Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele

8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele

1/32

DEFENDANT JOHN E. STEELES RACKETEERING OF RECORD

1. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott are suing Defendant Racketeer John EdwinSteele for, e.g., racketeering, extortion, retaliation, fraud, and reckless deprivations.

JOHN E. STEELES EXTORTION ON THE PUBLIC RECORD

2. 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, 425, 365, 386, 288, 282, 1, 25.RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELES RECORD RETALIATION

3. By criminal means of falsifying a fake $5,048.60 judgment, Defendant Corrupt JudgeSteele retaliated against Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Doc. # 434.

RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELES CONCEALMENT OF $24.30 JUDGMENT

4. Defendant U.S. Racketeer John E. Steele fraudulently concealed the publicly recorded$24.30money judgment issued as mandate June 11, 2009. See Doc. # 365.

CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT AND RETALIATE

5. Racketeer John E. Steele conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants toextort $5,048.60, Dr. Jorg Busses and Jennifer Franklin Prescotts riparian real property,and Hundreds of Acres of land and implied private easements under, e.g., false and

fraudulentpretenses offake 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 FAKEPARCELSANDJUDGMENT

6. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele could not locate said fake land parcels onthe 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision in LeeCounty Plat Book 3, Page 25.

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL LACK OF ANYRECORD OF FAKE LAND PARCELS

7. Def. Extortionist John E. Steele conspired with other Officials and Defendants tofraudulently conceal the lackof any $5,048.60judgment and said fake land parcels.

DOCUMENTATION OF FINAL $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT (JUNE 15, 2009)8. The publicly recorded$24.30money judgment issued as mandate June 11, 2009. See

Doc. ## 365 (pp. 1) documented:a. In-House Reproduction of Appellees Brief;b. No. of Original Pages: 18;c. Total No. of Documents Reproduced: 11 (9);d. Total No. ofCopies: 198;e. Costs Requested: $29.70.f. CostsAllowed: $24.30.

9. Here, no sanctions, no fees, and no $5,048.60 had ever been documented.DEF. RACKETEER STEELES FALSIFCATION OF writ of execution, DOC. # 425

10. In the record absence of any $5,048.60 judgment against Dr. Jorg Busse, no witness andno United States Judge appeared on the face of the falsified writ of execution, Doc. #425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.

DEF. RACKETEER JOHN EDWIN STEELES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

11. For criminal and illegal purposes of concealing racketeering and extortion, DefendantCrooked 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, theCourt desires a response from plaintiff


2/32


3/32

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1


4/32

2

RECORDED & PUBLISHED RACKETEERING & EXTORTION

$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATES JUNE 11, 2009

12. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment issued as mandate June 11, 2009. SeeDoc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1).

$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT UNDER FRAP 39, COSTS13. The $24.30money judgment was awarded pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P.

COPY OF $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT, DOC. # 386-314. A copy of the final$24.30 money judgment issued as mandate was included in DefendantAppellees facially fraudulent motion for issuance of a writ of execution, Doc. # 386. Seepages 10 and 24.

15. Of the $29.70 requested in Racketeer Wilkinsons Bill of Costs, Doc. # 386, the 11th

Circuitallowed $24.30 forCosts under FRAP 39:

$24.30 WERE THE ALLOWED ACTUAL AND NECESSARY COSTS

16. Here, $24.30 were the allowed actual and necessary costs.

$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL ON JUNE 15, 200917. Pursuant to Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1), the U.S. District Court received and filed the$24.30money judgment on June 15, 2009:

RACKETEERING: EXTORTION OF MONEY:

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL MOTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NEVERFILED

18. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson extorted money, Doc. # 386, by fraudulently pretendingaRule 38 motion, which Wilkinson knew he had neverfiled:

The Judgment4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh

Circuit Rule 27-4 Said Rule 27-4 motion could not havepossibly been for a frivolous appeal.


