspired to fabricate a “regulation” by nameless, un-named, and non-existent
“legislators”. See § 838.022 (1), Fla. Stat.
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS & FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOC. 213
18. On or around 07/16/2010, Defendant Whore Honeywell prevented and conspired with other
Officials such as, e.g., Defendant Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper the filing of
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from Order, Doc. # 213 …, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and the
communication of information relating to the commission of felonies in the U.S. District
Court, Fort Myers, Florida.
19. Recklessly, Honeywell’s illegal and felonious acts deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights as
stated in Doc. # 214, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.
“RULE 38/WRIT OF EXECUTION”-FRAUD-SCHEME, CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT
20. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is
affirmed. Defendant Whore Honeywell knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or
taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def.
Honeywell concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
“FRIVOLOUS APPEAL”-FRAUD & EXTORTION-SCHEME
21. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately
filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award
just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
22. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to
11th Cir. R. 38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP
38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had
tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on or around 08/08/2008. See Appellate
Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson never
filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008.
23. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only provided
for damages and costs. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and
perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Government Whore
Honeywell concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL ILLEGALITY & CRIMINALITY OF FAKE “WRIT”
4
24. On or around 07/14/10, Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell conspired with, e.g., U.S.
Defendants Chappell and Steele to fraudulently conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality
of a facially forged “writ of execution” and “July judgment”, Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089,
Doc. # 48, p. 1:
“On February 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Chappell issued an order granting Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson's Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228,
Dkt. 424). Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).”
25. Defendant crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P.
26. Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal
that Defendant Co-conspirator Chappell had fabricated a mandate and/or judgment, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 424:
“On July 28, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit issued a Judgment awarding Wilkinson
$5,000.00 in attorney’s fees and double costs in the amount of $48.60, as sanctions
for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal.”
27. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that admittedly
Defendant Wilkinson had never alleged a “frivolous appeal” and that no mandate or
“judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorneys fees…” had ever existed, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
28. In the certified record absence of any “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Wilkinson, a fraudulent
“judgment” in the amount of “$24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11 2009”, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
29. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that the mandated
“amount of $24.30” had been paid and was not “outstanding”:
“The Judgment to date remains outstanding.”
30. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with other U.S. Agents to
conceal that
a. No such mandated “judgment” existed, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;
b. No mandated “judgment” was ever “recorded in the Public Records of Lee County”;
c. The fraudulently alleged “certification” was facially forged;
d. “Instrument No. 2009000309384” could not have possibly become any “lien” on any
property pursuant to Ch. 55, 56; and 55.10 Florida Statutes; and
e. No “writ of execution” legally existed.
31. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with U.S. Defendants Chappell,
Steele, and other U.S. Agents to conceal that nothing in that or any other Case could have
possibly “served as a lien against” any property under Florida and Federal law:
“A certified copy of the Judgment was recorded in the Public Records of Lee County,
Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384 and serves as a lien against the property.”
32. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
a. Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
b. Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been awarded any mandated “judgment”;
c. Def. Wilkinson was not “entitled to tax….”;
d. The prima facie fraudulent “Writ” was due to be denied as unlawful and unauthorized.
5
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION & FRAUD ON THIS COURT
33. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed the jurisdiction of this
Court over the unlawful acts of the Defendant U.S. Agents and recklessly deprived the
Plaintiffs of any chance of justice and adjudication of their perfected claims, Doc. # 213:
“B. Supplemental Jurisdiction
The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests
within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086,
1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had
original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.”
34. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that this Court had jurisdiction of
any and all claims involving the Defendant U.S. Government Officials and including “state
claims”. Defendant Honeywell had no “discretion” but was absolutely obligated to adjudicate
Plaintiffs’ claims, because United States Agents had perpetrated unlawful and criminal acts
of record.
35. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Co-Defendant U.S. Judges Steele and
Chappell themselves had removed Plaintiffs’ State action, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
36. “Declining jurisdiction” over unlawful and criminal U.S. Governmental acts proved
Defendant Honeywell’s fraud on the Courts and required her disqualification.
RECKLESS OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS
DISPARATE DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS RIGHTS
37. Recklessly, Defendant Honeywell again obstructed Plaintiffs’ court access on 06/23/10, Doc.
# 213, p. 21:
“With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.”
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF “misconduct”
38. On 07/07/10, Defendant Honeywell again fabricated “misconduct” and/or “loss” of
“electronic filing privileges” in response to Plaintiffs’ “specific” demand for “equal court
access and privileges for filing purposes.” See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 38, p. 1;
see Def. Honeywell’s previous fabrications, Case No. 2:09-CV-791, Doc. ## 133, 151.
RECORD CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION
39. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendant U.S. Judges and Officials not to justly
and speedily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven “state claims” against Federal
Defendants.
DENIAL & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS
40. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell recklessly and disparately denied the
Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws under fraudulent pretenses, Doc. # 213, p. 19:
“In this case, Plaintiffs claim that they were denied equal protection of the laws by
Defendants in relation to Lot 15A. As a general matter, Florida counties may exercise
eminent domain over property not owned by the state or federal government. Fla.
Stat. § 127.01(1)(a); id. “Since a state landowner would not be subject to eminent
domain power but [Plaintiffs], as . . . [alleged] private landowner[s], would be,”
Plaintiffs cannot be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at
973. Plaintiffs, “therefore cannot rely on [their] disparate eminent domain treatment
6
vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.” Id.
Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim.”
41. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell fixed and fraudulently concealed
Plaintiffs’ perfected “equal protection claim” and the record absence of any “eminent
domain” “exercise”. On 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that none
of the Government Defendants ever had any “eminent domain power” and perpetrated fraud
on the Court.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL U.S. JURISDICTION & OBSTRUCT COURT ACCESS
42. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Federal Defendants to conceal Federal
jurisdiction and obstruct Plaintiffs’ meaningful court access.
