U.S.

District Court
District of New Hampshire (Concord)

USA, Ex Rel et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 1:10-cv-00321-JL

USA et al.,

Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________/

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 11/23/10 ENDORSED MAGISTRATE ORDER

AFTER TIMELY NOTICE OF OBJECTION

RECORD OBJECTION TO “11/23/2010 ENDORSED MAGISTRATE ORDER”

1. The Plaintiff Government corruption victims had objected to the “11/23/2010 endorsed

magistrate order”. See International Certified Mail Receipts.

11/19/2010 ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to

Extend Time. Text of Order: The motion is granted in part, to the extent
that plaintiffs shall have until December 29, 2010, to effect service on
defendants. The motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed
to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and this court is not the proper venue for
plaintiffs to challenge the execution of a warrant relating to a pending
federal criminal investigation or proceeding, issued by a judicial officer in
the Middle District of Florida. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya
B. McCafferty. (dae) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

DEATH OF DUE PROCESS – CONFISCATION, COERCION AND COVER-UP

2. If crooked Defendant Government Officials can simply confiscate evidence to coerce

Plaintiff Government corruption victims to refrain from ongoing prosecution, due process

is dead.
 FAILURE TO “ENJOIN” IS EXTENDING PROVEN CORRUPTION & COERCION

3. Here, failure to “enjoin” Government corruption and racketeering is promoting continual

cover-up and concealment of corruption & coercion.

CIVIL RICO ENTITLED PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT CRIMINAL ACTS

4. Here expressly, civil RICO had invoked jurisdiction over Defendant crooked Officials’

racketeering and criminal acts. Here, Defendant corrupt Officials are extending their

record crimes, concealment, and cover-up under color of a “criminal investigation”.

PURPORTED “criminal investigation” OF PRIVILEGED PROSECUTION

5. Here, prosecution was privileged and could not have possibly been subject to “criminal

investigation”. Said prosecution could not have possibly been any “credible threat”. Here,

corrupt Officials, who conspired to confiscate corruption evidence, have been a credible

threat on the record. Here in particular, said Magistrate order read:

“The motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challenge
the execution of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal investigation or
proceeding, issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida.”

THE ORDER LACKED A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION

6. Here, said order did not explain to the pro se Plaintiff racketeering victims:

a. How and why Plaintiffs may “have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65”;

b. Why “this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challenge” well-proven and well-
alleged racketeering and Government corruption by means of “the execution of a
warrant relating to”, e.g., corruption, coercion, concealment and cover-up by
Defendant Officials.

7. Here, the purported “pending federal criminal investigation or proceeding, issued by a

judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida” was yet another criminal/unlawful act of,

e.g.:

2
 a. Racketeering;
b. Coercion;
c. Concealment of corruption;
d. Cover-up.

Here after the Plaintiff victims had filed their racketeering Complaint, the Defendant

Officials conspired to confiscate Plaintiffs’ records and computers to coerce them to refrain

from prosecuting the Defendants for racketeering and corruption. How convenient!

PROSECUTION WAS PRIVILEGED AND NOT SUBJECT TO “criminal investigation”

8. Prosecution of Defendant crooked Officials and redressing government grievances are

privileged activities and could not possibly be deceptively misconstrued as “criminal

activities”. Here pursuant to the public record, the “criminals” have been crooked Officials

in Florida, who forged on the public record, e.g.:

a. Fake “lot A”; and

b. Fake “block 1”.

See Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey).

CROOKED OFFICIALS’ FORGERIES REMAIN ON THE RECORD

9. Here, fake “lot A” and fake “block 1” continue to expose the record criminal acts by

crooked Florida and Federal Officials. See, e.g., Transcript of Nov. 7, 2007, Proceedings

before corrupt Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell, Fort Myers, Florida, U.S.A.

RULE 65, FED. R. CIV. P.

10. Rule 65, Injunctions and Restraining Orders, states (see attachment):

(a) Preliminary Injunction.

(1) Notice.
The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.
(2) Consolidating the Hearing with the Trial on the Merits.
Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court
may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing. Even when
consolidation is not ordered, evidence that is received on the motion and that would be

3
 admissible at trial becomes part of the trial record and need not be repeated at trial. But
the court must preserve any party's right to a jury trial.

FAILURE TO FILE PLEADINGS MAILED BY INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED MAIL

11. Only Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time has been filed so far. The Plaintiffs

respectfully demand the filing of all their pleadings as mailed by Certified Mail. See

International Certified Mail Receipts below.