5/32

3

THE 11th

CIRCUIT HAD CLOSED CASE ON 06/11/2009

19. The 11th

Circuit had CLOSED THE CASE on 06/11/2009:

BRIBERY

20. 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 $24.30mandate after the CASE HAD BEEN CLOSED and the 11th Circuit had LOSTJURISDICTION.

DEFENDANTS APPELLEES RACKETEETING AND EXTORTION WERE ILLEGAL

21. Def. Wilkinsons record racketeering and extortion were illegal and unauthorized by law.

RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:

FED.R.CIV.P. 54; LOCAL RULE 4.18; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1924; FRAP 39

22. 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 feespreserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separatemotion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry ofjudgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filingof a timely application pursuant to this rule.

DEF. WILKINSON VIOLATED REQUIREMENTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1920-1924

The $24.30 money judgment was unauthorized by law. Itemization was for$24.30. No documentation for$24.30. The record unauthorizedBill of Costs was for$24.30. Bill of Costs must be verifiedas 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 andextortion scheme O.R. 569/875, and facially forged land parcels 00A0 and00001. See RICO Complaint in U.S. District Court.

RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:

FRAP 39 [FED.R.APP.P. 39]

23. A copy ofRule 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 ofjudgment file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized andverified bill of costs.

24. 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 ofCosts. Date signed was 3-17-2009, which was issued on: Jun 11 2009, Doc. ## 365,386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.


6/32

4

25. No proof of service existed on the record.26. The 14 days after entry of judgment on March 5, 2009 had expired on March 19,

2009.APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009

27. An appeal becomes final on the date themandate is issued. Here, the judgment enteredMarch 5, 2009 was issued as mandate Jun 11 2009.

28. Since the clerkhad responsibilities for entering a judgment, Fed.R.App.P. 36, and fortaxation of costs, Fed.R.App.P. 39(d), the duty to issue the mandate contemplated by Rule 41was the responsibility of the clerk.

29. The Eleventh Circuit has held that the action becomes final on the date the district courtreceives the appellate court's mandate. See U.S. v. Lasteed, 832 F.2d 1240-43 (11

thCir.

1987). The District Court received and filed the Appellate Courts June 11, 2009 mandate onJUN 15 2009 when the Appeal, No. 2008-13170-BB, became final. Thereafter, the 11thCircuit had no jurisdiction as a matter of law. Here, there have been publicly recordedracketeering and extortion by Government Agents.

NO 11th

CIRCUIT JURISDICTIONAFTER JUN 15, 2009

30. Jurisdiction followed themandate. 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 thisCourt, returning it to the forum whence it came. It was the date on which the $24.30mandate was received and filed, Jun 15, 2009, which determined when the district courtreacquired jurisdiction for further proceedings.

31. Issuance of the $24.30mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Courts receipt and filingon June 15, 2009 was an event of considerable institutional significance. A mandate couldNOT possibly simply "issue", because itshould have been issued, or because the panel mayhave intended it to issue, or because the statute commands it to issue. See Fed.R.App.P. 27,41.

ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF FEDERAL LAWSUIT, CIVIL RICO

32. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt by reference their Federal action in this published GovernmentRacketeering and Corruption Notice.

WILKINSONS RACKETEERING, RETALIATION, AND COERCION

33. 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

34. Wilkinson coerced Plaintiff Appellant to refrain from rightful prosecution for prima faciecriminal and illegal purposes ofconcealing crimes and covering up.

CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL FALSIFICATIONS

35. Just like Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson had falsifiedfake land parcels, and a fake real property transaction, O.R. 569/875, Defendant Forger Wilkinson falsified a fakejudgment; July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant JORG BUSSE in theamount of $5,048.60. See, e.g., INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier CountyCircuit Court.

36. Here, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson could not have possibly heldthat which had neverexisted. Here, said $24.30 money judgment had been the final mandate, and the faciallynull and void writ of execution, Doc. # 425, was a prima facie racketeering andextortions 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.


7/32

4 - 2212/1/09

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 preservedby appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filednot later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal fromthe judgment shall not postpone the filing of a timely application pursuant to this rule.


