Organized Judicial Crime in Fort Myers Federal Court, Case 2:2010-cv-00089

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION
DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

Plaintiffs,
versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPC
JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO;

KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD BARD TJOFLAT;
RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA;
RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST; LEE COUNTY VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.;
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
AFFIDAVIT
NOTICE OF APPEAL, RACKETEERING,
AND ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES
__________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FRAUDULENT “order(s)”, DOC. ## 434, 435, 424, AND
RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND
ANY AND ALL NULL & VOID “orders” BY DEF. J. E. STEELE & S. P. CHAPPELL,
AND FALSIFIED “writ of execution”, DOC. ## 425, 424, 434, 435, 433, 430; AFFIDAVIT
CASE NO. 2:2007-cv-00228
EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN FRAUD ON COURT, DOC. ## 435, 434, 424, 425
EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN “sale of real property”

WHICH GOVERNMENT HAD FRAUDULENTLY “claimed” TO “own”
UNDER COLOR OF FORGED “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, AND
FACIALLY FORGED “O.R. 569/875” & FAKE “legislative act/resolution/regulation”
DIRECT INDEPENDENT ATTACK ON ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.
DEF. JOHN E. STEELE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE & PERVERTED FLORIDA LAW
1. A judgment, order, or decree does NOT become a lien on real property unless the address of
the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the
judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with
the judgment, order, or decree, § 55.10, Florida Statutes.
PUBLICLY RECORDED NOTICES OF ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CRIMES
2. Multiple publicly recorded NOTICES, and NOTICES OF APPEAL such as, e.g., Doc. ##
427, 428, had given this Court repeated notice and conclusive proof of, e.g., publicly
recorded organized Government and judicial crimes, racketeering, extortion,
retaliation, obstruction of justice, bribery, and corruption.
PATTERN, POLICY, AND CUSTOM OF ORGANIZED CRIME & CORRUPTION
3. However, this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit only intensified their
publicly recorded retaliation, obstruction of justice, oppression, racketeering, and
extortion. See, e.g., Doc. ## 435, 434, 425, 426. Said Courts are operating just like crime
organizations. Public records and conclusive record evidence mean absolutely nothing.
Silencing, shutting up, threatening, intimidating, punishing, and sanctioning
whistleblowers such as here, e.g., the Plaintiff Appellant Dr. Jorg Busse are the policy,
custom, and pattern of said corrupt Courts.
DEF. JOHN E. STEELE EXTENDED EXTORTION & RACKETEERING SCHEME
4. Here, there had been NO judgment in the falsified amount of “$5,000.00” and/or
“$5,048.60”. Here, there had been NO “July 29, 2009” judgment, order, or decree. Here,
there had only been a final mandate and money judgment for “copies” under Rule 39,
Fed.R.App.P., in the amount of $24.30, Doc. # 365. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the
$24.30 for the “copies” to Defendant Appellee K. M. Wilkinson. Therefore here, Defendant
Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson had NO lien, and the “motion for entry of order directing
public sale of real property”, Doc. # 432, was a prima facie racketeering, extortion, and
fraud scheme of record, civil RICO provisions.
2
DEF. STEELE CONCEALED PERJURY & GOVERNMENT EXTORTION SCHEME
5. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that the fraudulent “Affidavit” by Def. Jack
N. Peterson had falsified a fake “July 29, 2009” “judgment” “in Docket 08-13170-BB”.
6. Here, CASE No. 2008-13170-BB had been CLOSED on 06/11/2009. See said Case Docket.
7. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that NOTHING could have possibly
“become a lien on real property” and/or on Plaintiff(s)’ riparian Parcel, S-T-R-A-P # 12-44-
20-01-00015.015A, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) pursuant to § 55.10, Florida Statutes.
PUBLICLY RECORDED LACK OF ANY “lien” and “writ of execution”
8. Here, Defendant Appellee Forger and Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson
a. NEVER had any lien;
b. NEVER was the holder of said forged judgment.
9. Here, Defendant Steele fraudulently concealed that the facially fraudulent “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 425:
a. Was a prima facie extortion and racketeering scheme;
b. Perverted $24.30 into the falsified amount of “5,048.60”;
c. Had NOT been witnessed by any U.S. Judge.
10. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse had asserted and conclusively proven in his Third Amended
Complaint, Doc. ## 282, 288:
“24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant [Kenneth
M. Wilkinson; Property Appraiser] conspired to concoct un-platted lot A (Property
I.D. 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and
park.” Id., p. 24. See attached Exhibits, USA, Ex Rel. et al. v. USA et al.
CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT & CORRUPT FLORIDA LAW & OFFICIAL RECORDS
11. Defendant Crooked Judge Steele conspired with other Judges, Defendants, and Officials to
pervert official records, documents, and Florida law. Here, e.g., s. 55.10, Fla. Stat. stated:
“55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of

liens; transfer of liens to other security.--
3
(1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any county
when a certified copy of it is recorded in the official records or judgment lien
record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of recordation, provided
that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a
lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is
recorded simultaneously with the judgment, order, or decree stating the address
of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree. A
judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the
address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree
is contained in the judgment, order, or decree or an affidavit with such address is
simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree.”
FRAUDULENT PRETENSES AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FILINGS
12. Defendant Corrupt U.S. Judge John Edwin Steele fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 434:
“This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s Motion for Entry of
Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. # 432) filed on May 21, 2010. No
response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court
desires a response from plaintiff.”
Here over and over again, Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott had
“filed”, e.g., multiple “responses”, court actions, appeals to directly attack, defend
against, and expose Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele’s publicly recorded:
a. Racketeering;
b. Extortion;
c. Obstruction of justice;
d. Deliberate deprivations;
e. Acceptance of bribes;
f. Fraud upon the State and Federal Courts;
g. Destruction and alteration of Court records;
h. Corruption.
See attached Exhibit of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED
STATES et al., as filed in U.S. District Court.
DEF. STEELE’S RECKLESS DECEPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
13. Def. Steele recklessly deceived the Court, because he disallowed the Plaintiffs to “respond”
and then fraudulently pretended that the Plaintiffs had purportedly not responded. However
as a matter of record, the Plaintiffs had published conclusive evidence of their filed
“responses” worldwide. Here, more than one Million readers had read the “responses”,
4
which Def. Crook Steele had destroyed, altered, and rejected, and caused others to
destroy, alter, and reject. See, e.g., Google and YouTube.
DEF. STEELE OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFFS’ COURT ACCESS – FRAUD ON COURT
14. As part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele fabricated and conspired to fabricate a
publicly recorded “card house of judicial shit”:
“In this regard, some of the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are
contradicted by the resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution
attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed,
and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert
otherwise.” See Doc. # 338, p. 12.
Here, no authentic genuine “resolution” was “attached to the Third Amended Complaint”,
Doc. ## 288, 282. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 44, there was a lack of any publicly recorded
“resolution”. No genuine resolution had ever legally existed; none had ever been legally
recorded.
Here by not allowing the Plaintiffs to assert otherwise, Def. Steele recklessly deprived the
Plaintiffs of any opportunity of justice. Here, Def. Criminal Steele perpetrated fraud on the
Court, covered up, and concealed Government crimes.
Just like other crime organizations, Steele relied on silencing his opponents, retaliation,
intimidation, and injury.
15. In “the Third Amended Complaint”, the Plaintiff(s) had “asserted” and conclusively proven,
e.g., the:
a. Prima facie illegality of the fictitious “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”;

