Trickery & Deception by Defendant Crooked Judge C. E. Honeywell

7/6/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S.
District Co…
APPEAL
U.S. District Court

Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
Prescott et al v. Alejo et al Date Filed: 12/04/2009

Assigned to: Judge Charlene E. Honeywell Date Terminated: 06/24/2010
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Case in other court: 09-16203-H Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
09-16205-H Jurisdiction: Federal Question
09-16206H
09-16207-H
09-16208-H
10-10645-F
10-11628-D
10-11629-D
10-11630-D
10-11631-D
10-11632-D
10-11633-D
10-11634-D
10-12134-H
10-12611-J
Florida Southern, 9:09-cv-82359
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff
Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott
P.O. Box 845
Palm Beach, FL 33480
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
P.O. Box 11124
Naples, Fl 34101-11124
239/595-7074
PRO SE
V.
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/31
7/6/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Defendant
Roger Alejo represented by Jack Neil Peterson
Lee County Attorney's Office
2115 Second St
PO Box 398
Ft Myers, FL 33902
239/533-2236
Fax: 239/485-2118
Email: peterj@leegov.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by Jack Neil Peterson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Jack N. Peterson represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Roger Desjarlais represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lee County Florida represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lee County Value Adjustment Board
Defendant
Lori L. Rutland
Defendant
State of Florida, Board of Trustees of
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
Defendant
State of Florida, Department of
Environmental
Protection
Defendant
Chad Lach
Defendant
Reagan Kathleen Russell
Defendant
Karen B. Hawes represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Charlie Green represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Bob Janes represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Brian Bigelow represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Ray Judah represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Tammy Hall represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Frank Mann represented by Jack Neil Peterson
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
United States Attorney(s) represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
United States Attorney
400 North Tampa Street
Suite 3200
Tampa, Fl 33602
813/274-6310
Fax: 813/274-6200
Email: jennifer.corinis@usdoj.gov
TERMINATED: 05/12/2010
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
US Attorney's Office - FLM
Suite 3200
400 N Tampa St
Tampa, FL 33602
813/274-6333
Fax: 813/274-6198
Email: steven.nisbet@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Sean P. Flynn represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
US Attorney's Office - FLM*
Suite 3200
400 N Tampa St
Tampa, FL 33602
813/274-6333
Fax: 813/274-6198
Email: steven.nisbet@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
E. Kenneth Stegeby represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
David P. Rhodes represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
A. Brian Albritton represented by Jennifer Waugh Corinis
LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven A. Nisbet
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Cynthia A. Pivacek represented by Gerald D. Siebens
Office of the Attorney General
Suite 1100
501 E Kennedy Blvd
Tampa, FL 33602-5242
813/233-2880
Fax: 813/233-2886
Email: gerald.siebens@myfloridalegal.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Johnson Engineering, Inc. represented by Clifford Gorman
Clifford Gorman, LLC
450 N.E. 2nd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3270
954/467-9100
Fax: 954/467-9797
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Steven Carta
Defendant
Mike Scott represented by John W. Lewis
Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA
1715 Monroe St
PO Box 280
Ft Myers, FL 33902-0280
239/344-1120
Fax: 239/344-1200
Email: John.lewis@henlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Hugh D. Hayes represented by Gerald D. Siebens
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Gerald D. Siebens
Defendant
State of Florida Attorney General
Defendant
William M. Martin
Defendant
Peterson Bernard
Defendant
Skip Quillen
Defendant
Tom Gilbertson
Defendant
Charles Barry Stevens
Date Filed # Docket Text