43. In particular, Defendant Honeywell conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs
rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants in
Federal Court.
44. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant U.S. Judge Honeywell fabricated “necessary state
procedures”, Doc. # 213, p. 18:
“They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute
prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment
claim.”
45. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of
Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary
state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary
state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope
of immunity and official capacity.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
46. Without any meritorious “defense” or “claim”, and under facially idiotic pretenses of
“frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, Defendant Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of
court access.
CONCEALMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY AND
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
47. Defendant Honeywell conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most
fundamental rights. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly
and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20:
“Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.”
Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in
Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses
their Substantive Due Process Claim.”
48. No halfway intelligent and non-corrupt judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could have
possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property are most fundamental
rights. Honeywell’s above assertion was recklessly false and for unlawful and criminal
purposes of extorting property and fees and illegally bypassing due process and equal
protection of the law.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUS “STATE ACTION”
7
49. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ State action, Case No. 2006-CA-
003185 (Lee County Circuit Court), BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Doc. # 213, p. 15:
“Although they have been previously told by the Eleventh Circuit that they must
proceed in state court prior to bringing suit in federal court for several of their claims,
Plaintiffs refuse to do so and continue to re-file their complaints with additional
Defendants and claims all surrounding the same property dispute.”
50. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Officials such as, e.g., Defendants Steele and
Polster Chappell to conceal Plaintiffs’ 2006 State action of record, 2006-CA-003185.
Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendants Steele and Chappell had removed
Plaintiffs’ record 2006 State action to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
51. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental entitlement to sue
Defendant U.S. Agents in Federal Court for any and all claims.
06/23/2010 SLANDER OF RECORD REAL PROPERTY TITLE, DOC. # 213
52. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell unintelligently slandered Plaintiffs’ record
marketable title to riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, Doc. # 213, 2:2009-cv-00791:
“In a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee
County, Florida, Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land
(“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9). See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et
al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009); Busse, et al. v. Lee County,
Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).”
07/14/2010 FABRICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION”
53. On or around 07/14/2010, Defendant Honeywell irrationally fabricated a “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 48, p. 1, 2:2010-cv-00089:
“In the motion, Plaintiffs appear to seek a release of the writ of execution and
attachment of a lien to property issued in Busse v. Lee County, Florida, et al., Case
No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before Judge John Steele and
Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell.”
54. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed the record lack of any “writ of execution”
mandated “July 2009 judgment”, and of any ‘Rule 38 motion” by Def. “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; see Case Docket as certified on 07/16/2010 by
Def. Clerk D. Nipper.
55. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the record 03/05/2009 “judgment” and paid
“amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, had
ruled out any possibility of a “writ of execution”.
56. Because of her irrational contradictions on record, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were
facially arbitrary, capricious, incomprehensible, and idiotic:
57. In particular, no rational, competent, and honest judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes
could have possibly reconciled a fake “writ of execution” with a fake “claim”.
58. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of any involuntary
title transfer to Government, no “writ of execution” could have possibly existed.
59. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of a “writ of
execution”, there could not have possibly been any involuntary title transfer to Lee County,
Florida. For bribes, Def. Whore Honeywell conspired to extort Plaintiffs’ property under
fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”, fake “judgment”, and fake “writ”.
8
TRESPASS ONTO PRIMA FACIE PRIVATE “CAYO COSTA” SUBDIVISION
60. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts of record, reckless orders, Case ##
2:2009-cv-00791; and 2:2010-cv-00089, slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or
fabrications of a non-existent mandated “judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” proximately
caused unlawful and criminal trespass onto Plaintiffs’ private street and up lands on the Gulf
of Mexico in the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision.
61. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that the public had no Subdivision
access, because as a matter of law, the public had no right to use any of the prima facie
private street and alley easements as legally conveyed in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey
in PB 3 PG 25.
ILLEGAL FIRES AND ARSON
62. Defendant Honeywell’s reckless orders, Case ## 2:2009-cv-00791, and 2:2010-cv-00089,
slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or fabrications of a non-existent mandated
“judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” have been inducing the public to start unlawful fires
and perpetrate arson on private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision property, PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP FOR GOVERNMENT CROOKS
63. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal the record crimes and
illegal acts of, e.g., U.S. Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Richard A.
Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, and to cover up for said Government Crooks.
RECORD THREATS AND FABRICATIONS OF “VIOLATION OF ORDER”
64. On or around 07/14/20, Defendant Honeywell again threatened, intimidated, and coerced
the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting Defendant Honeywell, 2:10-cv-00089, Doc. # 49, p.
2:
“…Plaintiff Busse has directly violated an order of this Court.”
65. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell has been a named party Defendant, because she,
e.g., accepted Defendants’ bribes, fixed Plaintiff’s Cases under false pretenses of a
“regulation”, fabricated a “writ of execution”, perverted the Florida and Federal
Constitutional guarantees of the most fundamental rights to own property and exclude
Governments, redress Government grievances, be free of Government corruption,
oppression, unlawful seizure of property, et al. The Plaintiff corruption victims sued Def.
Honeywell in her individual private capacity outside any immunity, because Def.
Honeywell maliciously extended, e.g., record Government extortion, corruption, and crimes
and unlawful acts. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 213, 236; Case No. 2:2010-
cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50.
66. Under color of office, Defendant Honeywell falsified and/or caused other persons to falsify
official record and documents. See § 838.022, Fla. Stat.