b. Prima facie nullity of the fake “resolution”;
c. Prima facie criminality of the falsified “resolution”.
16. Only a “court judgment” could have possibly transferred title to Government and/or Lee
County. Here on its face, the facially forged “resolution” was
a. Not any court judgment;
b. Not any muniment of title;
c. Not any genuine instrument:
d. Not any conveyance;
e. Not authentic.
5
RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
17. Therefore, any “resolution” – forged or genuine – would have been, and could have only
been, entirely irrelevant, immaterial to any involuntary title transfer, because only a court
judgment could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs of their private riparian street easement
and street land on the Gulf, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), against their will.
DEF. CROOK STEELE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO SILENCE THE PLAINTIFFS
18. Here in exchange for bribes, Def. Criminal Steele perverted supreme law and “disallowed“
the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and public record evidence without which any justice was
absolutely impossible.
19. The Plaintiff(s) do not submit to said Criminal on the bench just like they would not submit
to a Roman Catholic priest demanding to fuck the Plaintiff(s) in the ass. Here, the Plaintiffs
defended against organized Government crimes & sodomy and sued Defendant Racketeer J.
E. Steele in Federal Court.
20. Here on the record, Def. Crook Steele adopted the policies and custom of crime
organizations such as, e.g., silencing opponents, retaliation, intimidation, racketeering,
extortion, and injury.
DEF. RACKETEER STEELE’S FACIALLY IDIOTIC & ILLEGAL “order”, DOC. # 434
21. No intelligent, rational, fit, and reasonable judge and/or person in Def. Crooked Judge
Steele’s shoes could have possibly allowed the fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and the
facially fraudulent “public sale” motion, Doc. # 432.
22. Any enforcement of a non-existent “judgment” against Dr. Busse by “public sale” of said
adjoining riparian street land and private implied street easement on the Gulf of Mexico
would have been absolutely impossible, if the record title had been in the name of
“Government” and/or Lee County.
6
23. “Publicly selling” the very riparian street land and private Gulf-front street easement, PB
3 PG 25 (1912), which Lee County had fraudulently “claimed” to “own” [but never did and
could not possibly have owned as a matter of law] further exposed and conclusively proved
the prima facie idiotic and criminal mind of Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele.
Emboldened by absolute power and public corruption, Def. Steele continued his record
“Government shit flies-policy”, Doc. # 434.
IDIDOCY & IMPOSSIBILITY OF “public sale of real property”
24. One of the legal issues had been Plaintiff(s)’ unimpeachable record ownership of the
platted riparian street land and implied private street easement adjoining Plaintiffs’ upland on
the Gulf of Mexico, S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A (Lot 15A, Cayo Costa) as legally
described and perfectly conveyed to Plaintiff Dr. Busse and J. Franklin Prescott in reference
to the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25. See Plaintiffs’ WARRANTY DEED, Lee County
INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, which expressly stated the extent of Plaintiff(s)’
conveyance; see PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
FOR BRIBES, DEF. STEELE MADE A MOCKERY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
25. Here as a matter of law, “Public Sale of Real Property”, which Def. Steele had
fraudulently pretended to have been “claimed” by Lee County was absolutely impossible.
Here, Def. Steele made a fool of himself, because that which had been “claimed” by
Government could not be simultaneously “publicly sold”.
BRAZEN FABRICATIONS AND FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC RECORD
26. Here in his fraudulent “opinion and order”, Doc. # 338, Steele brazenly fabricated and
falsified “Government ownership” without any evidentiary support whatsoever. Def. Steele
knew that “those [fake] lots” had never been “owned by government”, which had been the
7
very issue for the Court’s review. Here, “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-
00001.0000” were prima facie fake “land parcels”, which Defendants Steele and Sheri
Polster Chappell could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Plat, PB 3 PG 25, because they had
been forged by Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson. See Transcript of November 2007
Hearing before Def. Crooked Judge Polster Chappell.
DEF. CRIMINAL STEELE IN CRIMINAL JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION
27. As a Criminal in this Crime Organization of record, Def. Steele extended the
racketeering and retaliation scheme.
“Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200 acres
pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres. The only assertion of
disparate treatment is for those lots owned by government, which plaintiff alleges
did not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be
compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore, no equal
protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.”
See Doc. # 338, p. 13.
28. Here in essence, the scheme was:
“Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert” “those [fake] lots owned by Government”,
which nobody can find on the Cayo Costa Plat. Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert
the public record evidence of the non-existence and forgery of said fake “lots”.
Therefore, the case is dismissed and fixed in exchange for bribes.
29. By criminal means of fake “land parcels”, and a fake “resolution”, Defendant Governments
and Officials extorted, defrauded, deprived, and treated the Plaintiffs disparately, while
the Plaintiffs were never even allowed to assert the conclusive record evidence and truth.
Here, there was fraud on the Court, and any and all of Def. Steele’s “orders” were null and
void ab initio.
30. Pleading, e.g., fraud, conspiracy to defraud, deprivations, conspiracy to deprive, forgery
of “land parcels”, and extortion were remedies available in Florida and Federal Courts. See
Doc. ## 288, 282, “Third Amended Complaint”.
8
31. Just like a bungling Government idiot, Defendant Steele concealed and conspired with
other Officials to conceal that, e.g.:
a. Plaintiff(s)’ perfect record title to their adjoining street land never transferred to Lee
County, FL;
b. Plaintiff(s)’ unimpeachable record title could not have possibly transferred under any
existing law or modification thereof, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11;
c. Lee County’s sham “claims” were facially fraudulent and frivolous “claims” for
criminal and illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, extortion of money
($5,048.60) and land, and illegal “sale of real property”, Doc. # 434;
d. Lee County never “claimed” and could not have possibly claimed Plaintiff(s)’ street land
under any law;
e. The law did not recognize Lee County’s racketeering & extortion scheme “O.R.
569/875”.
See Chapters 73, 74 (Eminent Domain); 95 (Adverse Possession); 712 (Florida’s self-
enforcing Marketable Record Title Act), Fla. Stat.; Florida’s express Const. Guarantees of
fundamental rights to own real property and exclude Government without, e.g.,
retaliation, extortion, racketeering, oppression, bribery, and public corruption.
32. Because Def. Steele is part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele retaliated and silenced
the Plaintiff(s) in said idiotic, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious manner of public record. In
particular, Steele shut up the Plaintiffs by calling them names such as, e.g., “vexatious”.
33. Only if Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to said riparian street land and private riparian
street easement had never transferred from the Plaintiffs to Lee County and/or Government,
could there possibly be any “public sale” of said private riparian street easement and land
“on the Gulf of Mexico”. See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395,
396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Here for bribes, and under color of authority, sanctions
and punishment, Def. Steele retaliated and called the Plaintiffs names such as, e.g.,
“vexatious”.
34. Because pursuant to their publicly recorded Warranty Deed, the Plaintiff(s) were the
exclusive record owners and title holders of said street land and private street easement on
the Gulf of Mexico, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), Lee County’s facially criminal and illegal “claims”
9
of a “regulation”, “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”, fake “land parcels”, et al. had been a prima
facie extortion and racketeering scheme. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et
al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEF. JOHN E. STEELE’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND COVER-UP
35. Under publicly recorded fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity”, “vexatiousness”,
“sanctionability”, “lack of jurisdiction”, “ripeness requirements”, et al., Def. Steele covered
up and fraudulently concealed the recorded Government pattern and policy of, e.g.:
a. Racketeering;
b. Extorting “under color of” a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment”;
c. Extorting “under color of” a non-existent “$5,048.60 judgment”;
d. Extorting & defrauding “under color of” fake “land parcels” which could not be found;
e. Extorting & defrauding “under color of” prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”;
f. Perverting a final “$24.30” money judgment & mandate into a fake “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 425.
DEF. STEELE CONCEALED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL MOTION,

DOC. # 432
36. Def. Steele fraudulently concealed the prima facie criminality and illegality of Doc. #
432: Here, no genuine “$5,048.60” and/or $5,000.00 money mandate” had ever existed,
because, e.g.:
a. The 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction on 06/11/2009;
b. The only and final mandate was in the amount of “$24.30”, Doc. # 365;
c. Def. Appellee Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion;
d. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., had become final on
June 15, 2009, Doc. # 365;
e. No Bill of Costs for “$5,000.00” and/or “$5,048.60” had ever existed or could have
possibly existed. See FED.R.CIV.P. 54; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1928; FRAP 39: LOCAL RULE
4.18:
“LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES
(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees
preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate
motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of
judgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filing
of a timely application pursuant to this rule.”
J. E. STEELE & B. B. MARTIN FABRICATED “writ of execution”, DOC. # 425, 434, 435
37. In the recorded presence of a final “$24.30” money judgment issued as mandate on
06/11/2009 for costs of Appellees’ copies, Doc. # 365, and in the record absence of any
“$5,048.60 judgment”, Def. Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that the fake “writ of
10
execution”, Doc. # 425, had been falsified and was null and void. On its very face, no U.S.
judge and no witness had appeared on the falsified “writ”, Doc. # 425.
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP AND CONCEAL GOVERNMENT CRIMES
38. Def. Steele conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants to cover up and
fraudulently conceal the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of, e.g.:
a. Fake “$5,048.60 judgment”;

b. Fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
c. Fake “land claim” “O.R. 569/875”;
d. Fake “resolution”, fake “resolution 569/875”;
e. Fake “regulation”, fake “land use regulation”;
f. Fake “regulatory taking” in the recorded absence of any “regulation”;
g. Fake “inverse condemnation” while Plaintiffs objected to and defended against any
involuntary title transfer to Lee County;
h. Fake “eminent domain” claims in the record absence of any condemnation proceedings.
39. Here, Government and judicial racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice & court
access, bribery, public corruption, fraud, and deliberate deprivations did not, and could
not possibly, involuntarily divest the Plaintiff(s) of their record title to riparian Parcel “12-44-
20-01-00015.015A” on the Gulf of Mexico.
§ 55.10 REQUIRED A JUDGMENT - NO LIEN ON PROPERTY
40. Under Florida law, a non-existent judgment did not become, and could not have possibly
become a lien on real property. Here, section 55.10 could not have possibly applied to a
non-existent “mandate”. Here, the final mandate of $24.30” for “copies”, Doc. # 365, had
been paid. See Affidavits on file. Furthermore here, Defendant Steele fraudulently
concealed that
“A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the
address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is
contained in the judgment, order, or decree …” See Ch. 55, Florida Statutes.
Here, judicial Defendants knew and fraudulently concealed that there could not have
possibly been any lien on real property and/or on Plaintiffs’ property.
11
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BRIBERY, AND RACKETEERING
41. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer John E. Steele silenced the Plaintiffs and kept
them away from the Court:
a. Disallowed the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and conclusive public record evidence;
b. Removed Plaintiffs’ State action to Federal Court;
c. Removed and destroyed Plaintiffs’ State Court records;
d. Unlawfully sanctioned and punished the Plaintiffs;
e. Arbitrarily & capriciously denied the Plaintiffs equal electronic court access;
f. Illegally enjoined the Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings;
g. Rejected Plaintiffs’ pleadings;
h. Caused the Def. Clerk to alter and destroy Court records and crime evidence;
i. Retaliated against the Plaintiffs;
j. Caused the Def. U.S. Marshal to threaten, intimidate, and harass the Plaintiffs.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & PERPETRATE FRAUD ON THE COURTS

42. Defendant John Edwin Steele conspired with, e.g., Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge Charlene
E. Honeywell and other Officials to shut up the Plaintiffs by criminal and illegal means of,
e.g.:
a. Enjoining Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings [“Pre-filing injunction”];