8/32

Search Law School Search Corne

LII / Legal Information Institutehome search find a lawyer donate

m ain page faq inde x se arch

U.S. Code

Ask A Lawyer

Online.

Get an Answer ASAP!

Donations cover only

20% of ou r costs.

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

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

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 123 > 1924

1924. Verification of bill of costs

Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of cost or disbursement shall atta ch thereto an affidavit, made by himself or by his

duly authorized attorney or agent having knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case and

that the services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed.

Franchise

Attorney

Full Service

Franchise Law

Practice Scott

Weber-Partner

(813) 472-7892www.franchiselegalteam

Employment Law

AttorneySexual

Harassment,

Unemployment,Overtime,

Minimum Wage

239.262.2141www.WeldonRothman.c

Adams &

Associates PAKnow your

Bankruptcy

Rights. Call for

Free Consultation.www.richardadamslaw.c

Randall Spivey -

AttorneySpivey Law Firm -

Personal Injury &

Wrongful Deathwww.spiveylaw.com

7/30/2010 United States Code: Title 28,1924. Ver

cornell.edu//usc_sec_28_0000192 1


9/32

Search Law School Search Corne

LII / Legal Information Institutehome search find a lawyer donate

main page search | civi l procedure overv iew

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

VII. JUDGMENT > Rule 54. Prev | Nex

(a) Definition; Form.

Judgment as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which

an appeal lies. A judgment should not include recitals of pleadings, a master's

report, or a record of prior proceedings.

(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple

Parties.

When an action presents more than one claim for relief whether as a claim,

counterclaim, c rossclaim, or third-party c laim or when multiple parties are

involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more,

but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that

there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision,

however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights

and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any

of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a

judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

(c) Demand for Judgment; Relief to Be Granted.

A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is

demanded in the pleadings. Every other f inal judgment should grant the relief

to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief

in its pleadings.

(d) Costs; Attorneys Fees.

(1) Costs Other than Attorneys Fees.

Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise,

costs other than attorney's fees should be allowed to the prevailing

party. But c osts against the United States, its officers, and its agencies

may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costs

on 14 days' notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may

review the clerk's action.

(2) Attorneys Fees.

(A) Claim to Be by Motion. A claim for attorney's fees and relatednontaxable expenses must be made by motion unless the substantive law

requires those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages.

(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute or a court order

provides otherwise, the motion must:

(i) be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment;

(ii) specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling

the movant to the award;

(iii) state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it; and

(iv) disclose, if the court so orders, the terms of any agreement about

fees for the services for which the claim is made.

Donations cover only

20% of our costs.

Notes

Law About ... Civil

Procedure

Attorneys: reach

interested c lients by

sponsoring an LII page

Rule 54. Judgments; Costs

Divorce Attorney

SW FLAMartin Law Firm,

P.L. Divorce

Attorney in Cape

Coralwww.mlg-legal.com

Adams &

Associates PAKnow your

Bankruptcy

Rights. Call for

Free Consultation.www.richardadamslaw.c

Don't Pay Debt

CollectorsSue Harassing

Debt Collectors.

Make Them PayYou. 100% Free &

Fast HelpWeStopDebtCollectors.

Divorce

Attorneys

Life is Better after

Divorce 30 years

combined

experiencewww.roberts-robold.com

7/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule

www.law.cornell.edu//Rule54.htm 1


10/32


11/32


12/32

Buy Document Now

United States v. Lasteed

U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

Citation Number available at www.versuslaw.com

November 24, 1987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

RONALD ALBERT LASTEED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

F. Lee Bailey, Daniel Patrick Leonard Bailey & Fishman, for Appe llant.

Leon B. Kellner, U.S. Attorney, Samuel Rosenthal, Chief, Criminal Appe llate Section, Department o f Justice, Joel M. Gershowitz,

Department of Justice, for Appellee.

Hill and Vance, Circuit Judges, and Propst,*fn* District Judge.