12/01/2009 1 COMPLAINT against A. Brian Albritton, Roger Alejo, Peterson Bernard, Brian
Bigelow, Steven Carta, Roger Desjarlais, Sean P. Flynn, Tom Gilbertson, Charlie
Green, Tammy Hall, Karen B. Hawes, Hugh D. Hayes, Bob Janes, Johnson
Engineering, Inc., Ray Judah, Chad Lach, Lee County Florida, Lee County Value
Adjustment Board, Frank Mann, William M. Martin, Jack N. Peterson, Cynthia A.
Pivacek, Skip Quillen, David P. Rhodes, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Lori L. Rutland,
Mike Scott, Gerald D. Siebens, State of Florida Attorney General, State of Florida,
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida, Department
of Environmental, E. Kenneth Stegeby, Charles "Barry&quo Stevens, United States
Attorney(s), Kenneth M. Wilkinson., filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott.(lh) [Transferred
from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/01/2009 2 Filing fee: For new case $ 350.00, receipt number 726644 (lh) [Transferred from flsd
on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/02/2009)
12/04/2009 3 ORDER Transferring and Closing Case. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to
CLOSE this case. Signed by Senior Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 12/3/2009. (asl)
[Transferred from flsd on 12/4/2009.] (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/04/2009 4 Case transferred in from Florida Southern; Case Number 9:09-cv-82359. Original file
with documents numbered 1 - 3, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet
received. (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/04/2009 5 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin fraudulent
judgments and execution of fraudulent judgments case #2:07-00228-cv-FtM-29-SPC,
DOC. #386 by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (Attachments: # 1 Main
Document, # 2 Main Document, # 3 Main Document)(kma) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
12/07/2009 6 Case reassigned Unassigned Judge and Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. New
case number: 2:09-cv-791-FtM-99SPC. (drn) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 7 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages.Signed by All
Divisional Judges on 8/20/08. (drn) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Mike Scott, Lee County Value Adjustment Board, Lori L.
Rutland. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Cynthia A. Pivacek, Hugh D. Hayes, Kenneth M. Wilkinson.
(SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Peterson Bernard, Roger Alejo, Jack N. Peterson. (SLU)
(Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Charlie Green, A. Brian Albritton, Steven Carta. (SLU) (Entered:
12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Chad Lach, Johnson Engineering, Inc., State of Florida Attorney
General, Skip Quillen, Roger Desjarlais. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Bob Janes. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to David P. Rhodes, William M. Martin. (SLU) (Entered:
12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 Summons issued as to Charles Barry Stevens. (SLU) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
12/07/2009 8 NOTICE OF APPEAL; MOTION to reconcile "order transferring & closing case",
Doc. #3, with 04/21/2009 Federal Appellate denial of Def. Wilkinson's motion and the
dispositive declaration of plaintiffs' unimpeachable riparian gulf-front street record
ownership; NOTICE of summons and/or service upon defendants U.S. Attorney,
Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Roger Alejo, Jack N. Peterson, A. Brian Albritton, Lee County,
FL by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
12/07/2009 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL; MOTION to reconcile "order transferring & closing case",
Doc. #3, with 04/21/2009 Federal Appellate denial of Def. Wilkinson's motion and the
dispositive declaration of plaintiffs' unimpeachable riparian gulf-front street record
ownership; NOTICE of transcript of November 7, 2007 proceedings, in further support
of judicial fraud and corruption, Case #2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/07/2009 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL; NOTICE of appeal from "order transferring and closing case"
and another criminal act of case fixing in exchange for bribes (See Doc #3);
CONCLUSIVE dispositive de novo record evidence by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg
Busse. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4
Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to State of Florida, Department of Environmental, Karen B. Hawes,
Tom Gilbertson. (SLU) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Brian Bigelow, Sean P. Flynn, Gerald D. Siebens. (SLU)
(Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Ray Judah, Tammy Hall, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (SLU) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of
notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable
to USCA re 8 Notice of appeal. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 Summons issued as to Frank Mann, Lee County Florida. (SLU) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); 60(b) MOTION for relief from
governmental corruption and fraud pursuant to de novo record evidence of gov. crimes
& corruption in Cases #2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC and 2:09-cv-00791-UA-SPC;
NOTICE of corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendant corrupt
Judge John E. Steele, who dis-allowed the plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed
justice by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered:
12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 12 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); DEMAND for filing of plaintiffs' entire
complaint and independent action for relief from fraud, fraud on courts, governmental
corruption & extension of "Lee County" forgeries pursuant to de novo record evidence
of gov. crimes & corruption; NOTICE of incompletely filed complaint by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid. (kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/08/2009 13 NOTICE OF APPEAL and fraud on court(s); Governmental corruption and forgery
record evidence: Record transcript of proceedings on 11/07/07, 2:07-cv-228-FtM-
JES-SPC in support of fraudulent governmental pretenses of "frivolity" and custom &
policy of sanctioning the pro se plaintiff owners; Well-proven custom and policy of
governmental corruption by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. Filing fee not paid.
(kma) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
12/10/2009 14 Case reassigned to Judge Charlene E. Honeywell. New case number: 2:09-cv-791-
FtM-36SPC. Unassigned Judge no longer assigned to the case. (kma) (Entered:
12/10/2009)
12/11/2009 15 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on courts: governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud record
evidence in support of independent actions for relief and R. 6(b) motions by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (drn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/11/2009 16 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on courts: public corruption & extrinsic fraud record
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b) motions by
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (drn) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
evidence in support of independent actions for relief and R.60(b) motions by Jennifer
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R.60(b) motions by
12/11/2009 21 NOTICE OF extrinsic fraud on courts: MOTION for default judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs because O.R. 569/875 was not any genuine issue of material fact, or
instrument, but on its face a governmental fraud scheme, and Lee County never had any
claim nor any chance of success by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (drn)
Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered: 12/18/2009)
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R.60(b) motions by
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b) motions by
evidence & exhibits in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b)motions by
12/11/2009 26 NOTICE of extrinisic fraud on court(s); Public corruption & extrinsic fraud record
evidence & exhibit(s) in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60 (b) motions:
record evidence in support of extrinsic fraud and fraudulent concealment of 'Lee Couty'
facial forgeries: non-existent 'parcels' ##'12-44-21-01-0000.00' & '07-44-21-01-
00001.0000' by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/11/2009 27 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on court(s); Governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud
record evidence in support of independent actions for relief and R. 60(b) motions:
Transcript of 02/29/2009 deposition and perjury by defendant corrupt official Jack N.
Peterson who fraudulently concealed "Lee County" facial forgeries: non-existent 'parcels'
## '12-44-20-01-00000.00A0' & '07-44-21-01-00001.0000' by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/11/2009 28 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on court(s); governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud
federal survey evidence in support of fraudulent concealment of "Lee County" facial
forgeries: non-existent 'parcels' ## '12-44-20-01-00000.00A0' & '07-44-21-01-
12/11/2009 29 NOTICE of extrinsic fraud on court(s); Governmental corruption & extrinsic fraud
Transcript of fraudulent 2007 judicial proceedings before defendant crooked U.S.
Magistrate S. Polster-Chappell who fraudulently concealed "Lee County" facial
forgeries: non-existent 'parcels' ## '12-44-20-01-00000.00A0' & '07-44-21-01-