b. Destroying Plaintiffs’ pleadings
c. Rejecting Plaintiffs’ pleadings;
d. Falsifying a “regulation”;
e. Fabricating “law”;
f. Concocting a fictitious involuntary title transfer to Lee County absent any court
judgment.
FINAL 06/11/2009 MANDATE
43. The 11th Circuit decided Case 2008-13170-BB by opinion entered on “03/05/2009”. On
06/11/2009, the Defendant Clerk of said Appellate Court filed the mandate, which consisted
of a copy of the opinion and a judgment that had been drafted and signed by a Clerk of said
Court, and directions as to costs in the amount of $24.30. See Fed.R.App.P. 41.
44. The Clerk of the Court signed her name on a copy of the judgment, which was stamped
"ISSUED AS MANDATE 06/11/2009" and CLOSED SAID CASE on 06/11/2009.
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP & CONCEAL ORGANIZED CRIME & EXTORTION
45. Here, Defendants Beverly B. Martin, Kenneth M. Wilkinson, John E. Steele, Sheri Polster
Chappell, Sherri L. Johnson, Jack N. Peterson conspired to cover up and conceal that
12
a. No “$5,048.60 judgment”, “order”, or “decree” had ever been entered.
b. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been issued as mandate.
c. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been received by the U.S. District Court.
d. No “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been recorded by the U.S. District Court Clerk.
J. E. STEELE’S, S. P. CHAPPELL’S & B. MARTIN’S RACKETEERING OF RECORD
46. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott are suing Defendant Racketeer John Edwin
Steele for, e.g., racketeering, extortion, retaliation, fraud, and reckless deprivations.
JOHN E. STEELE’S EXTORTION ON THE PUBLIC RECORD
47. Def. Racketeer John E. Steele perverted a publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment
(“issued as mandate June 11, 2009”) into a $5,048.60 and real property extortion scheme
and conspiracy. See Doc. ## 434, 435, 425, 422, 365, 386, 288, 282, 1, 25, 338.
RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELE’S RECORD RETALIATION
48. By criminal means of falsifying a fake “$5,048.60 judgment”, Def. Corrupt Judge Steele
retaliated against Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse & J. Franklin Prescott, Doc. ## 434, 425, 435.
RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELE’S CONCEALMENT OF $24.30 JUDGMENT
49. Def. U.S. Racketeer John E. Steele fraudulently concealed the publicly recorded $24.30
money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”, Doc. ## 365; 434, 435, 422, 425, 338.
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT AND RETALIATE
50. Racketeer John E. Steele conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants to
extort “$5,048.60”, Dr. Jorg Busse’s and Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s riparian real property,
and Hundreds of Acres of land and implied private easements under, e.g., false and
fraudulent pretenses of fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-
00001.0000”, and “under color of” prima facie forged and fraudulent “O.R. 569/875”.
STEELE CONCEALED RECORD ABSENCE OF FAKE PARCELS AND JUDGMENT
13
51. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele could not locate said fake “land parcels” on
the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL LACK OF ANY RECORD OF FAKE “LAND PARCELS”
52. Def. Extortionist John E. Steele conspired with other Officials and Defendants to
fraudulently conceal the lack of any “$5,048.60 judgment” and said fake “land parcels”.
DOCUMENTATION OF FINAL $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT (JUNE 15, 2009)
53. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”, Doc.
## 365 (pp. 1), “documented”:
a. In-House Reproduction of Appellee’s Brief;

b. No. of Original Pages: “18”;
c. Total No. of Documents Reproduced: “11 (9)”;
d. Total No. of Copies: “198”;
e. Costs Requested: “$29.70”.
f. Costs Allowed: “$24.30”.
54. Here, no “sanctions”, no “fees”, and no “$5,048.60” had ever been “documented”.
DEF. RACKETEER STEELE’S FALSIFCATION OF “writ of execution”, DOC. # 425
55. In the record absence of any “$5,048.60 judgment” against Dr. Jorg Busse, no “witness” and
no “United States Judge” appeared on the face of the falsified “writ of execution”, Doc. #
425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228. See also scam Doc. ## 434, 435, 425, 422, 338.
DEF. RACKETEER JOHN EDWIN STEELE’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
56. For criminal and illegal purposes of concealing racketeering and extortion, Defendant
Crooked Judge John E. Steele had obstructed justice and Plaintiff(s)’ Court access, Doc. #
422. In Doc. # 434, 07/22/10, Def. Steele pretended:
“No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the
Court desires a response from plaintiff…”
14
RECORDED & PUBLISHED RACKETEERING & EXTORTION
$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATES JUNE 11, 2009
57. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”. See
Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1).
$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT UNDER FRAP 39, COSTS
58. The $24.30 money judgment was awarded pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P.
COPY OF $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT, DOC. # 386-3
59. A copy of the final $24.30 money judgment issued as mandate was included in Defendant
Appellee’s facially fraudulent “motion for issuance of a writ of execution”, Doc. # 386. See
pages 10 and 24.
60. Of the $29.70 requested in Racketeer Wilkinson’s Bill of Costs, Doc. # 386, the 11th Circuit
allowed $24.30 for Costs under FRAP 39:
$24.30 WERE THE ALLOWED ACTUAL AND NECESSARY COSTS
61. Here, $24.30 were the allowed actual and necessary costs.
$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL ON JUNE 15, 2009
62. Pursuant to Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1), the U.S. District Court received and filed the
$24.30 money judgment on June 15, 2009:
15
RACKETEERING: EXTORTION OF MONEY:
“FRIVOLOUS APPEAL” MOTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NEVER FILED
63. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson extorted money, Doc. # 386, by fraudulently pretending
a Rule 38 motion, which Wilkinson knew he had never filed:
“The Judgment
4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh
Circuit Rule 27-4 …”
Said Rule 27-4 motion could not have possibly been for a “frivolous appeal”.
THE 11th CIRCUIT HAD CLOSED CASE ON 06/11/2009
64. The 11th Circuit had CLOSED THE CASE on 06/11/2009:
BRIBERY
65. Here, Defendant Appellee K. M. Wilkinson and his Attorney had no right to bribe the 11th
Circuit and illegally cause the 11th Circuit to fraudulently alter the recorded final $24.30
mandate after the CASE HAD BEEN CLOSED and the 11th Circuit had LOST
JURISDICTION.
DEFENDANT’S APPELLEE’S RACKETEETING AND EXTORTION WERE ILLEGAL
66. Def. Wilkinson’s record racketeering and extortion were illegal and unauthorized by
law.
16
RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:
FED.R.CIV.P. 54; LOCAL RULE 4.18; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1924; FRAP 39
67. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., became final on June 15,
2009.
“LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES

(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees
preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate
motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of
judgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filing
of a timely application pursuant to this rule.”
DEF. WILKINSON VIOLATED REQUIREMENTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920-1924
68. With wanton disregard for Plaintiff(s)’ rights and due process, Def. Wilkinson violated the
law and Rules:
The $24.30 money judgment was unauthorized by law.

Itemization was for $24.30.
No documentation for $24.30.
The record unauthorized Bill of Costs was for $24.30.
Bill of Costs must be verified as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1924.
No known affidavit.
Plaintiff(s) objected to the unauthorized $24.30 money judgment.
The unauthorized $24.30 money judgment was procured through, e.g., publicly
recorded racketeering and extortion by illegal and criminal means of fraud and
extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”, and facially forged “land parcels” “00A0” and
“00001”. See RICO Complaint in U.S. District Court.
RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:
FRAP 39 [FED.R.APP.P. 39]
69. A copy of Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., is attached.
“(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.

(1) A party who wants costs taxed must — within 14 days after entry of
judgment — file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and
verified bill of costs.”
70. Here, the “judgment”, No. 2008-13170-BB had been “entered: March 5, 2009”, Doc. ##
365, 386. Defendant Appellee Wilkinson had filed with the circuit clerk a $24.30 Bill of
17
Costs. “Date signed” was “3-17-2009”, which was “issued on: Jun 11 2009”, Doc. ## 365,
386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
71. No “proof of service” existed on the record.
72. The “14 days after entry of judgment” on “March 5, 2009” had expired on March 19,
2009.
APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009
73. An appeal becomes final on the date the mandate is issued. Here, the judgment entered
March 5, 2009 was issued as mandate Jun 11 2009.
74. Since the clerk had responsibilities for entering a judgment, Fed.R.App.P. 36, and for
taxation of costs, Fed.R.App.P. 39(d), the duty to issue the mandate contemplated by Rule 41
was the responsibility of the clerk.
75. The Eleventh Circuit has held that the action becomes final on the date the district court
receives the appellate court's mandate. See U.S. v. Lasteed, 832 F.2d 1240-43 (11th Cir.
1987). The District Court received and filed the Appellate Court’s June 11, 2009 mandate on
JUN 15 2009 when the Appeal, No. 2008-13170-BB, became final. Thereafter, the 11th
Circuit had no jurisdiction as a matter of law. Here, there have been publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion by Government Agents.
NO 11th CIRCUIT JURISDICTION AFTER JUN 15, 2009
76. Jurisdiction followed the mandate. “The effect of the mandate is to bring the proceedings
in a case on appeal in our Court to a close and to remove it from the jurisdiction of this
Court, returning it to the forum whence it came.” It was the date on which the $24.30
mandate was received and filed, Jun 15, 2009, which determined when the district court
reacquired jurisdiction for further proceedings.
77. Issuance of the $24.30 mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Court’s receipt and filing
on June 15, 2009 was an event of considerable institutional significance. A mandate could
18
NOT possibly “simply” "issue", because it should have been issued, or because the panel may
have intended it to issue, or because the statute commands it to issue. See F.R.App.P. 27, 41.
ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF FEDERAL LAWSUIT, CIVIL RICO…
78. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt by reference their attached Federal action in this published
Government Racketeering and Corruption Notice, USA, Ex Rel et al. v. USA et al.
WILKINSON’S RACKETEERING, RETALIATION, AND COERCION
79. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson retaliated on or around August 20, 2008, Doc. # 386-2:
“In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices …”
80. Wilkinson coerced Plaintiff Appellant to refrain from rightful prosecution for prima facie
criminal and illegal purposes of concealing crimes and covering up.
CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL FALSIFICATIONS
81. Just like Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson had falsified fake “land parcels”, and a fake “real
property transaction”, “O.R. 569/875”, Defendant Forger Wilkinson falsified a fake
“judgment”; “July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant JORG BUSSE in the
amount of $5,048.60.” See, e.g., INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County
Circuit Court.
82. Here, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson could not have possibly held that which had never
existed. Here, said $24.30 money judgment had been the final mandate, and the facially
null and void “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, was a prima facie racketeering and
extortions scheme just like the fake “regulation”, fake “legislative act” and/or “O.R.
569/875” that had never legally existed and never been legally recorded.
RACKETEERING-EXTORTION-FRAUD SCHEMES, DOC ## 432, 434, 435
83. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse attached a copy and Exhibits of prima facie racketeering-
extortion-fraud schemes, Documents ## 432, 434, and 435, and adopted them by
reference in this NOTICE OF APPEAL and EMERGENCY MOTIONS.