PLAINTIFF RACKETEERING VICTIMS OBJECTED UNDER THE RULES

12. On 11/24/2010, the Plaintiff Government corruption victims read the below “ENDORSED

ORDER” (Entered: 11/23/2010). The Plaintiffs objected to said MAGISTRATE ORDER,

because an F.B.I. raid is not the “proper” process and/or procedure to “defend” against

record proof of Government racketeering and corruption.

OFFICIALS INCAPACITATED THE PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION VICTIMS

13. Here after years of litigation, and after the Plaintiffs had filed their corruption and

racketeering Complaint (Doc. # 1) against Defendant Government Officials in Florida, the

Tampa F.B.I. incapacitated the Plaintiffs by unlawfully seizing the indisputable proof of

Government crimes and Plaintiffs’ equipment and files. Here, crooked Defendant Officials

conspired, e.g., to have Plaintiffs’ files, records, and evidence seized for unlawful purposes

of, e.g.,

a. Disrupting litigation and the service upon the Defendants;

b. Cover-up and concealment of Government crimes;
c. Extortion of more than $5,000 and Gulf-front Lot 15A, # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A.

F.B.I. RAID WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFFS’ INCAPACITATION

14. Here, no reasonable and intelligent person could have possibly denied that said F.B.I. raid

was, e.g.

a. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ incapacitation;

4
 b. Rendered the Plaintiff racketeering victims incapable of orderly prosecution;
c. Resembled the tactics of dictatorial regimes.

15. Here, Defendants’ seizure violated Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights under, e.g., the 1st, 4th,

14th, 7th, and 5th U.S. Constitutional Amendments and the Florida Constitution. In

particular, Plaintiffs are clearly entitled to, e.g.:

a. Own property;
b. Exclude Government from their Gulf-front Lot 15A;
c. Prosecute crooked Officials;
d. Redress Government grievances;
e. Defend against Government corruption and racketeering;
f. Defend against retaliation and extortion of more than $5,000 and Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A;
g. Defend against frivolous Government allegations and false pretenses of “frivolity”.

DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & INTERFERENCE TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS AWAY

16. Here, Defendants deliberately and proximately interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to

prosecute crooked American Officials for criminal and/or unlawful purposes of depriving

the Plaintiffs of their well-established most fundamental rights.

RECORD FRAUD ON THE COURT(S)

17. Here, Defendant Officials are keeping the Plaintiff whistleblowers away from their day in

Court. Here, said F.B.I. raid destroyed any opportunity of justice, and this Court should not

shut its eyes and close its ears to said Florida atrocities.

GRAVITY OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION DEMANDS JUDICIAL BALANCE

18. Here, the gravity and harm of public corruption should mitigate any purported “failure to

comply” with procedural “Rules”. Fundamental fairness demands that Government

racketeering and corruption not be brushed aside and/or under the carpet of “procedural

failure”.

THE U.S. SHOULD NOT ABUSE PLAINTIFFS’ PRO SE AND VICTIM STATUS

5
19. Just because Plaintiffs are pro se, crooked Government Officials should not be allowed to

abuse their power and victimize Plaintiff whistleblowers. Where there is no fair judge, there

cannot possibly be any fairness and/or justice.

20. Said “MAGISTRATE ORDER” appears to “compartmentalize” and belittle said illegal

circumstances, thereby losing sight of the gravity of fundamental Constitutional and

human rights deprivations in this and the related Cases:

“The motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to
challenge the execution of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal
investigation or proceeding, issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of
Florida.”

F.B.I. FILE 316A-TP-73337

21. Plaintiff Government corruption victims had complained about, e.g., Defendant

Government Officials’ racketeering in Florida, Doc. # 1. Here, the Governmental raid,

F.B.I. file 316A-TP-73337, and seizure of tools essential to litigation was for facially

unlawful purposes of, e.g.:

a. Intimidation of the Plaintiff Government corruption victims;

b. Racketeering and extortion of, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Gulf-front lands and easements, Lot 15A;
c. Extortion of more than $5,000 under false pretenses of “frivolity” and a purported non-
existent “judgment”;
d. Retaliation and oppression of the pro se Plaintiff whistleblowers.

EXTORTION OF LAND (LOT 15A) AND MONEY; CONSPIRACY

22. Under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity”, Defendants conspired to extort Gulf-front

Lot 15A, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, Lee County, FL, and more than $5,000.00

without any justification.