12/16/2009 30 NOTICE of fraud on court(s)in previous cases; notice of crooked John Edwin Steele's
recusal obligation in related case(s) and extrinsic fraud by Jennifer Franklin Prescott,
Jorg Busse (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/18/2009 31 MOTION for waiver of any and all appeal fees, which are the direct and proximate
result of facially fraudulent judgments, governmental corruption, extrinsic fraud, fraud on
the courts, extra-judicial fraud, breach of public trust, and coercion under public policy
and the rules of procedure; FRCP 60(b) motion for relef from extrinsic eminent domain
fraud, governmental coruption, perjury, perversion of public record under false
pretenses of "frivolity" of the conclusive proof of the facial illegality of fake eminent
domain "claim"; Notice of de novo perjury by defendants J.N. Peterson, R. Alejo, and
facially false and fraudulent pretenses of a "resolution", which could not have possibly
legally existed or transferred any property interest or title to Lee County, Florida by
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/21/2009 32 MOTION for mandatory recusal under 28 USC 455; Motion for mandatory recusal of
def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell, who concocted a "legislative act"
(O.R. 569/875) and/or extended the record " Lee County" fraud schemes for bribes;
Notice of corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendants Polster
Chappell and Steele, who dis-allowed plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed
justice & law; Notice of 12/11/2009 arrest threats against plaintiff Dr. Busse by Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/21/2009 33 MOTION for mandatory recusal under 28 USC 455; Motion for mandatory recusal of
def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster Chappell, who concocted a "legislative act" (OR
569/875) and /or extended the record "Lee County" fraud schemes for bribes; Notice of
corruption, criminal case fixing, extrinsic fraud by named defendants Polster Chappell
and Steele, who dis-allowed plaintiff(s) "to assert" the truth and obstructed justice & law
notice of 12/11/2009 arrest threats against plaintiff Dr. Busse by Jennifer Franklin
Prescott, Jorg Busse. (kma) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/29/2009 34 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 -
track 2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 1/11/2010. Signed by All Divisional
Judges on 12/29/2009. (LAF) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
12/29/2009 35 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER. Certificate of interested persons and corporate
disclosure statement due by 1/11/2010. Signed by All Divisional Judges on 12/29/2009.
(LAF) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
01/08/2010 36 ORDER denying 32 the Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses
Motion for Mandatory Recusal 28 U.S.C. § 445.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri
Polster Chappell on 1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
Motion for Mandatory Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 445. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on
1/8/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
01/08/2010 45 MOTION for mandatory recusal of def. corrupt U.S. Magistrate S. Polster
Chappell...(see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 46 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS & victims of false, forged and
unrecorded scam O.R. 569/875. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 47 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to set aside fraudulent order (Doc. 36)
and for relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/08/2010 48 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for relief from crooked Polster Chappell's
fraud...(see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/11/2010 39 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution as to 12 Notice
of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 1/7/10; USCA number:
09-16207-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16206-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/11/2010 42 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution as to 9 Notice of
appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 1/7/10; USCA number:
09-16203-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
09-16205-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/11/2010 44 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution as to 8 Notice of
09-16204-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/11/2010 49 MOTION to set aside fraudulent order re: 38 Order on motion for default judgment,
MOTION for recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/11/2010 50 MOTION to set aside fraudulent order re: 38 Order on motion for default judgment,
MOTION for recusal (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
01/11/2010 51 MOTION to set aside fraudulent order re: 37 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, MOTION for recusal (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
09-16208-H. (slp) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
01/15/2010 52 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of "resolution" by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 53 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of resolution by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 54 NOTICE OF APPEAL, fraud & fabrication of resolution as to 38 Order on motion for
default judgment, 36 Order on motion for recusal, 37 Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn)
(Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 55 NOTICE of doc. 282 in appeal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/15/2010 56 NOTICE of doc. 282 in appeal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments:
#(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
01/26/2010 57 NOTICE of vab fraud & fabrication of resolution by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
01/26/2010 60 MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
01/26/2010 62 NOTICE of fraud & fabrication of resoltuion by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
02/08/2010 64 EMERGENCY MOTION to stay writ of execution in related Case # 2-07-cv-228-
FtM-29SPC by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Main
Document)(kma) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
to USCA re 54 Notice of appeal. (slp) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
02/16/2010 67 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically emergency motion for release of
fraudulent lien by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (SPB) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
02/17/2010 68 ORDER denying 64 Emergency Motion To Stay Writ of Execution as this Court has no
authority to stay the writ. Additionally, Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Relief 5 and 67
is not deemed an emergency and will be addressed in due course. Signed by Judge
Charlene E. Honeywell on 2/17/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
02/26/2010 69 MOTION to dismiss Complaint and for Prescreening Injunction by A. Brian Albritton,
Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A)(Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
02/26/2010 70 MOTION to transfer case to the Honorable Richard A. Lazzara by A. Brian
Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer)
(Entered: 02/26/2010)
03/01/2010 71 NOTICE of plaintiffs' previous notice of appeal (see scanned document for complete
title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/01/2010 72 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin "judge shopping" and enforce
courts own order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) #(1) Exhibit) (drn).
(Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/05/2010 73 EMERGENCY MOTION to enjoin defendants' title fraud & fraud on the court, and
any government/judicial sale by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (kma) (Entered:
03/05/2010)
03/05/2010 74 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of
appeal and payment of appeal fees in U.S. District Court (see scanned pleading for full
title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) Modified on 3/29/2010.
PLEADING STRICKEN PER ORDER 98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 75 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice of defendants' fraud on the
court (see scanned pleading for full title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010. PLEADING STRICKEN
PER ORDER 98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 76 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from defendants' fraud on court (see
scanned pleading for full title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
#(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010. PLEADING STRICKEN PER ORDER
98 (drn). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
03/05/2010 77 NOTICES of unavailability by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
03/09/2010)
03/05/2010 78 AFFIDAVIT in support of governmental corruption, fraud, and fraud on the court of
Jorg Busse by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/09/2010 79 ORDERED that upon review of Plaintiff's Emergency Motion 73 , the Court finds no
emergency has been presented. Therefore, the motion will be addressed in due course
after Defendants have had the opportunity to respond. Signed by Judge Charlene E.
Honeywell on 3/9/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/09/2010 80 MOTION to strike and for sanctions by A. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P.
Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered: 03/09/2010)
03/12/2010 81 NOTICE of unavailability notice of publication of defendants' fraud & fraud on the court