19
FRAUDULENT ATTACHMENT OF FICTITIOUS DEBT TO CAYO COSTA LAND
84. The publicly recorded and facially fraudulent attachment of a fake judgment and/or debt
to Plaintiff(s)’s Lee County property was a criminal and illegal scheme.
DECEPTION, TRICKERY, AND FRAUDULENT MEMORANDUM
85. Jack N. Peterson and Def. Appellee K. M. Wilkinson conspired to perpetrate fraud on the
Courts and attach a sanctionable “memorandum” to their unlawful motion, Doc. # 432.
“TRANSFER” PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW
86. Here, there had been NO lien. Here, Def. Wilkinson did NOT have any lien. Here, Def.
Wilkinson had NOT been any “$5,048.60 judgment holder”. Here, there had been NO
affidavit as required by section 55.10, Fla. Stat.
87. Here that which did NOT exist and/or was NULL and VOID could NOT have possibly been
enforced under Florida law.
88. If there had been any authentic judgment, any valid order, and any genuine lien, Plaintiff(s)
would have been entitled to “transfer” under Florida law, s. 55.10, Fla. Stat.:
“(5) Any lien claimed under this section may be transferred, by any person having an
interest in the real property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under which
the lien is claimed, from such real property to other security by either depositing in the
clerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office a bond executed as surety by a
surety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall be in an
amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at the
legal rate for 3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any
proceeding to enforce said lien. Such deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any
judgment, order, or decree which may be rendered for the satisfaction of the lien for
which such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon such
deposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificate
showing the transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy
thereof by registered or certified mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so
transferred, at the address stated therein. Upon the filing of the certificate of transfer,
the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed, and such lien shall be
transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 for
making and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multiple
liens, an additional service charge of up to $7.50 for each additional lien shall be charged.
Any number of liens may be transferred to one such security.”
20
NO service OF ANY “writ of execution” UPON DR. JORG BUSSE
89. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse was never served and could not have possibly been served [with] any
“writ of execution”. No evidence of any service existed on the record. Doc. ## 425, 429, 430,
were facially fraudulent and for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., racketeering,
extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, and unconstitutional property seizure in
brazen violation of, e.g., the 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional Amendments, and Chapters
55, and 56, Florida Statutes.
MANDATORY SUSPENSION OF ANY ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
90. Under color of a prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, Doc. ## 425, 435, 434 and in the
publicly recorded absence of any debt, and after Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the final
mandate of $24.30 for “copies” (under FRAP 39) to Def. Wilkinson, the Def. U.S. Marshal
and Defendants Richard Jessup and Ryan Barry recklessly extended, e.g., the extortion,
racketeering, and organized crimes of public record in order to retaliate against Dr. Busse,
extort fees and said real property without any authority and for organized and conspiratorial
criminal purposes. Here, said Officials coerced the Plaintiff(s) to refrain from rightful
prosecution and obstructed justice. Here, any and all Marshal(s), Sheriff(s), and/or law
enforcement Officials were under the absolute obligation to NOT enforce and/or suspend
any proceedings on the illegal execution of the facially fraudulent and forged “writ”, Doc.
## 425, which had never been served upon Dr. Busse.
AFFIDAVIT; DEMAND FOR MANDATORY SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS ON
FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL execution, CH. 56, 55, U.S. CONST. AMENDMENTS
91. Here Dr. Jorg Busse had demanded, has been demanding, and again demands the
absolutely mandatory suspension of any proceedings to enforce and/or execute a prima
facie fictitious, un-documented, un-substantiated, un-recorded and null and void debt in
the facially falsified amount of “$24.30”. Here. Dr. Busse had fully paid the $24.30 final
21
money judgment and 06/11/2009 mandate (“copies”). Here, the Defendants and Wilkinson
knew that the 11th Circuit never had any jurisdiction and authority to alter and amend the
“$24.30 mandate/judgment” and to sanction and punish the Plaintiff corruption victim Dr.
Jorg Busse, who rightfully prosecuted Crooked Government Officials.
AFFIDAVIT: ORGANIZED CRIME, RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, CORRUPTION
92. In this organized crime scheme, Defendant Beverly Martin had suspended, and conspired
with, e.g., judicial Def. Steele, Chappell, Lazzara, Pizzo, Honeywell, and other Defendants
and Officials to suspend, the Rules and extended anarchy and lawlessness to obtain
unlawful benefits. Here, Def. Crooked Judge Martin recklessly violated Section 838.022,
Official Misconduct, Fla. Stat.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Government corruption and racketeering victims demand
1. An Order declaring that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson did NOT “have any lien”;
2. An Order declaring that Defendant Wilkinson did NOT “hold any $5,048.60 judgment” as
falsely pretended and falsified by said Defendant Wilkinson and Defendant Crooked
Attorney JACK N. PETERSON [see falsified, fraudulent and deceptive “affidavits”
asserting a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment” in the Collier and Lee County Public Records;
3. An EMERGENCY Order suspending and enjoining as absolutely mandatory any
proceedings on any illegal and criminal execution in violation of, e.g., Chapters 55 and 56,
Fla. Stat., and the 4th, 14th, 1st, and 7th U.S. Const. Amendments, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 – 1968;
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; s. 838.022, Fla. Stat.;
4. An Order sanctioning Defendant Attorney JACK N. PETERSON for recorded perjury and
conspiring with Def. Wilkinson and other Government Officials to extort, racketeer,
retaliate, and deliberately deprive Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott;
5. An Order declaring the final record mandate in the amount of $24.30 paid;
22
6. An Order vacating and setting aside the facially oppressive and unconstitutional “pre-filing
injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, which on its face was for criminal and
illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, intimidation, oppression, and “protection” of
the organized Criminals and criminal Defendants in this Court and the 11th Circuit;
7. An Order restraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO
civil provisions;
8. An Order declaring the lack of any recorded mandate and/or money judgment other than the
$24.30, which was “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and recorded on June 15, 2009
pursuant to the certified Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, U.S. District Court, M.D.
Florida, Fort Myers Division;
9. An Order declaring that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction
on 06/11/2009, as had also been evidenced by its own Case Docket, 08-13170-BB];
10. An Order sanctioning and punishing Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson for the publicly
recorded falsifications of, e.g., said fake “judgment”, “land parcels”, fake “resolution”,
extortion, and racketeering, all of which obstructed justice;
11. An Order declaring INSTRUMENT 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public
Records, and the equally fraudulent filing in Lee County part of a racketeering, extortion,
and fraud scheme
12. An Order restraining any further racketeering by Defendant Government Officials and in
particular the illegal forced selling of Plaintiffs’ said riparian Cayo Costa property, Lot 15A,
in the absence of any recorded “$5,048.60” “judgment”;
13. An Order dissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil
RICO, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(a);
23
14. An Order removing the publicly recorded corrupting influence and make due provision for
said express fundamental rights of innocent persons under the Florida and Federal
Constitutions and, e.g., the 14th, 1st, 7th, 4th, 5th, and 11th U.S. Constitutional Amendments;
15. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked, Objectively Partial, and Unfit
Government Racketeer John E. Steele;
16. An Order making the Government enterprise of record subject of injunctive relief, because it
is designed to aid the illegal enterprise of, e.g., obstructing justice, retaliating and
punishing, and extorting money, Government fees, and property;
17. An Order enjoining said U.S. Courts from retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they
blew the whistle on Government crimes & corruption, rather than punishing the Defendant
Racketeers of record and providing remedies and relief to the Plaintiff racketeering and
corruption victims;
18. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge C. E. Honeywell;
19. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Corrupt and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge S. Polster Chappell;
20. An Order for equitable relief;
21. An Order declaring Plaintiffs’ record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, free & clear and
unencumbered;
22. An Order declaring fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000” falsified and prima facie forgeries as conclusively evidenced by the 1912
Cayo Costa Plat in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25;
23. An Order for EMERGENCY relief from the publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,
coercion, fraud, and concealment in said Courts;
24. An Order for compensatory damages;