23. Here frivolously and illegally, Lee County “claimed” private Gulf front easements and lands

in the private Cayo Costa Subdivision on Cayo Costa Island, Lee County, FL, under color of

publicly recorded fraud and extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”.

6
24. Here, Defendant Government Officials conspired to conceal on the public record that, e.g.:

a. No lawmaker could possibly involuntarily divest private land owners without a court

order and/or judicial proceedings;

b. No legislator could possibly “transfer” Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to Lot 15A

against their will by illegal means of a “legislative act” or “resolution O.R. 569/875”;

c. No Official had any authority to fabricate a fake “lot A” and “block 1”, which had never

appeared on the public “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat in Lee County PB 3 PG 25 (1912).

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AFTER F.B.I. RAID

25. After the unlawful raid by the Tampa F.B.I., Plaintiffs filed the below Motion for Extension

of Time, because said raid incapacitated the Plaintiff whistleblowers [Case No. 8:10-mj-

1416 (AEP)]:

NOV. 7, 2007, TRANSCRIPT OF JUDICIAL FRAUD & CORRUPTION

26. The “TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS” evidenced,

e.g.:

a. Judicial corruption and fraud in the Middle District of Florida;

b. Judicial and Government racketeering and extortion;

c. Concealment of extortion and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875”;

d. Concealment of prima facie Government forgeries “lot A” and “block 1”.

See 2:07-cv-228, BUSSE, et al., v. LEE COUNTY, FL, et al.

PROOF OF GOVERNMENT FORGERIES OF, E.G., FAKE “lot A” AND “block 1”

7
 “This is the document officially published in Lee County [Cayo Costa Subdivision
Plat, Plat Book 3, Page 25] showing to you [Magistrate Polster Chappell] and any fact
finder that there never was a lot A and a block 1.”

See Page 16 of said Transcript of Corrupted Judicial Proceedings; pages 16 though 20

are attached.

DEF. OFFICIALS COERCED PLAINTIFFS TO REFRAIN FROM PROSECUTION

27. Here in retaliation and response to Plaintiff(s)’ crushing record evidence of Government

corruption and fraud, Judges John Edwin Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell conspired with

other Defendants to illegally punish and sanction the Plaintiff corruption victims.

PUBLISHED COURT CASES / PROOF OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION & FRAUD

28. For patently clear and publicly recorded proof of Government fraud and corruption see,

e.g., Cases (Middle District of Florida):

a. 2:2007cv00228;
b. 2:2008cv00899 [removed from State Court by Defendant U.S. Judges];
c. 2:2009cv00041;
d. 2:2010cv00089;
e. 2:2009cv00341;
f. 2:2008cv00364;
g. 2:2010cv00390;
h. 2:2009cv00791;
i. 2:2009cv00602.

Here since 2006, the Plaintiffs had rightfully prosecuted crooked Government Officials in

State and Federal, and respective Appellate Courts. Here particularly, Officials had

conspired to fake an alleged money judgment for illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting money

and land from the Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Case 2:2007cv00228; and Complaint in this Case.

GOVERNMENT COVER-UP, RETALIATION & ILLEGAL SEIZURE IN FLORIDA

29. Here in retaliation and without any probable cause, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Tampa, Florida, searched and seized, e.g., Plaintiffs’ records, computers, camera, and other

equipment essential for Plaintiffs’ successful litigation and proof of Governmental corruption

8
 in Florida. Here, Officials conspired to cover up Government corruption and fraud and

retaliated against Plaintiff Government corruption victims.

CORRUPT JUDGES/OFFICIALS COVER UP FOR CORRUPT JUDGES IN FLORIDA

30. Here, said “search warrant”:

a. Originated in said corrupt Court/Government system (Middle District of Florida);

b. Was signed by a “judicial officer” and/or judge presiding over Plaintiffs’ prosecution of
Defendant fellow Judges for fraud in said corrupt Court (U.S. Magistrate A. E. Porcelli,
Tampa);
c. Was yet another fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived Plaintiffs of their
fundamental Federal and Florida Constitutional rights to defend against Government,
corruption, oppression, and fraud.

FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT(S) FOR RACKETEERING & EXTORTION PURPOSES

31. Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County Property Appraiser, conspired with other

Defendants and Officials to conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality of, e.g., fake “lot

A” and “block 1”. See said Cayo Costa Plat, PB 3 PG 25 (1912).

32. By means of “INSTRUMENT # 2009000309382”, Lee County, FL, Defendant Kenneth M.

Wilkinson concocted a “July 29, 2009” judgment for unlawful purposes of, e.g., extorting

and/or forcing the sale of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A. See attachment.