(see scanned document for complete title) Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/12/2010)
03/12/2010 82 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically enjoin governmental fraudulent
concealment of uncontroverted eminent domain record forgeries and obstruction of
justice and court access by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
03/15/2010)
03/12/2010 83 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for reconsideration and declaratory
statements of the emergency of judicial case fixing, fraud on the courts and bribery by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
03/12/2010 84 MOTION to compel defendants' responses and declare defendants' previous pleadings
not responsive (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
(Entered: 03/15/2010)
03/15/2010 85 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for immediate
(emergency) screening of the prima facie illegality and nullity of Lee County scam O.R.
569/875 (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/15/2010 86 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin governmental
extortion & threats by defendant U.S. Agents, judges and counsel (see scanned
document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
03/15/2010 87 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Kenneth M.
Wilkinson. (drn) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 88 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Mike Scott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 89 MOTION for default judgment in plaintiffs' favor in this independent action for relief
from governmental fraud and direct attack on governmental extortion & fraud (see
scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell. (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 90 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically immediate removal of court officer
Corinins and objection to perpetration of fraud (see scanned document for complete
title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
03/15/2010 91 MEMORANDUM and record evidence of extrinsic fraud by defendant U.S. Attorneys
and counsel Jennifer Waugh Corinis filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
03/16/2010 92 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Charlie Green.
03/16/2010 93 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Jack N. Peterson.
03/16/2010 94 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice (see scanned document for complete title
of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 03/18/2010)
03/16/2010 95 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice (see scanned document for complete title)
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered:
03/18/2010)
03/22/2010 96 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) DISMISSING for want of prosecution as to 54
Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. EOD: 03/17/10;
USCA number: 10-10645-F. (slp) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
03/23/2010 97 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically Injunctive Relief by A. Brian Albritton,
Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered:
03/23/2010)
03/25/2010 98 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton,
David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegebys (USAO Defendants)
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Notices (Doc. # 74, 75, and 76) and for an Award of
Monetary Sanctions. The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P.
Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegebys (USAO Defendants) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs
Notices is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to STRIKE (Docs. #
74, 75, and 76). (2) The Defendants, A. Brian Albritton, David P. Rhodes, Sean P.
Flynn, and E. Kenneth Stegebys (USAO Defendants) Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is
DENIED Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/25/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 03/25/2010)
03/26/2010 99 ORDER denying 84 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busses Motion
to Compel Defendants Responses and Declare Defendants' Previous Pleadings not
Responsive to Proven Judicial Case Fixing, Corruption, Fraud in the Court(s) and
Bribery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/26/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 03/26/2010)
03/26/2010 100 ORDER denying 89 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's Motion
for Default Judgment in Plaintiffs' Favor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell on 3/26/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
concealment of evidence (see scanned pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
concealment of evidence (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
concealment of evidence (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) Modified on 3/29/2010
(drn). (Entered: 03/29/2010)
03/26/2010 104 PROOF of service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as to Johnson Engineering,
Inc. (drn) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
03/29/2010 105 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by
03/29/2010 106 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin the case-fixing
on record (see scanned document for complete title), EMERGENCY MOTION for
recusal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 107 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically timely objections to clear
judicial error (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 108 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of the
dispositive declaration (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
judicial error, corruption and case fixing (see scanned document for complete title) by
judicial error, corruption and case fixing (see scanned document for complete title) by
03/29/2010 111 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for injunction of criminal
concealment, MOTION to strike Doc. 76 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered:
03/30/2010)
03/29/2010 112 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for judicial notice of defendants' fraud on
the court and fraudulent pleadings by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (# 1
Exhibits) (drn). (Entered: 03/30/2010)
appeal (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
03/29/2010 119 MOTION for summary judgment against defendant U.S. Attorneys by Jorg Busse,
03/29/2010 121 MOTION for sanctions after expiration of 21 days and memorandum by Jorg Busse,
03/29/2010 122 MOTION to extend time for service by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/29/2010 123 MOTION to change venue because of record corruption, concealment, fraud on the
court and obstruction of justice by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/29/2010 124 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from defendants' fraud on court and
memorandum (see scanned document for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/29/2010 125 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 98 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on
motion to strike and any and all orders (see scanned document for complete title) by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/30/2010 113 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Lee County
Florida. Related case(s): yes (Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 114 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement for
Defedants Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson, Hawes, Green, Janes, Judah,
Hall, Mann and Lee County by Lee County Florida. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered:
03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 115 MOTION to dismiss Complaint Adopted by Wilkinson, Alejo, Desjarlais, Peterson,
Hawes, Green, Janes, Bigelow, Judah, Hall, Mann and by Lee County Florida.
(Peterson, Jack) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/30/2010 116 ORDER denying 45 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge; denying 60 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge; denying 105
The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for
Recusal of Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on
3/30/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
03/31/2010 117 ORDER denying 101 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion for Judicial Notice of Concealment of Evidence ; denying 102 The Plaintiffs,
Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence and Objection to Order (Doc. # 98) which was Procured by
Fraud on the Court; denying 103 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Emergency Motion Objections to Order (Doc. # 98) and Judicial Notice of
Concealment of Evidence; denying 106 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin the Case Fixing on Record and Conspiracy of
Case Fixing and for Judge to Recuse; denying 107 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief to Clear
Judicial Error; denying 108 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Emergency Motion of the Dispositive Declaration of Plaintiffs' Record
Ownership by U.S. Court of Appeals ; denying 109 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Specifically
Timely Objections to Clear Judicial Error ; denying 110 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief ; denying
111 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion
for Injunction of Criminal Concealment and Striking of Document 76 by Judge Chappell
; denying 112 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for
Judicial Notice of Defendants' Fraud on the Court and Fraudulent Pleadings. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/31/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/31/2010 120 SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re 119