24
25. An Order for triple punitive damages;
26. An Order for triple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1964(c);
27. An Order for expenses, costs, legal expenses, and fees;
28. An Order enjoining any and all Governments and the Defendants and Officials from any
trespass onto the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” “Subdivision” as legally described in
reference to said 1912 Plat in PB 3 PG 25;
29. An Order declaring the prima facie forgeries of non-existent “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” fraudulent and criminal acts of record;
30. An Order permanently enjoining any and all entries and publications of any “resolution
569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “legislative act 569/875”, and non-existent “land parcels” “12-
44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000” from any and all Government
records and publications;
31. An Order permanently enjoining any and all Governments and Defendants from fraudulently
“claiming” “asserting” “publishing” Government ownership of the street lands along the
Gulf of Mexico as legally described and conveyed in reference to the Plat of the prima facie
private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision;
32. An Order enjoining and restraining any extortion of property and money and foreclosure
fraud by Defendants Eugene C. Turner, Richard D. DeBoest, II, Chene M. Thompson, and
Hugh D. Hayes.
___________________________
/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
Private Attorney General; Plaintiff public corruption & racketeering victim
10 Benning ST # 135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.
c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
25
_____________________
[/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott]
Private Attorney General; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim
10 Benning Street # 135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.
c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
26
EXHIBITS
SUPPORTING PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCE
EXTORTION, FRAUD, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, RETALIATION, BRIBERY …
A. FACIALLY FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT [DEF. JACK N. PETERSON, K. M.
WILKINSON] INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public Records
B. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228
C. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID “O.R. 569/875” AND LAND EXTORTION SCHEME
D. 07/21/2010 letter by Def. Racketeer JACK N. PETERSON
E. Def. CHARLIE GREEN’S recording instructions
F. RACKETEERING AND EXTORTION record evidence, Doc. # 429, Case 2:07-cv-228
G. Docket as CERTIFIED by Def. Diane Nipper on 07/16/2010, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228
Conclusively evidencing record absence of fictitious and fabricated appeal “09-13196”
H. FALSIFICATION of “appeal no. 09-13196” by Def. Beverly B. Martin pursuant to
CERTIFIED docket at B., which evidenced the lack of any such “appeal” and the
“frivolity”-racketeering-and-extortion-scheme of record; “JUL 19 2010” CASE FIXING &
“DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS”
I. DOC. # 434, 07/22/2010, by Def. JOHN E. STEELE, CASE NO. 2:2007-CV-00228
J. Third Amended Complaint, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, 282 (11 pages),
PRIMA FACIE NULL AND VOID “legislative act” and/or “law”, Fake “O.R. 569/875”,
FACIALLY FALSIFIED “regulation” and/or “resolution” attached as Page 9 of 11;
ETHICS COMPLAINT against Def. Crooked Lee County Official JACK N. PETERSON
Attached as Page 10 of 11
K. PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT and FRIVOLOUS motion by Defendant Racketeer and
“land parcel” Forger K. M. Wilkinson; “Appellee Property Appraiser’s Motion for
27
Sanctions for Filing of a frivolous Motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. #
386-2, pp 1-3, Doc. # 386-3, p. 15
L. BINDING PRECEDENT and RECORD EVIDENCE of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
JUDICIAL RETALIATION, and EXTORTION under color of fake “judgment” & “writ”,
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, 41 F.3d 1490(11th
Cir.1995); Murrell v. United States, 269 F.2d 458 (5th Cir.1959)
M. Lee County, FL, INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, WARRANTY DEED Lot 15A, “Cayo
Costa, Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912) (2 pages)
N. RECORD RACKETEERING EVIDENCE: “Motion for Issuance of writ of execution …”,
RECORDED EVIDENCE of EXTORTION, FRAUD & FALSIFICATION of un-recorded
judgment, Doc. # 386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. Racketeer Jack N. Peterson;
PERVERSION of recorded “$24.30 judgment” into fake “$5,048.60 debt”
O. Lee County Tax Collector’s Office, Statement of Paid Property Taxes, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa
(2 pages)
P. DENIAL of “Appellee Wilkerson’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment”,
FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 motion”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 judgment”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of “Rule 38 bill of costs”, record evidence, Doc. # 386-5
FALSIFICATION of unsubstantiated “$5,000 in attorney’s fees”, Doc. # 386-5
By Defendant Racketeers Dubina, Chief Judge, Tjoflat, and Birch, Circuit Judges
Facially forged and pasted “certification”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 2, right lower corner
Q. MEMORANDUM OF NO DEDICATION OF THE CAYO COSTA ROADS TO PUBLIC,
From The Office of Lee County, Florida, Attorney, Dec. 29, 2000, Joan C. Henry, Esq.
R. 1912 Plat of undedicated private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, P. 25
S. Recorded Survey of riparian Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) on the Gulf of Mexico
28
T. Fraudulent Lee County Inventory Control File, FALSIFIED parcel 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0
O.R. 1651 / 2488, O.R. 2967 / 1084 – 1090, BLUE SHEET 980206, 03/24/1998(6 pages)
U. Falsified “Parcel 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” by Def. Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson (2 p)
V. Falsified “resolution”, “legislative act”, and/or “law” by Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele,
Doc. ## 288, 282, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
W. “Judgment Issued as Mandate June 11 2009”, in the amount of $24.30, FRAP 39 (1 p)
RACKETEERING/EXTORTION EVIDENCE: March 5, 2009 “opinion”, 11th Circuit
X. Bill of Costs Issued as Mandate June 11 2009, in the amount of $24.30, FRAP 39 (1 p)
Y. Fraudulent “Conclusion” and Case Fixing by Defendant U.S. Circuit Judges, Doc. # 365,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; Doc. # 386.
Z. STATE Court Docket, Plaintiffs’ Case No. 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v. STATE OF
FLORIDA, Defendant Judge GERALD, LYNN, Jr., Filed 07/31/2006,
REMOVED to U.S. District Court by Def. Judges John E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell
AA. EXTORTION & PUBLIC CORRUPTION NOTICE to Def. Drew Heathcoat, U.S.
Clerk (2 pages)
BB. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge, Steven E. Ibison
CC. DESTRUCTION of official records as evidenced by search of “2007-00228”, 11th
Circuit
DD. DESTRUCTION of Docket No. 201010963, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
EE.CASE FIXING, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND RETALIATION by Def. Judges
Black, Carnes, and Martin, dated “JUL 19 2010” (2 pages)
FF. NOTICE OF CORRUPTION AND LETTER DEMANDING AUTHENTICATION,
Def. JOHN LEY, U.S. Circuit Clerk, 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit (2 pages)
GG. Motion to Stay Prima Facie Illegal Execution as a Matter of Law, Case No. 2:10-cv-
00390 (5 pages)
29
HH. Section 838.022, Florida Statutes, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
Chapter 838, Fla. Stat., BRIBERY, MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
II. Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, pp. 4, 7, Def. U.S. Attorney, Tony West, Matthew
L. Fesak, affirming U.S. jurisdiction under “civil RICO”
JJ. FACIALLY FALSIFIED “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425
KK. Section 55.10, Florida Statutes, Judgments…,
Chapter 55 Judgments, Florida Statutes
LL. Defendant Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson’s Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories” under oath, 10/22/2007; in particular, asserting under oath the RECORD
ABSENCE of “public Cayo Costa easements”, Answer # 24
MM. Florida 19th Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption (09/30/2009 Petition),
Florida Statewide Prosecution Office, Office of the Attorney General of Florida.
NN. FALSIFIED “Plat” of “Cayo Costa Subdivision” as falsified and filed by Defendant
Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson as “Exhibit A”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
OO. Publicly recorded Case Fixing and Obstruction of Justice by Defendant Judges Gerald
B. Tjoflat, Susan Birch, and Joel F. Dubina, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit,
Doc. # 365, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228
PP. Fraudulent Order, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 422, pp. 17-18, by Defendant
Racketeer John E. Steele, evidencing extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of court
access, and retaliation under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “writ of execution”, “lack of
jurisdiction”, “ripeness requirements”, “frivolity”, “sanctions”, and under color of authority
and office.
QQ. FBI Complaint against Def. Lee County Commissioner John Manning
RR. Concealment of fake writ, Doc. # 434, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. J. E.
Steele
30
SS. FBI Complaint against Def. U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin,
Including “JUL 19 2010” CASE FIXING FOR BRIBES and RACKETEERING
TT. Record Evidence of Destruction of Plaintiffs’ Appeal Records, ## “10-10963, 10-10967”
UU. GOVERNMENTAL FORGERIES, “O.R. 569/875”, FORENSIC EVIDENCE
VV. Facially Fraudulent Order, Doc. # 338, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. John E.
Steele
WW. March 08, 2010 Letter by Def. John Ley, U.S. Circuit Clerk
XX. DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, EVIDENCE
YY. FRAUDULENT 04/06/2010 Order by Def. Crooked Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin
ZZ. Supreme Court Justice David Souter Communications, including binding precedent of
WEST PENINSULAR TITLE CO. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY
AAA. OTHER; OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS
31
CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
Eric Holder, Attorney General
Barack Hussein Obama, The White House
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
The Florida Bar
Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar
32
CaseOR1:10-cv-00321-JL
*** INSTR 4371834 Document
4517 PG 1914 RECORDED 1-8 Filed
12/10/2009 07/29/10
9:28 AM PAGES 1 Page
*** 1 of 23
DWIGKT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
REC S10.00
»
INSTR n 2009000303382. Pages 1
Doc Type AFF. Recorded 11 • 18.2009 at 10.11 AM.
Charlie Green, Lee County CterV of Circuit Court
Rec. Fee $10 00
Deputy Clerk DMERC1ER
#1
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF LEE )
BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared JACK N. PETERSON, who being
first duly sworn, says:
1. KENNETH M. WILKINSON, as Property Appraiser of Lee County, Florida, is the
holder of a judgment issued by the United StatesjCourt of Appeals in and for the Eleventh Circuit
on July 29, 2009 in Docket JORG BUSSE in the amount of
$5,048.60.
2. The judgment hj
Kenneth M. Wi 'irnty, Florida

2480 Thompson1
Fort Myers, FL
AFFIANT FURTHER
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this of November, 2009 by JACK
N. PETERSON, who is personally known to me. '0-.
^nature ot Notafy ruDUc;
IJESUEAJ
(Printed Name) WCOMMSSIONtDD 589573
EXPIRES: 0*c«rtm», 2010
lenrtllnNotorMfcUUiMlM
My Commission Expires:
Case 1:10-cv-00321-JL Document 1-8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1
1
DC 11
Rav. 1/00
WRIT OF EXECUTION
•FH FO
's
United States District Court m^«mSfF&Jt1'^
UT. imimtmm
TO THE MARSHAL OF: MiuyLtuibiHiurontiwioA
F 0 R T MYERS F l 0 R , 0 A
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida • -
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, that of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements in your district belonging to:
NAME
Jorg Busse
Building 2, Unit 4
1575 Curlew Avenue
Naples. FL 34112-5038
you cause to be made and levied as well a certain debt of:

DOLLAR AMOUNT DOLLAR AMOUNT
AND
Five Thousand Forty-Eight Sixty Cents
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of P'0"*3 , before the
Judge of the said Court by the consideration of the same Judge lately recovered against the said,
Jorg Busse
and also the costs that may accrue under this writ.
And that you have above listed moneys that the place and date listed below; and that you bring this writ with you.
PLACE DISTRICT M j d d | e Djstrjct o f p^^g

2115 Second Street, 6th Floor
CITY DATE
Fort Myers
Witness the Honorable

United States Judge
DATE CLERK 01
StISryl L. Loesch
This writ was received and executed.
U.S. MARSHAL (BY) DEPUTY MARSHAL
2-/2 iS
.VUTO-l
* 559^575
RESOUyTIOK PCRTAIRIiW T O PUBLIC U N M
IN,Sm gglfl^ WHPIviyig
NHOtCAS, there' appears in the Public Records of Lee
County, Florida, In Plat Book 3 at page 25 the Second Revised
Mat of Cayo Coeta Subdivision: and
WHEREAS, there tppeara upon snid plat certain designated
lot and block areas aitd other undesignated areas t and
WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-numbered
and unlettered areas lying East of tho Easterly tier of Moeka
in said subdivision and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks
in said subdivision: and
TEREAS, tho County claims s t i d lands as public lands

together with all accretions thereto.
NO*. THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD Of COWTY

COWUMIONERS OF LEE COUNTY. FLORIDA does by this Resolution
claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use
and benefit of the public for public purposes.
DONE AND ADOPTED this /? day of Js . ci. ».U-*-U. 1969.
V •
3 All
m LEE COUNTY
iswn. j - r j - r j - r -^ ^, ^ a. ^ 533-2236
V y
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Facsimile (239)485-2118
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Vacant
District One
July 21, 2010
A. Bnan Bigclow
District Two
Rayjudah
District Three
S fcH Jorg R. Busse

P.O. Box 11124
^ " Z Naples, Florida 34101 -11124
coZ'^r Re: TELEPHONE/COMMUNICATIONS

David M. Owen
County Attorney Sir:
Diana M. Parker
county Hearing I understand from my administrative assistant, Wendy Wise, that you
Examiner
telephoned yesterday and spoke with her in my absence. I have asked you before to
confine any communication to writing. You have chosen to simply ignore my request.
Since this last call was nothing more than an opportunity for you to annoy and harass
our staff, I again ask you to limit your communication to writing delivered by regular
U.S. Mail.
I have directed staff to henceforth, if I am not available, to note the time of your
call and simply hang up.
Sincerely,
JackfN. Peterson
Assistant County Attorney
JNP/wlw
P.O. Box 398. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 (239) 533-21 I I

Internet address http.'V/www.lee-county.com
A N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE A C T I O N EMPLOYER
<f
IN ORDER TO RECORD ACase
DEED1:10-cv-00321-JL
IN LEE COUNTYDocument 1-8 Filed 07/29/10
THE FOLLOWING MUSTPage 5 of 23
BE MET:
"Prepared by" statement (name and address of the "natural" person preparing the Deed)
Grantor(s) (Sellers-Party Giving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the Deed
Grantor(s) mailing address
Grantee(s) (Buyer-Party Receiving Title) names legibly printed in the body of the Deed
Grantee(s) mailing address
Signatures of Grantors
Names printed under Grantors' signatures
2 witnesses for each signature, the names printed under witnesses' signatures
Complete Notary acknowledgment
o Names being acknowledged
o Date acknowledgment taken
. o Signature of Notary t/\
\J^y 0 Name printed under signature
o Commission expiration date
o Ink Seal
• The consideration, sale price, or outstanding mortgage must be on the document or listed in a cover letter
for recording
• Three-inch square white space on the top right-hand comer of the first page of each document and a one-
inch by three-inch square white space on the top right-hand corner of each subsequent page of the
document.
These are RECORDING REQUIREMENTS for Deeds (F.S. 695.26). There may be other statutory requirements for
making a conveyance valid, which are not within the scope of the recording office to dictate. For example, the Lee
County Property Appraiser requires that the legal description be included on the deed document.
LEGAL ADVICE CANNOT BE PROVIDED: The Lee County Clerk's Office staff cannot help you complete legal forms
or provide legal advice of any type. If you have questions about completing forms or the proper method of transferring
property, you should consult an attorney or legal advisor.
FLORIDA DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX: Each document transferring an interest in real property may be subject to
Florida's Documentary Stamp Tax (documentary stamps on deeds (rounded up to nearest hundred) $0.70 per $100.00)
Please contact the Department of Revenue for guidance at (800) 352-3671. Documentary stamps are paid on the total
consideration paid, given, or to be paid, for the transfer; see Department of Revenue reference sheet for details.
/ Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC
U.S...Department of Justice See Instwctions for "Service of Process by the U.S. Marshal"
HJnited States Marshals Service on the reverse of this form.
MJUNTIFF COURT CASE NUMBER

Jorg Busse 07-00228-CV-Fm-29-SPC
DEFENDANT TYPE OF PROCESS
Lee County, Florida* e t c . , et a l . Writ of ISxecoti&S
NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC.. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF P R O P E R T Y T ^ E I S D R eOftTCEMft ,
SERVE Property to be Seized: Lot 15A,Cayo Casta, Parcel No. 12-44-20-OT-0®15S$J&A. 4
ADDRESS (Street or RFD. Apartment No.. City, State tnd ZIP Code) • û , ~ r ^
serve: Jorg Busse» Building 2, Unit 4, 1575 Curlew Avenue, NapSaJ, f t 3' 5038
AT -rt il </>
- *
sH^Ng!ncE_wa^T^cpPYj221^^1^Îi^l^^^£^SL5l!^L Number of process to be «/»"!
served with this Form - 285 tf
ack N. Peterson, Esquire
FJai
I Assistant
An. County Attorney Number of parties to be
-o-
2115 Second Street, 6th Floor served in this case
Fort Hyers, FL 33901
Check for service
on U.S.A. t*
-no._
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITINO SERVICE (Include Bi AMenes, All
Tkkphoae fhmbets. tad Estmutcd Times Available Bar Service):
KU rfo;
Subject property i s located as shown on maps contained in t h ^ f s B s i t a of thejS
Lee County Property Appraiser, Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.î^R(w«g.leepa^g).
I heieby ceitify and return that I D have personally served. D have legal evidence of service.Mhave executed as shown in "Remaiks", the pracess described
on the mdividial, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual; company, corporation, etc., shownta the address inseited below
D I heieby ceitify and return that I am unable to locale the individual, company, corporation, c i c . named above (See remarks below)
Name and title of individual served (if nor shown above) A person of suitable age and dis-
LJ action then residing in the defendant's
usual place of abode.
Address (complett only ifdinerent than shown above; Date of Service Time am
4-5-10 pm
Stgnaiuie tftU.S. Marshal or Deputy
Service Fee Tbtal Mileage Charges Forwarding Fee Total Charges Advance Deposits Amount owed to U S . Marsh:
9D (iochidjm
Jding gulcaYors)
11,5 #50. H +67,90
REMARKS:
moREDmoNs 1. CLERK OF THE COURT n»M usRugs OIK mem

WSBEVSED
£
Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 1 of 57
APPEAL
U.S. District Court

Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC
Internal Use Only
Busse v. Lee County, Florida ct al Date Filed'04/10/2007

Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Date Terminated: 05/06/2008
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Case in other court: 08-13170B Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
09-12372-B Jurisdiction: Federal Question
09-13517F
09-13519F
09-13522F
09-1428IF
09-14282F I CERTIFY THE FORB
09-14284F AND CORRECT COP
09-14285F SHERYLLL"
UNltEQSTAtfe
09-162J1F MIDDLEDlSTr
09-16212F
09-16213F
09-16214F
09-16335F
10-10963-1
10-10967-1
10-11884-1
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
P.O.Box 1126
Naples, Fl 34106-1126
239/595-7074
PROSE
Plaintiff
Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr. represented by Kelly Lina Rooth
TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 Rooth Law Group, PA
Suite 322
4399 35th St N
St Petersbsurg, FL 33714
727/824-6212
Fax: 727/822-8048
Email: krooth@roothlawgroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
https://ecf.flmd.circl 1 .dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?737110522490912-L_770_0-1 7/16/2010
J
filing fee, the new appeals were to be reviewed and a frivolity determination as to
each appeal made. Consistent with that Order, on April 6, 2010, Appellant was
ordered to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed as frivolous.
Appellant filed documents with the Court on April 19, 2010, which we
construe as his responses to the Order to Show Cause. Our review of these
documents establishes that Appellant has failed to show that these appeals are not
frivolous.
Therefore, on the Court's own motion, these appeals are hereby
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
Given the frivolity of these appeals and the nature of Appellant's responses
to the Order to Show Cause, we hereby SUSPEND any rule which would allow
Appellant to seek reconsideration of this Order. The Clerk is directed to accept no
ftirther filings in this closed appeal. The Clerk may discard any future documents
received by Appellant.
•1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEE

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant's
Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property
(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and
the time to respond has expired.
Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.
Recognizing that a Pre-Filing Injunction (Case No. 2:09-cv-791-FTM-
36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any
further filings without leave of Court, the Court will grant
plaintiff leave to file a single responsive document to defendant's
motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
H
Plaintiff may file one response to defendant's Motion for
Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432)
within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order. If no response is
received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of
a response and without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of
July, 2010.
x
L
JIMa.
m E. STEELE
J0|
United States District Judge
Copies:
Plaintiff
Counsel of record
12.
VENUE
6. Pursuant to Title 28, Part 4, Ch. 87, S. 1391, Plaintiffs claims arise out of acts undertaken and injuries suffered in
the Middle District of Florida. Pursuant to the sealed Survey before this Court, Plaintiff owns and possesses the
approx. more than 2.5 Acres of lot 15A with an estimated fair market value of more than $2,000,000.
JURISDICTION UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343, CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES
3 & 4, AMENDMENTS 5 & 14, DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, AND BILL OF RIGHTS
7. Pursuant to Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. 1983,28 U.S.C. 1343,1331, this Court has original jurisdiction to redress
Defendant State Officials' deprivations of Plaintiffs equal rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore,
Plaintiff seeks invalidation and rescission of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-1090', 'Blue Sheet
980206', injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, compensatory and possibly punitive damages.
JURISDICTION UNDER 1899 RIVERS AND HARBORS APPROPRIATION ACT, 33 U.S.C. 403, COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE 3
8. Pursuant to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403, and Commerce Clause, this Court has
jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs naturally created lagoon property. Under
the Commerce Clause, this Court has jurisdiction over dominant federal interests in navigation and the navigability
of Plaintiffs lagoon in interstate and foreign commerce. The Federal Government has power to control navigable
waters, and navigable servitude extends to navigable waters. Therefore, the Constitution conferred jurisdiction to
this Court over the regulation of commerce on the lagoon of Plaintiffs lot 15A pursuant to Article 3, s. 2.
JURISDICTION UNDER THE 1862 HOMESTEAD ACT
9. 14lh Amendment provisions cover all instrumentarities by which Defendant State and Officials act. Defendant
County, positioned under State Government, deprived Plaintiff of protected 14th Amendment rights against
deprivations by the State under color of 'OR 569/875', 'lot A', and 'block 1'. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction
over effect and extent of the 1895 Federal Land Patent grant from the United States to A. C. Roesch and to
Plaintiff and the navigable waters along platted shorelines pursuant to the 1862 Homestead Act.
JURISDICTION UNDER FEDERAL COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF ACCRETION AND EROSION
10. Federal common law, settled for centuries, vests title to accretions onto Federally patented oceanfront property in
2
Plaintiff upland owner of lot 15A. Pursuant to determinate U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Federal law governs title to
accretions on Plaintiffsripariangulf front lot.
JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL APPRAISAL STANDARDS, UNIFORM STANDARDS OF

PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE, AND 12 U.S.C. 3331-3351
11. This Court has jurisdiction over deprivations of Plaintiffs civil rights caused by Defendant Property Appraiser's
violations of Federal Appraisal Standards in Federallyrelatedproperty transactions under color of State law.
JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2201
12. Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, this Court has jurisdiction to declare Plaintiffsrights,legal relations,
and boundaries in light of equity principles.
In support of his factual allegations, Plaintiff adopts byreferencein this Complaint all evidentiary materials before the
Court and alleges:
COUNT 1:42 U.S.C. 1983 DEPRIVATIONS UNDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'OR 569/875'
13. Under color of alleged resolution draft 'OR 569/875' (Exhibit 'A'), Defendant State, park staff, County,
Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser subjected Plaintiff citizen to deprivations of his riparianrights,private
easements, disputed accreted property, and privileges secured by the U.S. Constitution. Defendant County and
Commissioners had no home rule powers or jurisdiction over the undedicated Cayo Costa Subdivision and
accordingly, never signed or executed 'OR 569/875'. Therefore, 'OR 569/875' was unenforceable, and said
Defendants violated constitutional Articles 3 & 4(s. 2) and Amendments 5 & 14(s. 1,5) and are liable to Plaintiff.
14. Therefore, under color of unauthorized 'OR 569/875' and 'OR 2967/1084-90', said Defendants confiscated
Plaintiffs valuable private accreted property, i.e. more than approx. 2.5 Acres, without compensation in violation of
the 5th Amendment Takings Clause and 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
15. Pursuant to Ch. 177, F.S., alleged lot A and block 1 cannot be legally described or surveyed, because they were
not on the referenced Subdivision Plat. Therefore, Defendant Officials temporarily took a total of more than
approx. 200 Acres of private accretions onto Cayo Costa under color of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and
'Blue Sheet 980206', without just compensationforwhich Defendant State and County must make restitution.
3
16. Defendant State Actors claimed riparian rights for lots 38A and 41A (Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-00042.038A),
which they denied to Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant Officials discriminated against and harmed Plaintiff. Plaintiff is
entitledtothe equal rights of Defendant State owner and invalidation of unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' and lot A.
COUNT 2: UNAUTHORIZED UNCONSTITUTIONAL TEMPORARY TAKINGS UNDER COLOR OF 'OR 569/875'
17. In December 1969, Defendant County and Commissioners allegedly drafted a so-called 'resolution' to claim all
accretions within the undedicated private Cayo Costa Subdivision. Said preliminary draft, 'OR 569/875' was never
signed, executed, or acknowledged and did not meet resolution and recording requirements. Therefore, draft 'OR
569/875' was not entitled to be recorded and must be stricken from the public record.
18. Defendant County Appraiser and Attorney admitted that the Cayo Costa Subdivision was never dedicated to the
public and as a result was outside the scope of Defendant County's home rule powers. Therefore, Defendant
State and County had no powerstogovern and adopt resolutions or ordinances. In conclusion, draft '569/875' was
unenforceable and ineffectual, and Defendant County exercised powers not conferred by law with the intent to
capriciously grab the disputed private accreted land and easements.
19. Therefore, Defendant State, County, and Commissioners took Plaintiffs accretions onto riparian gulf front lot ISA
and the Subdivision without authority, justification, due process of law, public notice, hearing, vote count, and
compensation under color of '569/875', which violated Articles 3 & 4 and Amendments 5 & 14. In conclusion,
Defendants' unauthorized unconstitutional takings injured Plaintiff and destroyed his property value.
COUNT 3: TRESPASS
20. Since 1969, Defendant State, County, Commissioners, Attorneys, and Appraiser asserted, disseminated, and
published that Lee County was the owner of all private Cayo Costa accretions. Therefore pursuant to 810.08 and
810.09, F.S., Defendant Officials induced and caused the public to intrude onto private Cayo Costa beaches,
streets, platted designated common use areas, and Plaintiffs property, which injured Plaintiff.
21. Under color of official right and '569/875', Defendant Governmental Officials invited the public to visit the private
accreted Subdivision, which Defendant State's Division of Recreation and Parks manages and operates as State
park. In summary, Defendant offenders defied Plaintiffs orders to leave and committed misdemeanors of the 1 "
4
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 and induced public trespass onto the undedicated Subdivision.
22. Pursuant to Florida Cabinet Meeting Transcripts, Defendant State of Florida, Board of Trustees, D.E.P., and
Division of Recreation and Parks, pursued their legislative objective to destroy private Cayo Costa easements and
property and ingress/egress for State park purposes. Therefore, Defendant Officials' objective must be stricken as
unconstitutional. Defendant State Agents must be enjoined from exercising power within the Subdivision east of
the Mean High Water mark [MHW] of the Gulf of Mexico, and west of the MHW of Charlotte Harbor.
COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY TO FABRICATE UNPLATTED LOT A, BLOCK 1 & PARK; FRAUD; MALFEASANCE
23. Defendant Property Appraiser claimed and published that draft '569/875' entitled Lee County to claim ownership of
un-platted lot A, and block 1. Under oath, Defendant Appraiser admitted that Cayo Costa was unencumbered by
public easements and not dedicated. Therefore, Defendant admitted that Lee County was not empowered to adopt
said resolution. On its face, 'OR 569/875' did not meetrecordingandresolutionrequirements, and lot A, and block
1 did not exist. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser had a professional duty and burden to verify the validity of sham
'569/875' under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
24. Without title evidence in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, Defendant conspired to concoct un-platted lot A
(Property I.D. 12-44-20-01-O000O.00A0), block 1 (Property I.D. 07-44-21-01-00001.0000), and park. With
malicious purpose, Defendant assisted the plan to deceive with materially altered plat, maps, and records to obtain
benefits for State and County. Said acts and omissions were in willful disregard of property. Defendant denied
agricultural classification of Plaintiffs accreted lot, all of which had had been formed by accretions since approx.
1910. Therefore, Defendant destroyed most of Plaintiffs property value, deprived him of private easements
without compensation, and denied equal protection of the laws in a land grab scheme pursuant to Ch. 768.
25. A reasonable appraiser, surveyor or title agent cannot locate lot A or block 1 on the Plat and must presume
invalidity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 as a matter of established real property law, standards, and tenets.
Therefore, Defendant's agreement to assist the unconstitutional confiscation of the disputed accretions could
reasonably be inferred, because Defendant contradicted the recorded historic legal precedents since 1910.
26. Defendant asserted that the general public and professional realty communities rely on Defendant Appraiser's
data. Therefore, Defendant couldreasonablyexpect harm from his incompetent valuationreports.Comparable
sales data controverted Defendant Appraiser's valuations. However, Defendant did not cease and desist his
deceptive publications and slander of Plaintiffs perfect title. As aresult,Plaintiff received purchase offersforbelow
market value. Defendant violated Federal Appraisal Standards and deprived the public of taxrevenuesfrom the
accreted lands and easements in controversy. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser is liable and his malfeasance and
abuse of position under State Government harmed Plaintiff, who is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, and cost.
27. Federal jurisdiction arose e.g. from Appraiser's denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment Defendant assertedriparianrightsforDefendant State's lots 38A and 41 A, but denied equalrightsto
Plaintiff. Under color of 'OR 569/875', lot A, block 1, and 'OR 2967/1084-1090', a 'wild' so-called 'County Deed',
Defendant conspired to fabricate valuationreportsand unjustly discriminated against Plaintiff and lot owners to
benefit others and/or himself. Therefore, Defendant Appraiser damaged Plaintiff, who is entitled to compensation.
COUNT 5: CONSPIRACY TO MATERIALLY MISREPRESENT AND DEFRAUD
28. Federal conveyances of lots 4 and 5 in Section 12 and lot 1 in Section 13 to A. 0 Roesch and subsequent
grantees were described inreferenceto Cayo Costa Plats of Survey. Lot A and block 1 could not be located on
the Subdivision Plats and ground. Therefore, Defendant County was not the legal owner of lot A and block 1, and
Defendant Officials'representationsof lot A and block 1 were unwarranted under law and feci
29. All disputed accretions were within boundaries described by original surveys, plats, and Subdivision and lot
descriptions contained in Federal, State, and/or County public records. All grants, grantors, and grantees are
published in the public Grantor/Grantee Index, and Lee County is neither the published record owner of the
disputed accretions nor riparian upland owner. However, quit claim deed 'OR 1651/2488' alleged the grant of
accretions to Lee County. Therefore, Lee County did not hold title to the disputed accretions onto Cayo Costa and
Plaintiffs lot 15A, because there was no voluntary and no involuntary alienation such as eminent domain or
adverse possession. In conclusion, Lee County's alleged controversial ownership claims of private Cayo Costa
accretions were not supported by the unauthorized and improperly recorded resolution draft '569/875' and
6
therefore unconstitutional under the S* Amendment Takings Clause. Following multiple notifications by the public,
Defendant Officials conspired to continue to deceive, defraud, and deprive the public under color of State law.
Therefore, Defendant Government Officials deprived the public of tax revenues from the disputed private
accretions and easements.
30. Article 7, s. 10, Fla. Const. Prohibits the use of public fends for private purposes, by precluding the State and
County from using its taxing power or credit to aid private individuals or interests, such as legal defense of
unauthorized wrongs in violation of the constitution.
31. Platted meander lines and monuments evidenced ownership of the disputed accretions by the record upland
owners in the Grantor/Grantee Index. Therefore, Defendant State Officials, Lee County, Commissioners, Attorney,
and J. N. Peterson conspired to misrepresent that Plaintiff did not own to the MHW mark of the Gulf of Mexico.
32. Defendant Officials conspired to misrepresent the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs
lagoon under the Commerce Clause and 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 33 U.S.C. 403.
COUNT 6: OPPRESSION AND SUNDER OF TITLE
33. Defendant Peterson failed to challenge the presumptive validity of the Federal Patent and invalidity of 'OR
569/875', lot A, and block 1. In fact, Peterson himself questioned theresolution'svalidity. Therefore, Peterson,
who carried the State's badge oppressed and unduly burdened Plaintiff. Defendant Peterson violated the Code of
Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Part 3, Ch. 112, F.S. Plaintiff complained with the Florida Commission
on Ethics (Exhibit 'B'). Peterson was required to disclose the material facts and the truth, but harassed Plaintiff.
The alleged public records and facts gave rise to Plaintiffs bases for suing Defendant State Actors. Therefore,
publicrecordsand factual allegations entitled Plaintiff to obtain invalidation of'OR 569/875', '2967/1084-90', lot A,
block 1, 'Blue Sheet 980206', and compensatory damages, and injunctive relief.
34. During pretrial procedures, Peterson and Lee County did not setforthany grounds on which Defendants' claims or
defenses could possibly rest There has been noreasonableindication that discovery can reveal any relevant
evidence to destroy the presumptive invalidity of 'OR 569/875, lot A, and block 1. Defendant State Actorsfelledto
prove validity of 'OR 569/875', lot A, or block 1. Plaintiff is entitled to relief and/or a peremptory ruling, because
7
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 2 8 8 Filed 0 1 / 1 1 / 0 8 P a g e 8 of 11
unauthorized and unconstitutional 'OR 569/875' was never adopted and contained no compensation mechanism.
35. All Defendants received fair notice that 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1 were immaterial and insufficient claims
and defenses. Presentations such as e.g. in doc. # 5 shall be deterred pursuant to F.R.C.P. 11 and 12. During the
11/07/2007 Court hearing, Plaintiff asserted the factual impossibility of Defendant's claims and defenses before
the Honorable Magistrate Judge. Therefore, Plaintiffs entitlement to relief is most plausible. The heft of Plaintiffs
factual allegations evidenced why Plaintiff is entitled to relief under Federal law and the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfullydemands judgment granting thefollowingrelief
1. Anorder setting aside and striking 'OR 569/875" and'2967/1084-90'from publicrecords(Counts 1-6);
2. An order invalidating/nullifying lot A, block 1, Blue Sheet 980206, and declaring all land between the meander lines
of the Gulf and Charlotte Harbor privately owned Subdivision lands pursuant to PB 3/PG 25 (Counts 1-3);
3. An award of compensatory damages for deprivations, leases, and uncompensated temporary takings of private
accreted property and easements for State park purposes in an amount to be set at trial (Counts 1-6);
4. An award of punitive damages and cost to be set at trial (Counts 1 -6);
5. An order declaring the extent of the Army Corps of Engineers' authority over Plaintiffs lagoon (Counts 1 -2);
6. An order declaring Plaintiff the owner of all accretions onto his riparian lot 15A pursuant to 1862 Homestead Act
and 1895 Certificate # 11887 (Counts 1 -6) and declaringtitlethereto in Plaintiff (Counts 1 -3); and
7. An order enjoining all Defendant Governmental Officials from claiming ownership of Plaintiffs accretions, lot A and
block 1 and operating a park in the private Cayo Costa Subdivision and on lot ISA (Counts 1-3).
Respectfully submitted,
IslJora&ffimfcMM, M.BA, Plaintiff; Tel: 239-595-7074; e-mail: irbuOaol.com.