PLAINTIFFS’ ENTITLEMENT TO SUE & REDRESS THEIR RECORD GRIEVANCES

33. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff racketeering victims are entitled to

redress their Government grievances under, e.g., the 1st, 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional

Amendments:

a. Without Government intimidation and threats;

b. Without fear of Government retaliation and racketeering;

c. With the use of their illegally seized computer equipment and evidence against the

Defendant Officials.

PUBLICLY RECORDED FRAUD ON THE COURT (MIDDLE DISTRICT, FL)

9
34. Here in the crooked Middle District of Florida any opportunity of justice has been

impossible, because Judges such as, e.g., John Edwin Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell

corrupted the proceedings by punishing, sanctioning and oppressing the Plaintiffs in

Florida for illegal and/or criminal purposes of coercing them to refrain from further

prosecution.

PLEADINGS BY INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED MAIL TO THIS COURT

35. Pleadings to this Hon. Court were sent by, e.g., International Certified Mail:

• RR813156286DE 82062664 6501 231110 1719

• RF634919363DE 82061648 9530 221110 1644
• RF634918924DE 82061648 8855 161120 1644
• RF634918884DE 82061648 8733 151110 1716
• RF634918765DE 82061648 8507 121110 1659
• RR813144861DE 82061322 6808 091110 1141

This OBJECTION was mailed by international certified priority mail.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff victims of Government corruption and fraud respectfully request

1. Reconsideration of said 11/23/2010 Magistrate order;

2. An order taking judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ OBJECTION and the Tampa F.B.I. raid,

which incapacitated the Plaintiff Government corruption victims and disrupted this and

other rightful litigation;

3. An order directing the Clerk to issue replacement summons’ for service;

4. An order enjoining any further racketeering / corruption in said Middle District of Florida,

and in particular, said extortion of Lot 15A and more than $5,000 without any court order;

5. An order taking judicial notice of said fraud on the Courts and racketeering in Florida;

6. An order declaring prima facie fake “claim” “O.R. 569/875” facially unlawful;

7. An order declaring Plaintiffs’ perfected record ownership of said Lot 15A;

10
8. An order declaring the conspiracy to extort and force the sale of said Lot 15A under false

pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity” unlawful and/or criminal;

9. An order restraining the Defendant Officials and Tampa FBI from any further obstruction of

justice and illegal intimidation.

/s/Dr. Jorg Busse, Private Attorney General;

Victim of Government and judicial corruption in Florida, U.S.A.

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Private Attorney General;

Victim of judicial and Government corruption in Florida, U.S.A.

ATTACHMENTS

Rule 65, Fed. R. Civ. P.

Transcript of Corrupted Judicial Proceedings, November 7, 2007,

before Crooked Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell

Fraudulent “affidavit”, “instrument # 2009000309382, Lee County, FL

Lot 15A; Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, Lee County, Florida

2004 Fax cover, Lee County Dept. of Community Development (Minimum Use Provisions)

BY INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED DELIVERY & MAIL

To:
U.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire
55 Pleasant Street, Clerk’s Office
Concord, NH 03301, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
T: 001.603.225.1423

From:
Jennifer Franklin Prescott and
Dr. Jorg Busse
P.O. Box 1140
Naples, FL 34106-1140
United States of America

11
11/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…

Search Law School Search Cornell

LII / Legal Information Institute

hom e se arch find a lawye r donate

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

m ain pa ge se arch | civil proce dure ove rvie w

VIII. PROVISIONA L A ND FINA L REMEDIES > Rule 65. Prev | Next

Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders

Donations cover only

(a) Preliminary Injunction. Notes
20% of our costs. (1) Notice.
Law About ... Civil
The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse Procedure

Eurail Global party.

Passes Attorneys: reach
Buy directly from (2) Consolidating the Hearing with the Trial on the Merits.
interested clients by
Eurail website.
Special Student Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, sponsoring an LII page
Discounts! the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the
www.eurail.com/Glob…
hearing. Even when consolidation is not ordered, evidence that is received
on the motion and that would be admissible at trial becomes part of the trial
record and need not be repeated at trial. But the court must preserve any
party's right to a jury trial.

(b) Temporary Restraining Order.

(1) Issuing Without Notice.

The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

(2) Contents; Expiration.

Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date
and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable;
state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the
clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after
entry — not to exceed 14 days — that the court sets, unless before that
time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse
party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be
entered in the record.

(3) Expediting the Preliminary-Injunction Hearing.