MOTION for summary judgment. (drn) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
03/31/2010 126 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Plaintiffs Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Plaintiffs have SEVEN (7) DAYS to show cause as to 1) why this Court should not
impose sanctions based on Judge Lazzara's Order that explicitly warned Plaintiffs about
filing another complaint based on the same claims and 2) why this Court should not
impose sanctions for their prolific filing of repetitious "emergency" and miscellaneous
motions and superfluous notices and for their name calling and personal attacks on
Magistrate Judge Chappell. FAILURE TO RESPOND WILL RESULT IN THE
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. Signed by Judge
04/01/2010 127 ORDER denying 31 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion for Waiver of Any and All Fees ; denying 47 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin
Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Specifically to Set
Aside Fraudulent Order (Doc. 36); denying 48 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott
and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell;
denying 49 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Set
Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and to Adjudicate New Issues; denying 50 Motion to Set
Aside Judgment; denying 50 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge
Busse's Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 38) and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate
Judge Chappell ; denying 51 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 51 The Plaintiffs
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. # 37)
and Mandatory Recusal of Magistrate Judge Chappell ; denying 67 The Plaintiffs
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for Release of Lien; denying 72
The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busses Motion to Enjoin Judge
Shopping and Enforce Courts Own Order for Removal of Corrupt R.A. Lazzara ;
denying 73 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency
Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Title Fraud & Fraud on the Court, and Any Government/
Judicial Sale (; denying 82 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion to Specifically Enjoin Governmental Fraudulent Concealment of Uncontroverted
Eminent Domain Record Forgeries and Obstruction of Justice and Court Access ;
denying 83 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Motion for
Reconsideration and Declaratory Statement(s) of the Emergency of Judicial Case Fixing,
Fraud on the Court(s) ; denying 85 The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr.
Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for Immediate Screening of the Prima Facie Illegality
and Nullity of Lee County Scam O.R. 569/875 ; denying 86 The Plaintiffs Jennifer
Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion to Enjoin Governmental
Extortion & Threats by Defendant U.S. Agents, Judges, and Counsel (Doc. # 80) and
for Removal from all Proceedings of Magistrate Judge S. Polster Chappell ; denying 90
The Plaintiffs Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's Emergency Motion for
Immediate Removal of Court Officer Corinins and Objection to Perpetration of Fraud
on Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/1/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 04/01/2010)
04/02/2010 128 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 34 Related case order and notice of
designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1.04(d) by United States Attorney(s). Related
case(s): yes (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
04/02/2010 129 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 35
Interested persons order by United States Attorney(s). (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered:
04/02/2010)
04/06/2010 130 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 126 Order to show cause by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
04/07/2010 133 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for equal court access
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 134 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin defendants'
cyber & other bullying, harassment and hate mail by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/07/2010 135 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for corrections of docket and filing of
entire complaint by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 136 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 99 Order on motion to compel by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
04/07/2010 137 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 100 Order on motion for default judgment by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 138 NOTICE of publication of open letter regarding judicial corruption and fraud on the
courts and criminal concealment of Lee County's lack of any street title by Jorg Busse,
04/07/2010 139 NOTICES OF PROOF of service by Lee County Sheriff's Office upon defendants
Mike Scott, Johnson Engineering, Jack N. Peterson, Charlie Green, Kenneth M.
Wilkinson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
04/07/2010 140 OBJECTION re 99 Order on motion to compel by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/07/2010 141 OBJECTION re 100 Order on motion for default judgment by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
04/09/2010 143 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin fraudulent
concealment of governmental forgeries (for complete title of pleading see scanned
document) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 145 OBJECTION re 117 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion for
recusal Order on motion to strike, 116 Order on motion for recusal, 127 Order on
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion to set aside judgment Order on
motion for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 146 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically judicial notice by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (See document for complete title). (kma) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/09/2010 147 OBJECTION re 127 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on motion to set
aside judgment Order on motion for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 142 NOTICE OF APPEAL from order 127 Order on Motion by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (See document for complete title) (kma) (Entered:
04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 144 MOTION for recusal by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (See document for
complete title) (kma) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/12/2010 148 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Hugh D. Hayes, Cynthia A. Pivacek. (Siebens,
Gerald) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
04/13/2010 149 MOTION for sanctions and for pre-filing injunction by A. Brian Albritton, Sean P.
Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
B, # 3 Appendix Part I, # 4 Appendix Part II)(Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
04/16/2010 150 ORDER denying 70 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Case to the Tampa Division of the
Middle District of Florida. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 4/16/2010.
(BGS) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
04/16/2010 151 ORDER denying 133 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Equal Court Access. Signed by
Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 4/16/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
04/16/2010 152 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin nazi-style
governmental tactics of terror, oppression, retaliation, fraud on the court (see pleading
for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/19/2010)
04/16/2010 153 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(drn) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 154 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byA. Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P.
Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby, United States Attorney(s) from May 10, 2010 to May
14, 2010. (Corinis, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 155 NOTICE by Roger Alejo Ken Wilkinson, Jack Peterson, Roger Desjarlais, Lee
County, Karen Hawes, Bob Janes, Brian Bigelow, Ray Judah, Frank Mann of
Adoption of USAO's Motion for Sanctions, ETC. (Peterson, Jack) (Entered:
04/19/2010)
04/19/2010 156 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 1 Complaint by Johnson
Engineering, Inc. (drn) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
(Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/20/2010 157 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER as to Johnson Engineering, Inc. Certificate of
interested persons and corporate disclosure statement due by 5/4/2010. Signed by All
Divisional Judges on 4/20/2010. (drn) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/20/2010 158 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Mike Scott. (Lewis, John) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
04/21/2010 159 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 119 Motion for summary judgment filed by A.
Brian Albritton, Sean P. Flynn, David P. Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby. (Corinis,
Jennifer) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
04/23/2010 160 EMERGENCY MOTION for judgment on the merits against defendants Lee County,
MOTION for sanctions against said defendants for ciminal concealment of fake law (see
scanned document for complete title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