MailWg Mdress: P.O.B. 1126, Naples, FL 34106-1126.
EXHIBIT 'A': Unconstitutional and unauthorized 'OR 569/875'.

EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson.
«•
[>^7M
*" W 9 ^ «S
RSfObVTIOKratTAlBIrtCTO MmUC UMDf
IN CMQ COST* *Ummfm
WRBimSi there' appears in the Public Records of Lee

County, Florida, in Plat Book ) at page 25 the Second teviaed
W*t Of Cayo COftU Subdivision: and
WHEREAS, there appears upon snid plat certain designated
lot and Mock areas and other undesignated aroMf and
WHEREAS, there appears upon said plat certain un-nnmbere
and mrtoWorod aron lying East of tho Easterly tier of Mocks
in said tnbdiviftion and West of tho Westerly tier of blocks
in said subdivision: and
"PCftgAff, tho County clfllnt s i i d land* aa puhlic Iwtdt
together with e&l accretions thereto.
HOW, THEREFORE, bE IT RESOLVED W THE BOWP Of COUUTT
COMMISflONCftS OF LEE COUNDT, FLORIDA does by this Resolution
claim a l l of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use
and benefit of the public for public purposos.
DONE AMD ADOPTED this / f day of A . <^ *U~<.\^. 1969.
-200-
9
EXHIBIT 'B': Ethics Complaint against Defendant Peterson
A. Defendant County Attorney Jack N. Peterson contended that more research was necessary to determine if 'OR 569/875' was
valid. However in a 2000 Memo by Joan C. Henry, Peterson's Office asserted before the Law. State of Florida court that
there was no dedication of Cayo Costa to the public. As a result, the Lay court ruled against Defendant State. Said court
determined that Defendant County had no powers, rights-of-way, or interests In the private easements 'as a matter of
established real property law. Therefore, Peterson arbitrarily contradicted his own Office in order to obtain benefits for
Defendant County, State or himself and undermined ongoing judicial proceedings in State and Federal Court.
B. In summary, Peterson's claims and defenses were precluded, because the Lay court's judgment had binding effect and
foreclosed Peterson's frivolous contentions. Therefore, Peterson harassed and oppressed Plaintiff and undermined the
judicial process with foreclosed claims.
C. In February 1999, Peterson's Office wrote to Cayo Costa riparian lot owner T. Pamell that 'Defendant Lee County attorney's
Office researched the history of the Second Revised Plat of the Cayo Costa Subdivision and governing case law on accretion
and reliction' in response to correspondence to Defendant Attorney. Said Plat conclusively evidenced that the record owners
pubfished in the Grantor/Grantee Index, including Plaintiff, own private easements, beaches, and their abutting platted
designated common use areas in the undedicated Subdivisionfeesimple. Therefore, Peterson concealed the 1999 and 2000
research by his own Office and oppressed Plaintiff, because he unjustly exercised power never conferred upon him. In
conclusion, Peterson abused his public position to improperly transfer property for State park purposes thereby depriving and
injuring Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, and expenses.
D. Peterson contended that Plaintiff's lot 15A did not touch the water. Plainb'frs Warranty Deed conveyed lot 15A in refierence to
said Plat, all calling for the Gulf of Mexico. Said Plat of Survey described Plaintiff's lot ISA as a riparian lot abutting the natural
monument of the Gulf. Public policy demands that all land shall have an owner, and all owners of the accretions in
controversy were recorded in Defendants' Grantor/Grantee Index. The public Index evidenced that all accretions onto the
Subdivision belonged to A. C. Roesch, who subdivided and conveyed them, and all accretions onto lot 15A belonged to
Plaintiff. In addition, Peterson was notified that unauthorized unconstitutional draft 'OR 569/875' had multiple errors, violated
Defendant's home rule powers law, and was unenforceable. With particularity, Peterson was ordered to cease false claims.
However, Peterson defied the order and continued slandering Plaintiffs paramount title. In summary, Plaintiff Is entitled to
cancellation of 'OR 569/875', 'OR 2967/1084-90', and 'Agenda Item Summary 980206'.
E. Plaintiff ttleholder was entitled to the statutory presumption that the 1895 Federal Patent and mesne conveyances were valid.
Therefore, the burden was on Defendant challenger to prove invalidity, and Defendant Officials' averments and claims of 'OR
569/875', lot A, and block 1 were in bad faith and impeded justice. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitledtoinvalidation and nullification
of 'OR 569/875', lot A, and block 1, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
10
Below signaturereflectsaffirmation that the attorney reviewed the Third Amended Complaint:
Attorney Date: 12/21/2007
11

Organized Judicial Crime in Fort Myers Federal Court, Case 2:2010-cv-00089

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

Organized Judicial Crime in Fort Myers Federal Court, Case 2:2010-cv-00089

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPC

JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO;

RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND

CASE NO. 2:2007-cv-00228

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN “sale of real property”

DIRECT INDEPENDENT ATTACK ON ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIMES:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.

DEF. JOHN E. STEELE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE & PERVERTED FLORIDA LAW

the judgment, order, or decree, § 55.10, Florida Statutes.

PUBLICLY RECORDED NOTICES OF ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CRIMES

recorded organized Government and judicial crimes, racketeering, extortion,

retaliation, obstruction of justice, bribery, and corruption.

PATTERN, POLICY, AND CUSTOM OF ORGANIZED CRIME & CORRUPTION

publicly recorded retaliation, obstruction of justice, oppression, racketeering, and

Silencing, shutting up, threatening, intimidating, punishing, and sanctioning

custom, and pattern of said corrupt Courts.

DEF. JOHN E. STEELE EXTENDED EXTORTION & RACKETEERING SCHEME

fraud scheme of record, civil RICO provisions.

20-01-00015.015A, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) pursuant to § 55.10, Florida Statutes.

PUBLICLY RECORDED LACK OF ANY “lien” and “writ of execution”

8. Here, Defendant Appellee Forger and Racketeer K. M. Wilkinson

a. NEVER had any lien;

b. NEVER was the holder of said forged judgment.

execution”, Doc. # 425:

a. Was a prima facie extortion and racketeering scheme;

b. Perverted $24.30 into the falsified amount of “5,048.60”;

c. Had NOT been witnessed by any U.S. Judge.

Complaint, Doc. ## 282, 288:

CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT & CORRUPT FLORIDA LAW & OFFICIAL RECORDS

“55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of

See attached Exhibit of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED

STATES et al., as filed in U.S. District Court.

DEF. STEELE’S RECKLESS DECEPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT

destroy, alter, and reject. See, e.g., Google and YouTube.

DEF. STEELE OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFFS’ COURT ACCESS – FRAUD ON COURT

publicly recorded “card house of judicial shit”:

Court, covered up, and concealed Government crimes.

intimidation, and injury.

a. Prima facie illegality of the fictitious “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”;

and street land on the Gulf, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), against their will.

DEF. CROOK STEELE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO SILENCE THE PLAINTIFFS

E. Steele in Federal Court.

organizations such as, e.g., silencing opponents, retaliation, intimidation, racketeering,

extortion, and injury.

facially fraudulent “public sale” motion, Doc. # 432.

“Government” and/or Lee County.

“Government shit flies-policy”, Doc. # 434.

IDIDOCY & IMPOSSIBILITY OF “public sale of real property”

INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, which expressly stated the extent of Plaintiff(s)’

Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).

FOR BRIBES, DEF. STEELE MADE A MOCKERY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Government could not be simultaneously “publicly sold”.

BRAZEN FABRICATIONS AND FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC RECORD

been forged by Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson. See Transcript of November 2007

Hearing before Def. Crooked Judge Polster Chappell.

DEF. CRIMINAL STEELE IN CRIMINAL JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION

racketeering and retaliation scheme.

28. Here in essence, the scheme was:

Doc. ## 288, 282, “Third Amended Complaint”.

other Officials to conceal that, e.g.:

retaliation, extortion, racketeering, oppression, bribery, and public corruption.