If the order is issued without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction
must be set for hearing at the earliest possible time, taking precedence over
all other matters except hearings on older matters of the same character. At
the hearing, the party who obtained the order must proceed with the
motion; if the party does not, the court must dissolve the order.

(4) Motion to Dissolve.

On 2 days' notice to the party who obtained the order without notice — or
on shorter notice set by the court — the adverse party may appear and
move to dissolve or modify the order. The court must then hear and decide
the motion as promptly as justice requires.

www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule65.htm 1/2
11/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
(c) Security.
The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order
only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper
to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been
wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its
agencies are not required to give security.

(d) Contents and Scope of Every Injunction and Restraining

Order.
(1) Contents.

Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must:

(A) state the reasons why it issued;

(B) state its terms specifically; and

(C) describe in reasonable detail — and not by referring to the complaint or

other document — the act or acts restrained or required.

(2) Persons Bound.

The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by
personal service or otherwise:

(A) the parties;

(B) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and

(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone
described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

(e) Other Laws Not Modified.

(1) any federal statute relating to temporary restraining orders or preliminary
injunctions in actions affecting employer and employee;

(2) 28 U.S.C. § 2361, which relates to preliminary injunctions in actions of

interpleader or in the nature of interpleader; or

(3) 28 U.S.C. § 2284, which relates to actions that must be heard and
decided by a three-judge district court.

(f) Copyright Impoundment.

This rule applies to copyright-impoundment proceedings.

Prev | Next

about us help terms of use friend us follow us contact us

www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule65.htm 2/2
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
MAG

U.S. District Court

District of New Hampshire (Concord)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00321-JL

USA, Ex Rel et al v. USA et al Date Filed: 07/29/2010

Assigned to: Judge Joseph N. Laplante
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty
Case in other court: USDC-FL, Middle (Ft. Myers), 2:07-00228-
JES-SPC
Cause: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
USA, Ex Rel

Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
10 Benning St, #135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402
PRO SE

Plaintiff
Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott
10 Benning St, #135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402
561 400-3295
PRO SE

V.
Defendant
USA

Defendant
US Courts

Defendant
US Custom & Immigration Service

Defendant
Tony West

Defendant
ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 1/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd

Beverly B. Martin

Defendant
John Edwin Steele

Defendant
Ryan Barry

Defendant
Charlene Edwards Honeywell

Defendant
Sheri Polster Chappell

Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson

Defendant
Richard A. Lazzara

Defendant
Jack N. Peterson

Defendant
Drew Heathcoat

Defendant
Bettye G. Samuel

Defendant
Stanley F. Birch, Jr.

Defendant
Gerald B. Tjoflat

Defendant
Susan H. Black

Defendant
Joel F. Dubina

Defendant
Sherri L. Johnson

Defendant
ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 2/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd

Eugene C. Turner

Defendant
Lee County, Florida, Board of
Commissioners

Defendant
Ed Carnes

Defendant
John E. Manning

Defendant
Hugh D. Hayes

Defendant
John Ley

Defendant
Richard Jessup

Defendant
Diane Nipper

Defendant
Lynn Gerald, Jr.

Defendant
Kenneth L. Ryskamp

Defendant
Charlie Crist

Defendant
Charles Barry Stevens

Defendant
Johnson Engineering, Inc.

Defendant
Mark Allan Pizzo

Defendant
Anne Conway

ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 3/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
Defendant
Charlie Green

Defendant
Reagan Kathleen Russell

Defendant
Richard D. Deboest, II

Defendant
Chene M. Thompson

Defendant
Lee County, Florida, Commission

Date Filed # Docket Text

07/29/2010 1 COMPLAINT against all Defendants with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number
14649003479) filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1
Complaint (pages 31-60), # 2 Complaint (pages 61-90), # 3 Complaint (pages 91-120), #
4 Complaint (pages 121-150), # 5 Complaint (pages 151-180), # 6 Complaint (pages
181-190), # 7 List of Exhibits in Support of Complaint, # 8 Exhibits A - J, # 9 Exhibits K
- S, # 10 Exhibits T - X, # 11 Exhibits Y - Z, # 12 Exhibits AA - KK, # 13 Exhibits LL -
PP, # 14 Exhibit QQ, # 15 Exhibits RR - TT, # 16 Exhibits UU - VV, # 17 Exhibits WW
- ZZ, # 18 Civil Cover Sheet)(jeb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
08/02/2010 Case assigned to Judge Joseph N. Laplante. The case designation is: 1:10-cv-321-JL.
Please show this number with the judge designation on all future pleadings. (jeb) (Entered:
08/02/2010)
08/02/2010 NOTICE. This case has been designated for Electronic Case Filing. All further submissions
shall be filed in compliance with the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing.
Pro se litigants are not required to file electronically and may continue to file documents in
paper format. Persons filing electronically are strongly encouraged to complete the
interactive training modules available on the courts website. To access these modules, click
HERE. (jeb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
08/02/2010 2 Summons(es) Issued by Mail as to Ryan Barry, Stanley F. Birch, Jr, Susan H. Black, Ed
Carnes, Sheri Polster Chappell, Joel F. Dubina, Drew Heathcoat, Charlene Edwards
Honeywell, Sherri L. Johnson, Lee County, Florida, Board of Commissioners, Lee
County, Florida, Commission, John E. Manning, Beverly B. Martin, Jack N. Peterson,
Bettye G. Samuel, John Edwin Steele, Charles Barry Stevens, Gerald B. Tjoflat, Eugene
C. Turner, USA, Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECF
Designation (#91))(jeb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
08/03/2010 3 Summons(es) Issued by Mail as to Anne Conway, Charlie Crist, Richard D. Deboest, II,

ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 4/5
11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd
Lynn Gerald, Jr, Charlie Green, Hugh D. Hayes, Richard Jessup, Johnson Engineering,
Inc., Richard A. Lazzara, Diane Nipper, Mark Allan Pizzo, Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Chene
M. Thompson, Tony West. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECF Designation (#91))
(jeb) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
08/04/2010 4 Summons(es) Issued by Mail as to John Ley, Reagan Kathleen Russell, US Courts, US
Custom & Immigration Service. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECF Designation
(#91))(jeb) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
11/18/2010 5 MOTION to Extend Time to to Serve the Defendants after said FBI raid; compel FBI to
return plaintiffs' seized computers, equipment, camera, records, and summons; order
restraining Defendant Officials and Tampa FBI from any further intimidation and
obstruction of justice filed by Jorg Busse. (dae) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
11/19/2010 ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to Extend
Time. Text of Order: The motion is granted in part, to the extent that plaintiffs
shall have until December 29, 2010, to effect service on defendants. The motion is
denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challenge the execution
of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal investigation or proceeding,
issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida. So Ordered by
Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (dae) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
11/29/2010 09:11:56
PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:
Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:10-cv-00321-JL
Billable Pages: 3 Cost: 0.24

ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl… 5/5
11/8/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

Tax Year 2010

Lee County Property Appraiser
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number Tax Estimator Tax Bills Print

Property Data for Parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

Owner Of Record [ Viewer ] Tax Map [ Print ]
BUSSE JORG +
PRESCOTT JENNIFER F
PO BOX 7651
NAPLES FL 34101

Site Address
ACCESS UNDETERMINED
CAPTIVA FL 33924

Legal Description
CAYO COSTA
PB 3 PG 25
LOT 15A

Classification / DOR Code [ Pictometry Aerial Viewer ]

VACANT RESIDENTIAL / 00

Property Values (2010 Tax Roll) Exemptions Attributes

Homestead 0 Land Units of Measure LT

Just 25,000
Additional Homestead 0 Total Number of Land Units 1.00
Assessed 25,000
Widow 0 Frontage 50
Portability Applied 0
Widower 0 Depth 135
Assessed SOH 25,000
Disability 0 Total Number of Buildings 0
Taxable 25,000
Wholly 0 Total Bedrooms 0
Building 0
Senior 0 Total Bathrooms 0
Building Features Incl. in bldg value
Agriculture 0 Total Buildings Sq Ft 0

Land 25,000 1st Year Building on Tax Roll 0

Land Features Incl. in land value Historic District No

SOH Difference 0

Taxing Authorities

Sales / Transactions

Parcel Numbering History

Solid Waste (Garbage) Roll Data

Elevation Information

Appraisal Details
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years
[ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ]

Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number New Query Search Results Home

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/1
11/8/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin…

Tax Year 2010

Lee County Property Appraiser
Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number Tax Estimator Tax Bills Print

Property Data for Parcel 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

Owner Of Record [ Viewer ] Tax Map [ Print ]
BUSSE JORG +
PRESCOTT JENNIFER F
PO BOX 7651
NAPLES FL 34101

Site Address
ACCESS UNDETERMINED
CAPTIVA FL 33924

Legal Description
CAYO COSTA
PB 3 PG 25
LOT 15A

Classification / DOR Code [ Pictometry Aerial Viewer ]