RECORD EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY
67. For unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ record property,
Defendant Honeywell fabricated a “writ of execution”.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD “06/11/2009 MANDATE”
68. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that a facially fraudulent 03/05/2009 “judgment”
“issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and was received by the U.S. District Court on
06/15/2009. See Doc. # 365; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF CLOSURE OF CASE 08-17130-BB ON 06/11/2009
69. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
had closed Case No. 2008-13170-BB on 06/11/2009.
9
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF “$24.30” MANDATE
70. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
had “allowed the amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009”
71. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the “amount of $24.30” was not outstanding.
72. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that no “writ of execution” could have possibly
existed on the record.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENCE OF “RULE 38 MOTION”
73. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.
Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD COERCION
74. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson expressly
coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from prosecution on the record. See
Wilkinson’s “Rule 27-4 motion”.
COERCION
75. On the record, Defendant Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution under
color of authority and office.
76. Without any authority or justification, Defendant Honeywell threatened, intimidated,
harassed, and “punished” the Plaintiffs on the record, including the obstruction of court
access.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENT “LAND PARCELS”
77. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had
unlawfully and criminally forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-
01-00001.0000”. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that said forged
“parcels” did not appear on the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee
County Plat Book 3 Page 25.
78. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said non-existent and forged “land parcels”
had never been legally described, platted, and/or conveyed in reference to said Plat of
Survey, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) and had never existed.
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
79. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell concealed said evident record
forgeries and covered up for Defendant K. M. Wilkinson.
80. Defendant Honeywell accepted Defendants’ bribes and enforced the culture and policy of
corruption in her office even though Honeywell knew that the prima facie fake “writ of
execution”, “lien”, “judgment”, and “land parcels” had never existed and could not have
possibly existed.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & FRAUD ON THE COURT
81. With wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to, e.g.
a. Be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, and threats;
b. Be free of unlawful seizure;
c. Redress Government grievances without coercion, extortion, and threats;
d. Have meaningful and free court access;
e. Have due process and equal protection of the law;
f. Own property;
g. Exclude Defendant Governments from Plaintiffs’ record property.
Defendant Honeywell perpetrated fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived the
Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions.
10
/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
26
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
____________________________
No. 10-10963-I
____________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________
2
“On 10 December 1969, the Board of Commissioners of Lee County,
Florida (“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the
Cayo Costa subdivision as public lands (“the Resolution”). R10-288 at 9.”
See corrupt March 5, 2009 Appellate “Opinion”, No. 08-13170, District Court
Docket No. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC, p. 2.
RECORD JUDICIAL CRIMES & FRAUD ON THE COURT(S)
6. Here, U.S. Judges perpetrated fraud on the Court(s), procured another unlawful
“order” through trickery & malice, and fabricated a “resolution”. Here, no
evidentiary support of a “resolution” had ever existed, and the Governmental
concoctions of condemnation by Governmental facial forgeries “O.R. 569/875”
were record crimes.
RECORD PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL LIES OF “RESOLUTION” & “CLAIM”
7. Here, no “resolution” had ever legally existed, and Defendant “Board” never
“adopted” Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no name of any
“Board” member appeared on Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”. Here, no
“resolution” had ever been legally recorded. Here, no original of any “resolution”
ever existed. Here, there was rampant judicial corruption and fraud on the Court.
Therefore, any and all Federal “opinions” and “orders” since 2006 were null and
void from the outset.
PERVERSIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF “CLAIM”
8. Florida and Federal Constitutions expressly prohibited confiscating and/or
“claiming” “land” by “adoption” of a “resolution” and/or any “law”. Here, the
Nazi-style Judges in the 11th Court lied and criminally perverted said
Constitutions’ checks and balances. Here, the law did not recognize criminal
confiscation and seizure by any “resolution”, “law”, and/or Governmental
forgeries “O.R. 569/875”.
9. Here, said outlaw Judges were out of control when they brazenly concocted a
“resolution” and/or “legislative act” and then punished the pro se Plaintiff(s)
merely for “redressing their Governmental grievances” and opposing the
psychopathological judicial lies and Governmental crimes on the record.
10. Just like Nazi Judges fabricated that Nazi Government could “claim” the property
of Jews and Nazi opponents, here criminal Judges idiotically concocted that
Defendant Governments could “claim” Plaintiff(s) “raid lands” Nazi style and by
criminal means of forged “O.R. 569/875”.
THE JUDICIAL CROOKS COULD NOT ANSWER PLAIN QUESTIONS:
11. When asked plain and short: Who adopted what, where, when, and how, the
criminal Judges in this corrupt Court imposed” “sanctions” just like Nazi Judges
did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi
concentration camps.
THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES
3
12. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “resolution”
and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “deterred”, “sanctioned”, and
“punished” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “deterred” Nazi opponents in
death camps and pedophile priests “punished” raped children when they reported
the priests’ rape.
PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
13. Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were “paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “recording” stamp(s) on said
Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years,
U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality
of Nazi style forged “claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875”.
FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “REVIEW” & “FRIVOLITY”
14. Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “faked” “judicial review” and
“frivolity”:
“these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be frivolous.”
See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th Circuit “order”.
Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at
the hands of Nazi judges. Here, sick Judges criminally concocted a “resolution”
and “frivolity”.
NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT
15. In their criminal “order”, post stamped “04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and
partial Judge(s) in this Court again “imposed” Nazi-style “restrictions”:
“As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…”
POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” & TERROR
16. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “restricted” the “abilities” of
Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated
obstruction of justice, “deterrence”, “punishment”, and “judicial concentration
camp” for the pro se Plaintiff(s), because the pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g.,
Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County”
“land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338
17. Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was
obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”:
“The copy of the Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”]
attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was
signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff
will not be allowed to assert otherwise.”
See vexatious and facially fraudulent “Opinion and Order”, Doc. # 338, p. 12,
Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin
Steele.
4
NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION
18. Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its
Commissioners had never “signed” and/or “executed” Governmental forgeries
“O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said
fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and
judicial corruption.
JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “SHOW CAUSE” – FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME
19. Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “showed any cause” for the
“punishment” and “sanctions” of the pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses
of “frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “showed any cause” why they murdered
Jews and Nazi opponents.
20. Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the
criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear.
See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges
in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic
bishops for priests.
NO AUTHENTICATION OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “RESOLUTION”
21. Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been
“unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act”, “land use regulation”,
and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “resolution” and
torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials
terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents.
22. Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in
concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875”
to criminally confiscate pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property.
FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ARGUMENTS” ON THE RECORD
23. Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any
“resolution”, because no “lawmaker” had ever “signed” and/or “executed” said
scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi
opponents by criminal means of forged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated
a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed
and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic
criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly
“law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “claim”.
SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES:
FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY” “CLAIM”
24. Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw
Judges’ fabrications of a “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Furthermore,
forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were not any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges
5
kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive
Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes.
VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER” (“04/06/2010”)
25. Here, said 04/06/2010 “order to show cause” was a facial farce and mockery. On
their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the
facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law
expressly prohibited Governmental scam “claim all of raid lands”.
26. Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not
comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps,
here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “cause shown”. Just like the
Pope needed “cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type
Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “cause shown” why “disallowing” the pro
se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the
criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal.
27. Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and
were utterly unable to “show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “cause” for
prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this
“order” is a criminal charade.
TIME FOR “NUREMBERG TRIALS” OF “JUDICIAL TERRORISTS”
28. Here, the time for “Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said
“judicial terrorists” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…
6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
____________________________
No. 10-10963-I
____________________________
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________
2
did when asked why Jews and Nazi opponents were murdered in Nazi
concentration camps.
THE NAZI STYLE CRIMES OF “SICK” FEDERAL JUDGES
8. When the pro se Plaintiffs demanded to see the original of the forged “resolution”
and/or authenticated copies, the crooked Judges “deterred”, “sanctioned”, and
“punished” the Plaintiff(s) just like Nazi Judges “deterred” Nazi opponents in
death camps and pedophile priests “punished” raped children when they reported
the priests’ rape.
PREMEDITATED JUDICIAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
9. Here, U.S. Judges fraudulently concealed that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were “paste-ups”. Here, the illegible fake “recording” stamp(s) on said
Governmental forgeries were pasted by Governmental con men. Here for years,
U.S. Judges conspired with the Defendants to fraudulently conceal the criminality
of Nazi style forged “claims” of “raid lands”, Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875”.
FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL PRETENSES OF “REVIEW” & “FRIVOLITY”
10. Here in the absence of a docket, criminal Judges “faked” “judicial review” and
“frivolity”:
“these appeals have been reviewed and determined to be frivolous.”
See fraudulent “04/06/2010” 11th Circuit “order”.
Here, the Case Docket(s) disappeared just like Nazi court records disappeared at
the hands of Nazi judges. Here, sick Judges criminally concocted a “resolution”
and “frivolity”.
NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” ON JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURT
11. In their criminal “order”, post stamped “04/06/2010”, the objectively corrupt and
partial Judge(s) in this Court again “imposed” Nazi-style “restrictions”:
“As part of its Order, the Court imposed restrictions on Appellant’s ability…”
POLICY & CUSTOM OF NAZI-STYLE “RESTRICTIONS” & TERROR
12. Just like Nazi Government Officials maliciously “restricted” the “abilities” of
Jews and Nazi opponents, the crooked Judge(s) in this Court premeditated
obstruction of justice, “deterrence”, “punishment”, and “judicial concentration
camp” for the pro se Plaintiff(s), because the pro se Plaintiff(s) opposed, e.g.,
Governmental forgeries and scam “O.R. 569/875” and forged “Lee County”
“land” “parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FRAUD ON THE COURTS, DOC. # 338
13. Here for years, the vexatious U.S. judicial policy and custom on the record was
obstruction of justice of the adjudication of the pro se Plaintiff(s)’ “claims”:
“The copy of the Resolution [Governmental Forgeries “O.R. 569/875”]
attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was
signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff
will not be allowed to assert otherwise.”
3
See vexatious and facially fraudulent “Opinion and Order”, Doc. # 338, p. 12,
Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, by crooked District Judge John Edwin
Steele.
NAZI-STYLE ANARCHY INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATION
14. Even though the Defendants had ADMITTED that Lee County, Florida, and/or its
Commissioners had never “signed” and/or “executed” Governmental forgeries
“O.R. 569/875” as conclusively evidenced by the true and correct copies of said
fake “claims” on record, the Federal Judges conspired to uphold lawlessness and
judicial corruption.
JUDICIAL FAILURE TO “SHOW CAUSE” – FRIVOLITY FRAUD SCHEME
15. Here, the conspiring U.S. Judges in this Court never “showed any cause” for the
“punishment” and “sanctions” of the pro se Plaintiff(s) under fraudulent pretenses
of “frivolity” just like Nazi Official never “showed any cause” why they murdered
Jews and Nazi opponents.
16. Just like Nazi Officials made the crime records of Nazi killings disappear, here the
criminal Judges in this Court made dockets and records of oppression disappear.
See Case Dockets. Here, crooked U.S. Judges covered up for other outlaw Judges
in said U.S. Judicial Gang just like Nazis covered up for Nazis, and Catholic
bishops for priests.