Author: Vance

Vance, Circuit Judge:

This case presents an intricate timing issue involving a retrial, an interlocutory appea l followed by an intercircuit transfer, and an

uncertain period of excludable de lay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161. The que stion is whe ther the 70 day period

following a mistrial within which a defendant must be tried again begins to run when the court of appeals issues its mandate, or

when the d istrict court receives the mandate. We affirm the district court's ruling in this case that the clock begins to run against the

government upon the d istrict court's receipt of the mandate .

I.

Appellant Ronald Lasteed was indicted along w ith Joseph Peeples for mail and w ire fraud, inducing interstate travel in execution of a

fraudulent scheme, and consp iracy to commit these offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1342, 1343, 2314, and 371. Appellant was

tried originally in October, 1984 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On October 10, 1984 the district

court declared a mistrial because of prosecutorial misconduct. In August, 1985 the district court in Texas denied defendant's motion

to dismiss,*fn1 but granted defendant's motion to change venue to the Un ited States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida. Defendant took an interlocutory appeal of the Texas district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The United States Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, refusing to d ismiss the indictment. The Fifth Circuit issued its mandate on March 13, 1986.

Appellant contends tha t the Speedy Trial Act's 70 day period commenced on that date .

The district court in Florida d id not receive the Fifth Circuit's mandate until May 19, 1986, more than two months after it was

issued.*fn2 The government contends tha t the Speedy Trial Act's 70 day period commenced on tha t date. On June 6 defendant filed

a motion to dismiss on Speedy Trial Act grounds, which the district court denied on June 23.

At the second trial, there was evidence that appellant had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to obtain money from investors by

falsely representing that he had invented a process for transforming wate r into combustible fuel.*fn3 Appellant called the product of

this process "Ionagen," and claimed it was a gasoline substitute.*fn4 There w as evidence that appellant made numerous other

false statements and misrepresentations relating to his education, background, other investors in the Ionagen process, and

governmental interest in his work. The prosecution also produced various wire transmissions and recordings of meetings between

appe llant and Al Hill, Jr., a potential investor in the scheme.

II.

7/29/2010 FindACase | United States v. Lasteed

findacase.com//wfrmDocViewer.aspx 1


13/32

2JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as pry local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of inhe civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an X in One Box for P(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant

u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF D

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated orPrincipal Place u 4

of Business In This State

u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated andPrincipal Place u 5

Defendant(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6

Foreign Country

V. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTE

u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 610 Agriculture u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 400 State Reapportionm

u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 362 Personal Injury - u 620 Other Food & Drug u 423 Withdrawal u 410 Antitrust

u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice u 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 u 430 Banks and Banking

u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 u 450 Commerce

u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability u 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS u 460 Deportation

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander u 368 Asbestos Personal u 640 R.R. & Truck u 820 Copyrights u 470 Racketeer Influence

u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers Injury Product u 650 Airline Regs. u 830 Patent Corrupt Organizatio

u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability u 660 Occupational u 840 Trademark u 480 Consumer Credit

Student Loans u 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health u 490 Cable/Sat TV

(Excl. Veterans) u 345 Marine Product u 370 Other Fraud u 690 Other u 810 Selective Service

u 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liabil ity u 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 850 Securities/Commod

of Veterans Benefits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 380 Other Personal u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange

u 160 Stockholders Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act u 862 Black Lung (923) u 875 Customer Challenge

u 190 Other Contract Product Liability u 385 Property Damage u 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410

u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Product Liability u 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting u 864 SSID Title XVI u 890 Other Statutory Acti

u 196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) u 891 Agricultural Acts

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS u 892 Economic Stabilizat

u 210 Land Condemnation u 441 Voting u 510 Motions to Vacate u 790 Other Labor Litigation u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff u 893 Environmental Mat

u 220 Foreclosure u 442 Employment Sentence u 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) u 894 Energy Allocation A

u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act u 871 IRSThird Party u 895 Freedom of Informa

u 240 Torts to Land Accommodations u 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act

u 245 Tort Product Liability u 444 Welfare u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION u 900Appeal of Fee Determ

u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access

Employment u 550 Civil Rights u 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice

u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee u 950 Constitutionality of