VACANT RESIDENTIAL / 00

Property Values (2010 Tax Roll) Exemptions Attributes

Homestead 0 Land Units of Measure LT

Just 25,000
Additional Homestead 0 Total Number of Land Units 1.00
Assessed 25,000
Widow 0 Frontage 50
Portability Applied 0
Widower 0 Depth 135
Assessed SOH 25,000
Disability 0 Total Number of Buildings 0
Taxable 25,000
Wholly 0 Total Bedrooms 0
Building 0
Senior 0 Total Bathrooms 0
Building Features Incl. in bldg value
Agriculture 0 Total Buildings Sq Ft 0

Land 25,000 1st Year Building on Tax Roll 0

Land Features Incl. in land value Historic District No

SOH Difference 0

Taxing Authorities

Sales / Transactions

Parcel Numbering History

Solid Waste (Garbage) Roll Data

Elevation Information

Appraisal Details
TRIM (proposed tax) Notices are available for the following tax years
[ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ]

Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number New Query Search Results Home

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx?… 1/1
11/30/2010 Presseschau: Kritik an den USA und W…

Presseschau zu WikiLeaks

"Massenvernichtungswaffe gegen das

Vertrauen"
Die Kom m entatoren der deutschen T ageszeitungen sehen durch die Veröffentlichung
T ausender diplom atischer Dokum ente v or allem die US-Außenpolitik beschädigt. Aber auch
WikiLeaks wird kritisiert: Die Motiv e für die Enthüllungen seien wenig transparent. Zudem
werde Vertrauen v ernichtet.

Dazu heißt es in der "Süddeutschen Zeitung": "Nach der V eröffentlichung der gestohlenen Depeschen,
Analy sen, Handlungsanweisungen und Kommentare drängt sich nun die Frage auf, wie lange die USA noch die
Früchte ihres diplomatischen Dienstes genießen können. Die v on der Internet-Organisation Wikileaks
v erbreitete Beute eines Datendiebes zerstört nämlich das Bindegewebe, das die unter Staaten betriebene
Kommunikation ausmacht: die V ertraulichkeit. Ohne V ertraulichkeit keine Information, kein Geben und
Nehmen, kein Zugang. Ohne Information aber auch keine Kenntnis, keine Urteilskraft, keine richtigen
Entscheidungen. Wikileaks hat sich als Massenv ernichtungswaffe für das letzte Quäntchen V ertrauen
erwiesen."

"An den neuen Enthüllungen ist wenig sensationell", findet die "Mitteldeutsche Zeitung": "Zumal die
Aufgabe jedes diplomatischen Dienstes v or allem darin besteht, die Heimatregierung mit zutreffenden und
ungeschminkten Einsichten über die jeweiligen Gastländer zu v ersorgen. Dennoch sind alle Beteiligten
bloßgestellt. Und das wird allen Beteuerungen zum Trotz Einfluss haben auf die künftigen Beziehungen. Die
USA haben ihr Gesicht v erloren, weil sie das erste Gebot diplomatischer Arbeit gebrochen haben: Diskretion.
Dieses V ertrauen wieder herzustellen, wird schwer sein. Anders als die Berichte v on Wikileaks über
Kriegsv erbrechen oder Folter nützen diese Enthüllungen deshalb niemandem."

"Lunte ans Pulverfass legen"

"Eine riesige Blamage für die amerikanische Diplomatie sind nicht die Inhalte", betont die "Neue
Westfälische", "sondern die Tatsache, dass sie an die Öffentlichkeit gelangt sind. Mit wie v iel kindlichem
Glauben an V orschriftenhörigkeit, Wohlv erhalten und V erschlüsselungstechnik muss man ausgestattet sein,
wenn man im Jahr 201 0 glaubt, über das Internet v erbreitete Daten geheim halten zu können? Muss man das
State Department für so ausgesprochen tumb halten? Man muss wohl, und das ist der eigentliche Skandal."

Die "Landeszeitung" aus Lüneburg sieht es ähnlich: "Die tiefen Einblicke in die Welt hinter der US-
diplomatischen Fassade sind für westliche Gemüter eher harmlos. Peinlich ist der Umgang mit Daten in den
tagesschau.de/…/wikileakspressescha… 1/3
11/30/2010 Presseschau: Kritik an den USA und W…
USA selbst. Wenn hunderttausende Mitarbeiter in US-Behörden Zugriff auf die Daten in internen Netzen
haben, muss man sich darüber wundern, dass es nicht schon v orher Lecks gegeben hat. Der v ermeintliche
Spaß über Wikileaks-Enthüllungen endet aber dort, wo A ussagen v eröffentlicht werden v on US-Diplomaten,
wonach einige arabische Herrscher nichts gegen eine Militärinterv ention der USA zur Zerstörung des
iranischen Atomprogrammes hätten. Denn so wird fahrlässig Lunte ans Pulv erfass Nahost gelegt."