04/23/2010 161 EMERGENCY MOTION for judgment on the merits against federal judgments,
MOTION for sanctions against said defendants (see scanned document for complete
title of pleading) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
04/23/2010 162 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to cease and desist case
fixing and adjudicate pro se plaintiffs' claims in their favor under the law by Jorg Busse,
04/23/2010 163 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin reverse
discrimination & fraud by afro american Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell against the
pro se caucasian plaintiffs by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/26/2010)
04/23/2010 164 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin hate mail &
threats by defendant psychopath Jack N. Peterson by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
04/23/2010 165 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to comply with Fed. R.
Evidence and to enjoin final solution of frivolity hate crimes against pro se plaintiffs by
04/23/2010 166 MOTION for sanctions against defendant judges who concealed criminal invasion of
private property rights under fraudulent pretenses of frivolity by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
04/23/2010 167 NOTICE of nazi style crimes by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered:
04/26/2010)
04/23/2010 168 NOTICE of nazi style crimes by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott (Attachments:
04/23/2010 169 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 151 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Filing fee
not paid. (drn) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
04/28/2010 170 ORDER granting 156 the Defendant, Johnson Engineering, Inc.'s Motion for Extension
of Time within which to File Responsive Pleading on Behalf of the Defendant. The
Plaintiff shall have 10 days to supply the Defendant Johnson Engineering, Inc. with a
complete copy of the Complaint. The Defendant, Johnson Engineering, Inc. shall then
have twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading or dispositive motion. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/28/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
04/28/2010 171 NOTICE of appeal from bad governmental joke O.R. 569/875 and governmental fraud
on the courts, pro se plaintiff's public notice of intent to settle and public notice of bad
criminal government joke. by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) NOTE: Duplicative/not treated as a direct appeal to
the 11th Circuit (kma) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
04/28/2010 172 NOTICE of O.R. 569/875 fraud on courts by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
04/28/2010 173 NOTICE of O.R. 569/875 fraud on courts by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
04/30/2010 174 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 157
Interested persons order by Johnson Engineering, Inc. (drn) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
04/30/2010 175 ORDER denying 122 the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Dr. Jorge Busse's
Motion to Extend Time for Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
on 4/30/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
05/04/2010 176 ORDER denying 134 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enjoin Defendants' Cyber &
Other Bullying, Harassment and Hate Mail. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on
5/4/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
05/11/2010 177 Notice of substitution of AUSA. Steven A. Nisbet substituting for Jennifer Waugh
Corinis. (Nisbet, Steven) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 132 Notice of appeal
filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 131 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 130 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott, 137 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott,
142 Notice of appeal filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott, 136 Notice of
10-11628-D;10-11629-D;10-11630-D;10-11631-D;10-11632-D;10-11633-D;10-
11634-D. (slp) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
05/24/2010 179 MOTION to dismiss complaint and incorporated memorandum of law in support
thereof by Johnson Engineering, Inc. (drn) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
06/01/2010 180 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 176 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Jorg
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
06/01/2010 181 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 175 Order on motion to extend time by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
06/01/2010 182 MOTION for reconsideration re 175 Order on motion to extend time by Jorg Busse,
06/01/2010 183 MOTION for reconsideration of order re 176 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
06/04/2010 184 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for relief from fraud on
courts independent action for relief by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn)
(Entered: 06/07/2010)
06/04/2010 185 INDEPENDENT ACTION for relief from fraud filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott and
Jorg Busse. (drn) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
Notice of appeal. EOD: 06/02/10; USCA number: 10-12134-H. (slp) (Entered:
06/10/2010)
06/07/2010 186 ORDER directing Plaintiffs to appear before this Court on JUNE 22, 2010 at 10:00
a.m. in Courtroom 6-B, United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 2110 First
Street, Fort Myers, Florida. At this hearing, the Plaintiffs are to show cause why they
should not be sanctioned for violating Local Rules of this Court and prior Orders of this
Court as set forth in the Order To Show Cause entered on March 31, 2010. The Court
will also hear argument on the USAO Defendants' Motion for Pre-filing Injunction,
Monetary Sanctions, and Dismissal With Prejudice 149 . Signed by Judge Charlene E.
Honeywell on 6/7/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
06/08/2010 187 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 149 MOTION for sanctions and for pre-filing
injunction : Motion Hearing set for 6/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in Ft. Myers Courtroom 6
B before Judge Charlene E. Honeywell. (LAF) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
Motion for Recusal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/11/2010.
(LMH) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
Motion to Reconsider Order Denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve
Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/11/2010. (LMH)
(Entered: 06/11/2010)
06/17/2010 191 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically from fraud on the court
(see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
06/17/2010 192 EMERGENCY MOTION for change of venue (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered:
06/18/2010)
06/17/2010 193 EMERGENCY MOTION for recusal (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse,
06/17/2010 194 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for order to show good
cause (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
06/17/2010 195 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for order to show good cause (see
pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
06/17/2010 196 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for order to show good cause (see
pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: #(1)
06/17/2010 197 DECLARATORY STATEMENT of judicial corruption & conspiracy by Jennifer
Prescott and Jorg Busse. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit) (drn) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
06/17/2010 198 NOTICE of public corruption by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments:
06/17/2010 199 NOTICE of judicial corruption & crimes by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits(drn) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
06/17/2010 200 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 186 Order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit)(drn) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
06/21/2010 201 ORDER directing Plaintiffs to comply with the Order issued on June 7, 2010 by
appearing before this Court on JUNE 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6-B, United
States Courthouse and Federal Building, 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, Florida unless
the Eleventh Circuit issues an order by 10:00 a.m. on June 22, 2010 directing this Court
to stay the hearing. The Court does not certify the Order issued on June 7, 2010 186 as
one requiring immediate appeal. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 6/21/2010.
(BGS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
06/21/2010 202 ORDER the court does not certify the Order issued on 6/7/10 (Dkt. 186) as one
requiring immediate appeal. Plaintiffs are directed to comply with the Order issued on
6/7/10 by appearing before this Court on 6/22/10 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6-B,
United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, Florida
unless the Eleventh Circuit issues an order by 10:00 a.m. on 6/22/10 directing this Court
to stay the hearing. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 6/21/2010. (drn)
Modified on 6/23/2010. DUPLICATE ENTRY TO DOC. 201 ENTERED BY
CLERK'S OFFICE TO NOTE SERVICE ON PRO SE PLAINTIFF (drn). (Entered:
06/21/2010)
06/21/2010 203 NOTICE OF APPEAL from unlawful and invalid orders as to 186 Order, 126 Order
to show cause and illegal 6/22/10 hearing to punish plaintiffs and aid & abet government
crimes & land robbery under false pretenses of fictitious parcels (see pleading for
complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid.(Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn)
(Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/21/2010 205 NOTICE OF APPEAL from fraudulent order as to 186 Order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(drn) (Entered:
06/22/2010)
06/21/2010 206 NOTICE of telephonic appearances at illegal court hearing show of cause, government
corruption and record evidence of judicial concealment of fake land parcels by Jorg
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/21/2010 207 NOTICE of illegal 6/22/10 court hearing by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/21/2010 208 NOTICE of illegal 6/22/10 court hearing by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott.
(drn) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/21/2010 209 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for relief from phony
hearing by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (drn) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/22/2010 210 ORDER denying 193 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge
06/22/2010 211 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Charlene E. Honeywell: Motion Hearing
held on 6/22/2010 re 149 MOTION for sanctions and for pre-filing injunction filed
by E. Kenneth Stegeby, David P. Rhodes, Sean P. Flynn, A. Brian Albritton. This
matter came before the Court on the Motion for sanctions and for pre-filing injuction and
the Order to Show Cause entered on March 31, 2010 [Doc. 126]. The Plaintiffs did not
appear. The Court heard argument of counsel. The Court will enter a global pre-filing
injunction. The Court will enter an Order on the multiple motions to dismiss. The Court
is considering an Order for monetary sanctions. For the reasons stated on the record,
the Court will enter an order denying the Emergency Motion for Recusal of Defendant
Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, 28 U.S.C. § 455, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241,
242 Public Notice & Publications of Judicial Corruption & Conspiracy to Conceal U.S.
Fraud [Doc. 193]. Court Reporter: Martina Reporting Services - Patsy Coleman (LAF)
(Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/22/2010 212 LETTER received in Chambers from Plaintiffs on 06/22/10 via facsimile - Your Pattern
of Corruption, Concealment, & Fraud on Court. (LAF) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/23/2010 213 ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for
Injunctive Relief of Defendants Albritton, Flynn, and Rhodes 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. 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 97 is DENIED as moot. 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
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. The Motion to
Dismiss of Defendants Hayes and Pivacek 148 is GRANTED in part. The Court
dismisses this action without prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Scott 158
is GRANTED in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice. The Motion to
Dismiss of Defendant Johnson Engineering 179 is GRANTED. 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 126 Order to Show Cause, the Court cautioned Plaintiffs about the
unwarranted designation of a motion as an emergency motion. The Court retains
jurisdiction to impose sanctions. Plaintiffs' pending Motions 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. Plaintiffs'
Complaint 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk is directed to terminate all
pending motions, except the Motion for Pre-filing Injunction and Sanctions 149 , enter
judgment accordingly and CLOSE this case. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose
sanctions. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 6/23/2010. (BGS) (Entered:
06/23/2010)
06/24/2010 214 JUDGMENT in favor of Johnson Engineering, Inc., Lee County Florida, Lee County
Value Adjustment Board, State of Florida Attorney General, State of Florida, Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida, Department of
Environmental, United States Attorney(s), A. Brian Albritton, Bob Janes, Brian Bigelow,
Chad Lach, Charles Barry Stevens, Charlie Green, Cynthia A. Pivacek, David P.
Rhodes, E. Kenneth Stegeby, Frank Mann, Gerald D. Siebens, Hugh D. Hayes, Jack
N. Peterson, Karen B. Hawes, Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lori L. Rutland, Mike Scott,
Peterson Bernard, Ray Judah, Reagan Kathleen Russell, Roger Alejo, Roger Desjarlais,
Sean P. Flynn, Skip Quillen, Steven Carta, Tammy Hall, Tom Gilbertson, William M.
Martin against Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse (Signed by Deputy Clerk) (SLU)
(Entered: 06/24/2010)
06/28/2010 215 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin judicial
corruption & fraud (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/28/2010 216 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 210 Order on motion for recusal, 213 Order dismissing
case by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/28/2010 217 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for relief from record
judicial corruption & fraud (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/28/2010 218 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin judicial
corruption & fraud (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin
Prescott. (SLU) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
07/01/2010 219 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin record
extortion, corruption & fraud (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (SLU) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
07/01/2010 220 PUBLISHED NOTICE of judicial corruption and fraud (see pleading for complete title)
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re 213 Order dismissing case (SLU) (Entered:
07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 221 PUBLISHED NOTICE of judicial corruption and fraud (see pleading for complete title)
by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re 213 Order dismissing case (SLU) (Entered:
07/02/2010)
Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 223 PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE of judicial corruption and fraud (see pleading for
complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re 213 Order dismissing case
(SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 224 MOTION for reconsideration re 175 Order on motion to extend time by Jorg Busse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 225 PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE of warranty deed lot 15A Cayo Costa & judicial
corruption (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re
213 Order dismissing case (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 226 PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE of prop. taxes paid, Lot 15A Cayo Costa & judicial
corruption (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott re
213 Order dismissing case (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 227 RETURN of service executed on 3/18/10 by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott as
to Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
to Charlie Green. (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 229 PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE of judicial corruption & fraud (see pleading for
(SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
(SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 231 EMERGENCY MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to enjoin record
extortion, corruption & fraud (see pleading for complete title) by Jorg Busse, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott. (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
(SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
(SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/01/2010 234 PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE of judcial corruption & fraud (see pleading for
(SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
(SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/02/2010 236 ORDER denying 215 , 217 , 218 , 219 and 231 Plaintiff's Emergency Motions for lack
of jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to terminate these motions. THE CLERK IS
FURTHER DIRECTED TO NO LONGER ACCEPT ANY FILINGS FROM
PLAINITFFS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE A JUDGMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED
AND PLAINTIFFS HAVE FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL AS TO THE
COURT'S ORDER 213 , AND THIS CASE IS CLOSED. Finally, the Clerk is
directed to strike Published Public Notices from the record 220 , 221 , 223 , 225 , 226
, 229 , 230 , 232 , 233 , 234 , and 235 . Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on
7/2/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/02/2010 237 ORDER denying 224 The Plaintiffs, Jennifer Franklin Prescott and Jorge Busse's
Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on
7/2/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
07/02/2010 238 NOTICE OF APPEAL and record extortion, corruption & fraud as to 188 USCA
order by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered:
07/06/2010)
07/02/2010 239 NOTICE OF APPEAL and record extortion, corruption & fraud as to 186 Order by
Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Filing fee not paid. (drn) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
to Charlie Green. (drn) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
to Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (drn) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
07/06/2010 12:33:42
PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:
Docket Search 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-
Description:
Report Criteria: SPC
Billable
22 Cost: 1.76
Pages:
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 -