Other u 465 Other Immigration State Statutes

u 440 Other Civil Rights Actions

V. ORIGINTransferred fromanother district(specify)

Appeal to DJudge fromMagistrateJudgment

(Place an X in One Box Only)

u 1 OriginalProceeding

u 2 Removed fromState Court

u 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

u 4 Reinstated orReopened

u 5 u 6 MultidistrictLitigation

u 7

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY(See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

NITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE ANDNNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER

RANKLIN PRESCOTT, STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSS

R. JORG BUSSE AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JENNIFERRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURTS,UNITED STATES CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE, TONWEST, BEVERLY B. MARTIN, JOHN EDWIN STEELE, RYAN

WASHINGTON, D.C

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

18USC1964,18USC1961-1968,18USC1341,4th,7th,14th,1st,5th,11th U.S. Const.Amend. Civil Rights Ac

Racketeering/Civil RICO, Corruption, Obstruction of Justice, Extortion of Property & Money; 4th, 7th, 14th, 1s

19,000,000.00

07/27/2010 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS /S/DR. J. BUSSE /S/J. FRANKLIN PRESCO


14/32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER

FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN

PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT ASPRIVATE ATTORNEY(S) GENERAL,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 1-2010-cv-000_____

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURTS, UNITED STATES

CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE, TONY WEST, BEVERLY B. MARTIN,JOHN EDWIN STEELE, RYAN BARRY, CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL,

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, RICHARD A.

LAZZARA, JACK N. PETERSON, RYAN BARRY, DREW HEATHCOAT, BETTYEG. SAMUEL, STANLEY F. BIRCH, JR, GERALD B. TJOFLAT, SUSAN H. BLACK,JOEL F. DUBINA, SHERRI L. JOHNSON, EUGENE C. TURNER, LEE COUNTY,

FL, COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS, ED CARNES, JOHN E. MANNING,

U.S. RACKETEERING AGENTS, HUGH D. HAYES, JOHN LEY, RICHARDJESSUP, DIANE NIPPER, LYNN GERALD, JR., KENNETH L. RYSKAMP,

CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES BARRY STEVENS, JOHNSON ENGINEERING,

INC., MARK ALLAN PIZZO, ANNE CONWAY, CHARLIE GREEN, REAGANKATHLEEN RUSSELL, RICHARD D. DEBOEST, II, CHENE M. THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND $19,000,000.00__________________________________________________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION

IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT,

20TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE & COLLIER COUNTIES, FL, AND OF

UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL ACTS BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS & OFFICIALS

IN THEIR PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES OUTSIDE ANY IMMUNITY

COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1964, 1961-1968

COMPLAINT OF GOVERNMENTS MALICIOUS CIRCULAR ARGUMENT

FOR PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, AND RETALIATION:

THE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN ALLEGATIONS ARE FRIVOLOUS.

THEREFORE THE CASE IS FIXED AS FRIVOLOUS.

REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HAGUE

[PAGES TOTAL: 196 + 213 (Exhibits)]


15/32


16/32


17/32


18/32


19/32


20/32


21/32

FRAP 39. Costs

(a) Against Whom Assessed. The following rules apply unless the law provides or the court

orders otherwise:

(1) if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against the appellant, unless the parties agree

otherwise;

(2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;

(3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;

(4) if a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed

only as the court orders.

(b) Costs For and Against the United States. Costs for or against the United States, its agency,

or officer will be assessed under Rule 39(a) only if authorized by law.

(c) Costs of Copies. Each court of appeals must, by local rule, fix the maximum rate for taxing

the cost of producing necessary copies of a brief or appendix, or copies of records

authorized by Rule 30(f). The rate must not exceed that generally charged for such work

in the area where the clerks office is located and should encourage economical methods

of copying.