NO AUTHENTICATION OF JUDICIALLY FABRICATED “RESOLUTION”
17. Even though the vexatious Judges in this Nazi-style Appellate Court had been
“unable” to authenticate any “resolution”, “legislative act”, “land use regulation”,
and/or “law”, they criminally continued to fraudulently pretend a “resolution” and
torture, terrorize, punish, and oppress the pro se Plaintiffs just like Nazi Officials
terrorized and oppressed Jews and Nazi opponents.
18. Just like Nazi Officials used forged papers to confiscate property of Jews in
concentration camps, here U.S. Judges used prima facie forgeries “O.R. 569/875”
to criminally confiscate pro se Plaintiff(s)’ riparian property.
FACIALLY IDIOTIC JUDICIAL “ARGUMENTS” ON THE RECORD
19. Here, prima facie Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were not any
“resolution”, because no “lawmaker” had ever “signed” and/or “executed” said
scam. Just like Nazi Government Officials seized the property of Jews and Nazi
opponents by criminal means of forged Nazi “claims”, here U.S. Judges fabricated
a “resolution” and/or “legislative act”. Here, District and Circuit Judges agreed
and conspired to “cover up” for crooked Judge Steele and conceal the idiotic
criminal fabrication that Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” were purportedly
“law”. The law did not recognize said Nazi-style “claim”.
SCIENCE & FORENSICS CONTROVERTED OUTLAW JUDGES:
FORENSICS vs. NAZI-STYLE “FRIVOLITY” “CLAIM”
20. Here on the record, the Defendants themselves had CONTROVERTED the outlaw
Judges’ fabrications of a “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Furthermore,
4
forensic examinations had conclusively proven that Governmental forgeries “O.R.
569/875” were not any “legislative act” and/or “resolution”. Here, U.S. Judges
kept lying, concealing, and covering up for crooked Judge Steele, his oppressive
Nazi style, Doc. # 338, and judicial crimes.
VEXATIOUS JUDICIAL FARCE & MOCKERY OF “ORDER” (“04/06/2010”)
21. Here, said 04/06/2010 “order to show cause” was a facial farce and mockery. On
their faces, Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875” patently clearly portrayed the
facts and evidence of Governmental fraud, extortion, and crimes. Here, the law
expressly prohibited Governmental scam “claim all of raid lands”.
22. Here, only Nazi-style Judges needed “cause shown”. Just like Nazi Judges did not
comprehend the criminality of murdering Nazi opponents in concentration camps,
here these Nazi-type Judges did not “get” the patently clear criminality of
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, but needed “cause shown”. Just like the
Pope needed “cause shown” for the prosecution of rapist priests, the Nazi-type
Judges in the Eleventh Circuit needed “cause shown” why “disallowing” the pro
se Plaintiffs to “assert” Governmental fraud & corruption and concealing the
criminality of said Governmental forgeries was not criminal.
23. Just like Nazi Judges staged fake “proceedings” for Jews and Nazi opponents, and
were utterly unable to “show” any Nazi wrongdoing and/or “cause” for
prosecution for murder of innocent Nazi opponents in concentration camps, this
“order” is a criminal charade.
TIME FOR “NUREMBERG TRIALS” OF “JUDICIAL TERRORISTS”
24. Here, the time for “Nuremberg Trials” has come. Here under public policy, said
“judicial terrorists” in Atlanta are on trial for fraudulently concealing
Governmental forgeries “O.R. 569/875”, fraud, and eminent domain extortion…
5
CROOKED U.S. JUDGES CONTROVERTED BY SCIENCE
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial%20Fraud
531 Documents
11 Subscribers
43,962 Reads
183 Downloads
mail@handwritingexpert.org.uk,
pnina555@bezeqint.net,
kim@kimwasley.com,
forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com,
nadepres@handwriting-examiner.com,
send2lorrie@yahoo.com,
teresa@teresadeberry.com,
forgeryhelp@sandrabasyefde.com,
sheila@sheilalowe.com,
• Fraudulent alterations of words and letters in more than one forgery
• Misspelled words
• Misaligned typing
• Fraudulent paste-ups
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
___________________________________
I.
The Resolution stated that the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo
Resolution stated that Lee County claimed the lands to the east and
lands and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public
the current owner of Lot 15A of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and
-2-
accretions thereto. (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff describes Lot
15A as being more than approximately 2.5 acres fronting the Gulf of
rights to Lots 38A and 41A which they denied to plaintiff, thereby
-3-
Count 2 alleges an unconstitutional temporary taking under
was outside of Lee County’s home rule powers, and therefore the
his accretions onto the riparian gulf front Lot 15A without
alleges that since the 1969 Resolution the defendants have asserted
that Lee County is the owner of the Cayo Costa accretions and have
induced and caused the public to intrude onto the private beaches
power within the Subdivision east of the mean high water mark of
the Gulf of Mexico and west of the mean high water mark of
-4-
Count 4 alleges a conspiracy to fabricate, fraud and
admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt the Resolution.
and park for the benefit of the State and County. (Id. at ¶24.)
received purchase offers far below market value and the County
-5-
Count 5 alleges a conspiracy to materially misrepresent and
defraud. Plaintiff asserts that Lee County does not hold title to
revenues which could have been received from the private accretions
based on the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
4 and 5 of the United States Constitution (Doc. #288, ¶7), the 1899
the 1862 Homestead Act (id. at ¶9), the federal common law Doctrine
-6-
III.
The Court will first address the federal claims, since these
Complaint liberally.
York City, 438 U.S. 104, 121-23 (1978). The Third Amended
Takings Clause.
a legal question for the court to decide. Morley’s Auto Body, Inc.
1
See Lee County v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
for a description of Cayo Costa island and the Lee County zoning
history of the island since 1978.