"Vertrauen wird zerstört"

Die Zeitung "Die Welt" kritisiert: "Was Wikileaks nun zerstört hat, ist die Freiheit des v ertraulichen
diplomatischen Gesprächs. Denn was für Priv atpersonen gilt, gilt auch für den V erkehr zwischen Staaten:
Offenheit im beiderseitigen Umgang ist nur möglich, wenn man darauf v ertrauen kann, dass das Gesagte nicht
morgen in der ganzen Welt nachlesbar ist. Und noch etwas sollte zu denken geben: Bisher gingen Wikileaks-
Enthüllungen fast ausschließlich zu Lasten v on demokratischen Staaten, die ohnehin ein v ergleichsweise
hohes Maß an Transparenz aufweisen. Die inneren V orgänge der echten schwarzen Löcher dieser Erde -
Diktaturen wie Iran und Nordkorea - hat Wikileaks aber bisher nicht ans Licht der Öffentlichkeit gezerrt. Diese
Freiheitsfeinde sind es aber, die die 250.000 US-Depeschen am akribischsten studieren und den größten
Nutzen daraus ziehen werden."

Auch der "Weser-Kurier" kann den Enthüllungen nichts abgewinnen: "Die Motiv e v on Julian Assange und
seinen Mitstreitern sind längst nicht v on der Transparenz, für die sie angeblich kämpfen. Zumindest fällt auf,
dass sie ihre beeindruckenden Fähigkeiten nahezu ausschließlich dazu einsetzen, die US-Regierung zu
schwächen. Nun muss man mit einer Supermacht kein Mitleid haben, die durch eigene Unfähigkeit
v erwundbar geworden ist. Aber die Frage ist erlaubt, wem eine so v orgeführte und geschwächte US-Regierung
nützt - und ob uns das nicht am Ende sehr schadet."

"Wenig originell"
"Warum die Aufregung?", fragt die "Frankfurter Allgem eine Zeitung" mit Blick auf die deutsche Politik
und führt weiter aus: "Was Wikileaks aus amerikanischen A rchiv en ins Internet gepumpt hat, pfeifen, so es die
deutsche Politik angeht, in Berlin die Spatzen v om Dach. Die Beschreibungen deutscher Politiker in den
angeblichen Botschaftsberichten sind, was für ihre A uthentizität spricht, wenig originell. 'Mutti' risikoscheu,
Westerwelle kein Außenpolitiker: derartige Befunde hat man schon aus v ielen ranghohen Mündern und mit
mancher Ergänzung gehört. So schreibt nicht nur die amerikanische Diplomatie über deutsches
Führungspersonal - so denkt und spricht deutsches Führungspersonal übereinander."

"Es ist wunderbar, dass wir diese Akten lesen können", schwärmt die "Frankfurter Rundschau". "Sie zeigen
uns, wie menschlich-allzumenschlich es auch in der Diplomatie zugeht. Dieser FDP-Mann zum Beispiel, der in
den Koalitionsv erhandlungen sitzt und sein Protokoll gleich der US-Botschaft weitergibt - das hat doch etwas
Rührendes. Nur v on ihm möchte ich nicht hören, dass Wikileaks eine Räuberbande ist. Wenn Wikileaks so
weitermacht, wird die Internetplattform nicht nur den Regierenden das Regieren erschweren, sondern auch
uns das Regiertwerden. Wir Bürger werden immer weniger uns darauf hinausreden können, wir hätten nichts
gewusst. Wir werden genau wissen, und wir werden darum auch v iel stärker einbezogen werden in das, was
getan werden muss. Das Leben wird unbequemer werden. Wir werden uns öfter engagieren müssen. Es gilt
wieder: Mehr Demokratie wagen!"

Quelle: Deutschlandradio (http://ww w.dradio.de/presseschau/)

Pro und Contra WikiLeaks: Transparenz gegen V ertrauen? (/ausland/wikileaks2 1 4.htm l)

Wie US-Diplomaten über internationale Politiker lästern [bilder]
tagesschau.de/…/wikileakspressescha… 2/3