(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.

(2) Objections must be filed within 14 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court

extends the time.

(3) The clerk must prepare and certify an itemized statement of costs for insertion in the

mandate, but issuance of the mandate must not be delayed for taxing costs. If the

mandate issues before costs are finally determined, the district clerk must upon the

circuit clerks request add the statement of costs, or any amendment of it, to the

mandate.

(e) Costs on Appeal Taxable in the District Court. The following costs on appeal are taxable

in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule:

(1) the preparation and transmission of the record;

(2) the reporters transcript, if needed to determine the appeal;

Rev.: 12/09 154 FRAP 39


22/32

(3) premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending

appeal; and

(4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal.

(As amended Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Mar. 10, 1986, eff. July 1, 1986; Apr. 24, 1998,

eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

* * * *

11th Cir. R. 39-1 Costs. In taxing costs for printing or reproduction and binding pursuant to FRAP

39(c) the clerk shall tax such costs at rates not higher than those determined by the clerk from time

to time by reference to the rates generally charged for the most economical methods of printing or

reproduction and binding in the principal cities of the circuit, or at actual cost, whichever is less.

Unless advance approval for additional copies is secured from the clerk, costs will be taxed only

for the number of copies of a brief and record excerpts or appendix required by the rules to be filed

and served, plus two copies for each party signing the brief.

All costs shall be paid and mailed directly to the party to whom costs have been awarded. Costs

should not be mailed to the clerk of the court.

11th Cir. R. 39-2 Attorneys Fees.

(a) Time for Filing. Except as otherwise provided herein or by statute or court order, an

application for attorneys fees must be filed with the clerk within 14 days after the time to file a

petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc expires, or within 14 days after entry of an order disposing

of a timely petition for rehearing or denying a timely petition for rehearing en banc, whichever is

later. For purposes of this rule, the term attorneys fees includes fees and expenses authorized bystatute, but excludes damages and costs sought pursuant to FRAP 38, costs taxed pursuant to FRAP

39, and sanctions sought pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-4.

(b) Required Documentation. An application for attorneys fees must be supported by a

memorandum showing that the party seeking attorneys fees is legally entitled to them. The

application must also include a summary of work performed, on a form available from the clerk,

supported by contemporaneous time records recording all work for which a fee is claimed. An

affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the information contained in the application and

demonstrating the basis for the hourly rate requested must also accompany the application.

Exceptions may be made only to avoid an unconscionable result. If contemporaneous time records

are not available, the court may approve only the minimum amount of fees necessary, in the courtsjudgment, to adequately compensate the attorney.

Rev.: 12/09 155 FRAP 39


23/32

(c) Objection to Application. Any party from whom attorneys fees are sought may file an

objection to the application. An objection must be filed with the clerk within 14 days after service

of the application. The party seeking attorneys fees may file a reply to the objection within 10 days

after service of the objection.

(d) Motion to Transfer. Any party who is or may be eligible for attorneys fees on appeal may,

within the time for filing an application provided by this rule, file a motion to transfer consideration

of attorneys fees on appeal to the district court or administrative agency from which the appeal was

taken.

(e) Remand for Further Proceedings. When a reversal on appeal, in whole or in part, results in

a remand to the district court for trial or other further proceedings (e.g., reversal of order granting

summary judgment, or denying a new trial), a party who may be eligible for attorneys fees on appeal

after prevailing on the merits upon remand may, in lieu of filing an application for attorneys fees

in this court, request attorneys fees for the appeal in a timely application filed with the district court

upon disposition of the matter on remand.

11th Cir. R. 39-3 Fee Awards to Prevailing Parties Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

(a) An application to this court for an award of fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2412(d)(1)(B) must be filed within the time specified in the statute. The application must identify

the applicant, show the nature and extent of services rendered, that the applicant has prevailed, and

shall identify the position of the United States Government or an agency thereof which the applicant

alleges was not substantially justified.