FT. MYERS DIVISION

DR. JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiffs,

Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ post-judgment “emergency” motions (Dkt.
215, 217, 218, 219, 231). The Court issued an order on June 23, 2010 dismissing this action without
prejudice(Dkt. 213). On June 24, 2010, the Clerk issued a judgment of dismissal(Dkt. 214).
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal (Dkt. 216) as to the Court’s order dismissing their complaint
without prejudice.1
I. STANDARD
Generally, once a district court enters an order on the merits of a case, the court no longer has
jurisdiction to rule on motions addressing the merits. See Miller v. Morris Comm. Co., LLC, 234
Fed. Appx. 881, 884 (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2007)(finding it proper for the district court to hold that it did
not have jurisdiction to hear motions relating to the merits of the case after a final judgment). After
an order on the merits is entered, the district court may only entertain motions that do not address
the merits, like motions for sanctions. Id. (citing Martin v. Automobile Lamborghini Exclusive Inc.,
307 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002)); see McDonald v. Oliver, 642 F.2d 169, 172 (5th Cir.
1981)(“[The district court] lost its ancillary jurisdiction when the underlying lawsuit was
dismissed.).2
II. ANALYSIS
Here, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. A judgment of
dismissal was entered. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal as to that order. Additionally, Plaintiffs
filed several “emergency” motions regarding the merits of the case (Dkt. 215, 217-19, 231). This
Court does not have jurisdiction to address further motions in this case which directly relate to the
merits of the case. Therefore, the motions are denied for lack of jurisdiction.
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
1
Plaintiffs also appeal the Court’s order denying their motion for recusal (Dkt. 210).
2
The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth
Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Bonner v. Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981)(en banc); see S. Grouts & Mortars v. 3m Co., 575 F.3d
1235, 1250 n. 9 (11th Cir. 2009).
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 Rule 12 (f), Fed. R. Civ. P.
1. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motions (Dkt. 215, 217, 218, 219, 231) are DENIED for lack
of jurisdiction.
2. 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).
DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on July 2, 2010.
COPIES TO:
-3-
“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
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
Assistant County Attorney
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/

FT. MYERS DIVISION

DR. JORG BUSSE,
Plaintiffs,

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.
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:
- 23 -

Trickery &amp; Deception by Defendant Crooked Judge C. E. Honeywell

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trickery &amp; Deception by Defendant Crooked Judge C. E. Honeywell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/6/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S.

U.S. District Court

Prescott et al v. Alejo et al Date Filed: 12/04/2009

Date Filed # Docket Text

PACER Service Center

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

763 F.3d 405, 407 (11th Cir. 1985)).

3. Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial Claim

4. Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Claim

granted and dismisses their Procedural Due Process claim.

5. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim

6. Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claim

7. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights Claim

claims under 42 U.S.C. §§241, 242.

remaining state claims.

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

case for June 22, 2010.

the Middle District of Florida (Dkt. 97) is DENIED as moot.

June 22, 2010.

in part. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.

Court dismisses this action without prejudice.

6. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Johnson Engineering (Dkt. 179) is GRANTED.

of these motions present an emergency. They are repetitious, rambling,

Trickery & Deception by Defendant Crooked Judge C. E. Honeywell

Trickery & Deception by Defendant Crooked Judge C. E. Honeywell