-7-
v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 1996). Under Florida law
Fund v. Sand Key Assocs., Ltd., 512 So. 2d 934, 936-37 (Fla. 1987);
Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). These
Assoc., 512 So. 2d at 936; Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013,
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th
U.S. 172, 195 (1972). “Williamson County boils down to the rule
-8-
takings dispute because a federal constitutional claim is not ripe
195; Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainsville, 244 Fed. Appx. 274,
277 (11th Cir. 2007); Garbo, Inc. v. City of Key West, Fla., 162
Fed. Appx. 905 (11th Cir. 2006). It has been clear since at least
563 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1990); Tari v. Collier County, 56 F.3d
1533, 1537 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
-9-
Since there is no showing of federal jurisdiction as to the Takings
prejudice.
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 612-14
only fundamental rights, that is, those rights which are implicit
Village, LLC v. Mountain Brook City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir.
arbitrary and irrational does not bring the matter within the
dismissed.
-10-
C. Procedural Due Process Claim:
process claim. For example, plaintiff asserts that Lee County had
subdivision (Doc. #288, ¶¶ 13, 18, 23), that the Resolution was
and recording requirements (id. at ¶¶ 17, 23), and that the taking
Zipperer v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995).
County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff
asserted that the Resolution effecting the taking of more than 200
-11-
merely because state mandated procedures were not followed. First
20 F.3d 419, 422 (11th Cir. 1994). In this regard, some of the
remedy, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996), and as
Fed. Appx. 155, 158 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation omitted). See also
Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1552 (11th
Cir. 1991). The Third Amended Complaint does not identify any
federal jurisdiction.
courts are empowered to hear only cases for which there has been a
Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore
-13-
courts for certain civil rights actions, but does not itself create
Fed. Appx. 885, 892 (11th Cir. 2007). Since none of plaintiff’s
federal civil rights claims are properly before the court, § 1343
claims.
-14-
Appraisal Institute. Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088, 1091 n.2
are all state law claims. Read liberally, the Third Amended
claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th
prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, it is now
-15-
ORDERED:
paragraph 5 below.
5 below.
May, 2008.
-16-
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Plaintiffs,
versus
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
(March 5, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorg Busse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
third amended complaint in his civil rights action against various state and local
1985. The district court dismissed Busse’s federal claims because he had either
failed to adequately plead them or had not established federal subject matter
jurisdiction. In the absence of any viable federal claims, the court declined to
retain jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. Based on our review of the
I. BACKGROUND
(“the Board”) adopted a resolution claiming certain lands in the Cayo Costa
the Board identified the relevant lands by reference to a map of the subdivision
which showed that, along with a number of designated land parcels in the
subdivision, there were also a number of unidentified areas on the eastern and
western edges of the subdivision. Id. The Board laid claim to all of these non-
designated parcels “and accretions thereto for the use and benefit of the public for
along with all accretions thereto and that the Resolution violates his property rights
under both federal and state law. Id. at 1. To vindicate his rights, he brought suit
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against an
array of state and local parties, including the Lee County Board of Commissioners,
Protection.1 Id. In his third amended complaint, Busse made six claims:
oppression or slander of title. Id. at 3–8. He asserted that an array of statutory and
constitutional provisions supported the exercise of jurisdiction: two civil rights acts
— 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Articles Three and Four and the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution; the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33
U.S.C. § 403); the 1862 Homestead Act, the federal common law doctrine of
1
The full list of defendants includes: Lee County, Florida; the Board of Lee County
Commissioners, in their official and private capacities; Kenneth M. Wilkinson, the Lee County
property appraiser, in his official and private capacity; the State of Florida Board of Trustees of
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, in their official and private
capacities; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Division of
Recreation and Parks, and the Cayo Costa State Park staff, in their individual and private
capacities; and Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorney, in his official and private capacity. Id.
accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of
failure to state a claim. R10-285, 291, 303, 304. The district court granted these
the court first found that Busse had made out a valid takings claim but that it had
no jurisdiction over that claim since he had failed to show that he had pursued all
available state remedies before bringing suit. Id. at 7–10. The court then
concluded that Busse had not made out a valid claim under any of his other alleged
federal bases. Id. at 10–15. Given that the court did not have jurisdiction over any
of Busse’s federal claims, it chose to dismiss his state law claims. Id. at 15. Busse
now appeals the dismissal of all of the claims in his third amended complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
matter jurisdiction, including the determinations that a claim is not ripe or that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc.,
536 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2008); Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204
(11th Cir. 2006). We also “review a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d
823, 826 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The decision not to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
See Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006).
Since Busse is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See Miller
On appeal, Busse argues that the district court erred in dismissing his federal
claims. He asserts that his Takings Clause claim was ripe for review and that he
had properly stated claims involving violations of his procedural due process,
equal protection, and substantive due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
2
Busse’s brief on appeal does not discuss the other jurisdictional bases cited in his third
amended complaint — Articles Three and Four of the United States Constitution; the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; the 1862 Homestead Act; the federal common law
doctrine of accretion and erosion; the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331–3351; and the Federal Declaratory
Judgment Act. Generally arguments not raised in a brief on appeal are deemed abandoned. See
Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we agree with the
district court’s analysis of these provisions and find that none of them could serve as a potential
jurisdictional basis for Busse’s claims. See, e.g., Arthur v. Haley, 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 (11th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting that appellate courts can and should sua sponte inquire into
subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears to be lacking).
Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of
his property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of
private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001)
(noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the
States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings claim only if he can show that he
did not receive just compensation in return for the taking of his property. See Eide
v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings
available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal
In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that
is available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d
1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his claim would still be ripe
since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners
enacted the Resolution. However, our past circuit precedent dictates “that a
Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court
before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was
whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged
that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures, his
Takings Clause claim would not be ripe for review. We thus conclude that the
district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Busse asserts that his procedural due process rights were violated since Lee
County had no authority to take his land nor jurisdiction over it and because the
state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. A plaintiff could make a procedural due
including the failure to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing. See Villas of
Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610, 615 (11th Cir. 1997); Zipperer
v. City of Fort Myers, 41 F.3d 619, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). For such a claim to be
valid, however, the plaintiff would have to allege that state law failed to provide
him with an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378,
inadequate. Even if it was inadequate, though, Busse still would not have a valid
procedural due process claim. The Resolution constituted a legislative act since it
was a general provision that affected a large number of persons and area, 200 acres
in all, rather than being specifically targeted at Busse or his immediate neighbors.
See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County, Fla., 338 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir.
2003). Since alleged problems with the adoption of such acts cannot serve as the
basis for a procedural due process claim, Busse could not cite them as the basis for
his claim. See id. (noting that “if government action is viewed as legislative in
nature, property owners generally are not entitled to procedural due process”).
Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Busse’s
Busse also argues that his equal protection rights were violated because the
3
In his brief on appeal, Busse argues that he experienced different treatment than other
landowners in Lee County. However, we need not address this argument since he did not
mention this in his third amended complaint and we find that none of the exceptions that would
allow us to consider an issue not raised before the district court would apply here. See Narey v.
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. “[T]o properly plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff need
only allege that through state action, similarly situated persons have been treated
disparately.” Thigpen v. Bibb County, 223 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2000)
abrogated on other grounds by National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
Under Florida law, counties can exercise eminent domain over any land that
is not owned by the state or federal government. See Fla. Stat. § 127.01(1)(a)
(2006). Since a state landowner would not be subject to the eminent domain power
but Busse, as a private landowner, would be, Busse could not be similarly situated
to a state landowner. Busse therefore cannot rely on his disparate eminent domain
treatment vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.
Since Busse made no other allegations of disparity in his third amended complaint,
we find that he has failed to plead a valid equal protection claim and that the
Busse also appears to allege that the Resolution denied him his substantive
due process property rights. Substantive due process protects only those rights that
are “fundamental,” a description that applies only to those rights created by the
Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing the exceptions to this general rule).
United States Constitution. See Greenbriar Village, L.L.C. v. Mountain Brook,
City, 345 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Property rights would
not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law. See id. Busse thus
could not bring a viable substantive due process claim based on the alleged denial
of a state-defined property right. See id. Accordingly, we find that the district
E. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Busse also contends that the court abused its discretion in not hearing his
pendent state law claims. “The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
pendent state claims rests within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Since the
district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it
therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
district courts to take such action when all federal claims have been dismissed pre-
trial. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
4
The district court, in addressing Busse’s substantive due process claim, mentions that
assertions of irrational and arbitrary government action could not serve as the basis for such a
claim. Even under a liberal reading of Busse’s complaint, though, we do not think he made such
allegations. In the third amended complaint, he discusses takings violations and procedural
problems with the enactment of the Resolution but never questions the rationale for its passage.
Accordingly, we need not address whether he has a valid substantive due process claim based on
arbitrary and capricious government action.
its discretion when it chose not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s
III. CONCLUSION
Busse contends that the district court incorrectly dismissed his federal claims
takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state remedies and
he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims, the district court correctly
contrary, the district court also did not commit an abuse of discretion in not
exercising jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
AFFIRMED.
David Souter
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
RE: Lee County [FL] O.R.569/875 – An eminent domain scam of giant proportions
Case-fixing in the U.S. Court of Appeals
We are writing to you in the matter of the corruption and case-fixing in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Common intelligence dictates that residents use designated streets to get to their lots.
Unintelligently, the 11th Circuit cannot tell the difference between a designated street and
“unidentified areas”. See Plat Book 3, p. 25 at www.leeclerk.org.
In West Peninsular Title Co.1, corrupt Chief Circuit Judge Edmondson co-wrote:
“And, plaintiffs’ “arbitrary and capricious” due process claim is ripe. Plaintiffs
accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action ..
Plaintiffs’ claim was ripe as soon as the County applied the ordinance … See Eide v.
Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 724 n.13(11th Cir. 1990).”
“But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing
Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33
Acres.”
For Appellees’ bribes, Edmondson now changed his mind and conspired to pervert a platted
designated street into an “unidentified area” in order to fix Appellants’ Cases. Here for bribes,
ripeness vanished, and justice is for sale in the 11th Circuit.
The Appellant(s) also own property in N.H. and wish you the best for your retirement.
1
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/41/41.F3d.1490.93-4449.93-4104.html
Volume 41, The Federal Reporter, 3d Ed. [Nov., 1994 – Jan., 1995]
41 F.3d 1490 Page 1 of 4
« up
These search terms are highlighted: united states v 16.33 acres Text-only version
41 F.3d 1490
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO., Absolute, Inc., Marion H.
Cooper,
for Estate of Alfred R. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, Carol A. Roberts, Chair of Board of
County Commissioners of Palm Beach County,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 93-4104, 93-4449.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1995.
Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S. Hackleman, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4104.
Sharon M. Pitts, Patti A. Velasquez, Asst. County Atty., West Palm Beach, FL, Robert S.
Hackleman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for appellants in No. 93-4449.
Jeffrey A. Aman, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joan E. O'Dell, Gregory L.
Williams, Smith, Williams & Bowles, P.A., Washington, DC, for appellees in both cases.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, MELTON* , Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1 After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants
raise several arguments, hoping mainly to void concessions made in district court in
the joint pretrial stipulation. The district court is affirmed.
2 The controversy concerns the ownership of strip parcels (roads and ditches)
offered by Palm Beach Farms for dedication to Palm Beach County in 1912. A 1976
instrument entitled "Notice of Withdrawal of Platted Roads, Streets, and Other
Unexercised Rights" revoked the offer of dedication. In 1986, pursuant to local
Ordinance No. 86-18 (the "Ordinance"), defendant Palm Beach County (the
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
41 F.3d 1490 Page 2 of 4
3 Plaintiffs, claiming that they were successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms
(and thus owners of the strip parcels), challenged the County's practice as an
unconstitutional taking--under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--of their
property.1 The County conceded that it never expressly accepted the dedication;
but, at trial, the County attempted to show that it had impliedly accepted the
dedication by using the strip parcels. The jury found for plaintiffs, deciding that the
County had not accepted the 1912 offer of dedication within a reasonable time. The
district court entered judgment for plaintiffs: plaintiffs were judged the fee simple
owners of the pertinent strip parcels; defendants were enjoined from applying the
Ordinance to plaintiffs' property; and plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees.
Defendants appeal.
4 The County now contests plaintiffs' standing, arguing that plaintiffs could not
possibly own the strip parcels (and thus have no interest at stake). But given
plaintiffs' allegations and the County's stipulations in the district court, the record
supports both standing and jurisdiction. A "case or controversy" exists in this case
because the parties genuinely disputed ownership of the strip parcels in the district
court. The County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of title, agreeing that plaintiffs were
successors in interest to Palm Beach Farms. The controversy was thus limited to a
decision about whether the offer of dedication was accepted.2 Plaintiffs have
standing to challenge the application of the Ordinance to what they assert is their
property.
5 But the County insists that adjoining landowners own the strip parcels, citing
Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959), as an alternative to 16.33
Acres. This decision is not about standing: what the County is really arguing is that
plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties. Amicus Boywic Farms agrees, arguing
that it was harmed by the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Because the
district court could only determine who, as between plaintiffs and the County, had
the better claim to the strip parcels, amicus is not bound by the district court's
order. It was no abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to dismiss this
case for failure to join indispensable parties. The County, as movant, had the
burden "to show the nature of the unprotected interests of the absent parties," 5A
Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1359; yet, the County's
citation to the record reveals only that it established the existence of adjoining
landowners (not the nature of allegedly unprotected interests).
6 And, plaintiffs' "arbitrary and capricious" due process claim is ripe.3 Plaintiffs
accused the County of applying an arbitrary and capricious action (asserting
ownership to the strip parcels and recording abandonment resolutions which
transferred title) to their property. Plaintiffs' claim was ripe as soon as the County
applied the ordinance and the petition process (including a $400 nonrefundable
application fee) to the undedicated strip parcels. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908
F.2d 716, 724 n. 13 (11th Cir.1990).
7 The County argues that no subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs'
claims are so frivolous. But the course of litigation and stance of the County in
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
41 F.3d 1490 Page 3 of 4
district court undercuts its claim of frivolousness. We also note that the pretrial
stipulation plainly reads that "[n]either party contests subject matter ...
jurisdiction."4 If the County actually thought plaintiffs' claims were frivolous, it
should not have so willingly conceded facts giving rise to jurisdiction in the
stipulation. Because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
federal claims, the court did not err by including plaintiffs' state claims for
declaratory relief--pendent jurisdiction was proper.
8 The County also argues that the district court erred by interpreting the stipulation
as a "winner-take-all" proposition. That is, the County says it reserved a right to
make several arguments, after the jury's fact finding, by referring to "undisposed of
motions" in the stipulation. We disagree. The parties agreed that the jury's
conclusion would "be outcome determinative of all of the federal and state claims."
The County does not argue that it was unfairly duped into signing the stipulation.
And, we owe great deference to the trial judge's interpretation and enforcement of
pretrial stipulations. See Morrison v. Genuine Parts Co., 828 F.2d 708 (11th
Cir.1987); Hill v. Nelson, 676 F.2d 1371, 1373 n. 8 (11th Cir.1982). In the light of the
stipulations, the district court did not err when it refused to entertain the County's
post-verdict motions.
9 Defendants raise other arguments, none of which present grounds for reversal.
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Honorable Howell W. Melton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation
"[S]tanding cannot be waived and may be asserted at any stage of litigation." Harris v.
Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 n. 4 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). We disagree with the County's
argument that plaintiffs' ownership claim is so obviously frivolous that standing could
not possibly exist, regardless of stipulated facts pointing to standing. In support of this
claim, the County cites the allegedly "remarkably similar" case of United States v.
16.33 Acres of Land, 342 So.2d 476 (Fla.1977), as binding precedent denying plaintiffs'
ownership claim. But 16.33 Acres is distinguishable because in that case the government
expressly accepted the offer of dedication. Id. at 479
Because we conclude that plaintiffs' arbitrary and capricious due process claim was ripe,
we say nothing about whether plaintiffs' additional constitutional claims were ripe. We
do note, however, that plaintiffs were not granted relief pursuant to a specific claim.
Instead, the County stipulated that plaintiffs would be entitled to the remedies requested
if plaintiffs prevailed on any of the disputed fact issues
Parties may not stipulate jurisdiction. Bush v. United States, 703 F.2d 491, 494 (11th
Cir.1983). And we do not say that jurisdiction was proper because jurisdiction was
stipulated. Instead, we look to the record; we affirm the district court's conclusion that
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009
41 F.3d 1490 Page 4 of 4
the stipulated facts give rise to jurisdiction. For example, the County argues
frivolousness by pointing to purported transfers--by plaintiffs' predecessors in interest--
that the County says are null and void. But the County stipulated to plaintiffs' chain of
title; and, the County agreed that it was undisputed that "plaintiffs are the successors in
interest to the Palm Beach Farms Company." The record was set in district court
CC∅ | TRANSFORMED BY PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xHNX0cXI3CoJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/4... 4/30/2009