(b) An application to the court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) shall be upon the factual record

made before the agency, which shall be filed with this court under the procedures established in

FRAP 11 and associated circuit rules. Unless the court establishes a schedule for filing formal briefs

upon motion of a party, such proceedings shall be upon the application papers, together with suchsupporting papers, including memorandum briefs, as the appellant shall submit within 14 days of

filing of the record of agency proceedings and upon any response filed by the United States in

opposition thereto within the succeeding 14 days.

* * * *

I.O.P. -

1. Time - Extensions. A bill of costs is timely if filed within 14 days of entry of judgment. Judgment

is entered on the opinion filing date. The filing of a petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing

en banc does not extend the time for filing a bill of costs. A motion to extend the time to file a billof costs may be considered by the clerk.

2. Costs for or Against the United States. When costs are sought for or against the United States,

the statutory or other authority relied upon for such an award must be set forth as an attachment

to the Bill of Costs.

Rev.: 12/09 156 FRAP 39


24/32

3. Reproduction of Statutes, Rules, and Regulations. Costs will be taxed for the reproduction of

statutes, rules, and regulations in conformity with FRAP 28(f). Costs will not be taxed for the

reproduction of papers not required or allowed to be filed pursuant to FRAP 28 and 30 and the

corresponding circuit rules, even though the brief, appendix, or record excerpts within which said

papers are included was accepted for filing by the clerk.

Rev.: 12/09 157 FRAP 39


25/32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JORG BUSSE

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEECOUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTYPROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDABOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNALIMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OFFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION,

Defendants.___________________________________

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants

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 defendants

motion.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:



26/32

Plaintiff may file one response to defendants 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.

Copies:PlaintiffCounsel of record

-2-



27/32

-17-

(Doc. #418) on January 11, 2010. The one page document is

essentially a Notice of Filing and will be construed as such and

denied. The attached Motion has the case number 2:09-cv-791-FTM-

36SPC, which case is currently pending in the Fort Myers Division.

Any motions seeking relief in that case should be filed in that

case only.

(31) Plaintiff filed a virtually identical one page document

as Document #418 which attaches a filing for case number 2:09-cv-

791-FTM-36SPC. (Doc. #419.) Any motions seeking relief in that

case should be filed in that case only. This document is construed

as a Notice of Filing and denied.

(32) Plaintiff filed a virtually identical one page document

as Documents #418 and #419 which attaches a filing for case number

2:09-cv-791-FTM-36SPC. (Doc. #420.) Any motions seeking relief in

that case should be filed in that case only. This document is

construed as a Notice of Filing and denied.

It is accordingly

FURTHER ORDERED:

1. Until further Order, the Clerk shall no longer accept any

further filings, related or unrelated to this specific case, by Ms.

Prescott or Mr. Busse, for filing in this closed case, except for

a single Notice of Appeal from this Order.

2. The Emergency Motions for Relief From Extrinsic Fraud,

Fraud on Courts, and Fraudulent Judgment & Execution Emergency



28/32

-18-

Motion to Enjoin Fraudulent Judgments and Execution of Fraudulent

Judgments Pursuant to Independent Action(s) for Relief Such as Case

9:09-cv-82359-KLR, FLSD Notice of No Authority to Enforce

Fraudulent Judgment (Doc. #389) is construed as response to the

pending Motion for Writ of Execution.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 26th day of

January, 2010.

Copies:

Parties of record



29/32

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 OFFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION,

Defendants.

___________________________________

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiff Dr.

Jorg Busses most recent filings, starting on December 3, 2009.

The Motions and Notices are addressed as appropriate and as

provided below. The Court notes that the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals has already dismissed the various Notices of Appeal (Docs.

#388, #390, #392, #393) filed in this case for failure to pay the

filing fee. (Doc. #421.)

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1)Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal and Fraud on Court

Notice of Criminal Case Fixing, Extrinsic Fraud, Bribery as Proven



30/32


31/32


32/32

Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele

Documents

Transcript of Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele