nh 8 order ecf 111210 motion extension of time

8/8/2019 Nh 8 Order Ecf 111210 Motion Extension of Time

1/38

U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Hampshire (Concord)

USA, Ex Rel et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 1:10-cv-00321-JL

USA et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________________________________/

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

AFTER TIMELY NOTICE OF OBJECTION

RECORD OBJECTION TO 11/23/2010 ENDORSED MAGISTRATE ORDER

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

magistrate order . See International Certified Mail Receipts .

11/19/2010 ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion toExtend Time. Text of Order: The motion is granted in part, to the extent that plaintiffs shall have until December 29, 2010, to effect service ondefendants. The motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and this court is not the proper venue for

plaintiffs to challenge the execution of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal investigation or proceeding, issued by a judicial officer inthe Middle District of Florida. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge LandyaB. McCafferty. (dae) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

DEATH OF DUE PROCESS CONFISCATION, COERCION AND COVER-UP

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

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

is dead .


2/38

2

FAILURE TO ENJOIN IS EXTENDING PROVEN CORRUPTION & COERCION

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

cover-up and concealment of corruption & coercion.

CIVIL RICO ENTITLED PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT CRIMINAL ACTS

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

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

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

PURPORTED criminal investigation OF PRIVILEGED PROSECUTION

5. Here, prosecution was privileged and could not have possibly been subject to criminal investigation . Said prosecution could not have possibly been any credible threat . Here,

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

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

The motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply withFed. R. Civ. P. 65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challengethe execution of a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal investigation or

proceeding, issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida .

THE ORDER LACKED A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION

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

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

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

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

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

e.g.:


3/38

3

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

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

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

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

PROSECUTION WAS PRIVILEGED AND NOT SUBJECT TO criminal investigation

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

privileged activities and could not possibly be deceptively misconstrued as criminal

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

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

a. Fake lot A; and b. Fake block 1 .

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

CROOKED OFFICIALS FORGERIES REMAIN ON THE RECORD

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

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

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

RULE 65, FED. R. CIV. P.

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

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


4/38

4

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

FAILURE TO FILE PLEADINGS MAILED BY INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED MAIL

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

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

International Certified Mail Receipts below.

PLAINTIFF RACKETEERING VICTIMS OBJECTED UNDER THE RULES

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

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

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

record proof of Government racketeering and corruption .

OFFICIALS INCAPACITATED THE PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION VICTIMS

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

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

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

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

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

of, e.g.,

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

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

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

was, e.g.

a. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs incapacitation ;


5/38

5

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

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

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

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

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

DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & INTERFERENCE TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS AWAY

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

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

the Plaintiffs of their well-established most fundamental rights .

RECORD FRAUD ON THE COURT(S)

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

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

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

GRAVITY OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION DEMANDS JUDICIAL BALANCE

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

comply with procedural Rules . Fundamental fairness demands that Government

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

failure .

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


6/38

6

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

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

cannot possibly be any fairness and/or justice.

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

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

human rights deprivations in this and the related Cases:

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

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

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

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

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

unlawful purposes of, e.g.:

a. Intimidation of the Plaintiff Government corruption victims; b. Racketeering and extortion of, e.g., Plaintiffs Gulf-front lands and easements, Lot 15A;c. Extortion of more than $5,000 under false pretenses of frivolity and a purported non-

existent judgment ;d. Retaliation and oppression of the pro se Plaintiff whistleblowers.

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

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

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

without any justification .

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

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

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


7/38

7

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

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

order and/or judicial proceedings;

b. Nolegislator could possibly transfer Plaintiffs unimpeachable record title to Lot 15A

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

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

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

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

25. After the unlawful raid by the Tampa F.B.I., Plaintiffs filed the below Motion for Extensionof Time, because said raid incapacitated the Plaintiff whistleblowers [ Case No. 8:10-mj-

1416 (AEP) ]:

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

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

e.g.:

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

b. Judicial and Government racketeering and extortion ;

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

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

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

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


8/38

8

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

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

are attached .

DEF. OFFICIALS COERCED PLAINTIFFS TO REFRAIN FROM PROSECUTION

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

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

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

PUBLISHED COURT CASES / PROOF OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION & FRAUD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT COVER-UP, RETALIATION & ILLEGAL SEIZURE IN FLORIDA

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

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

equipment essential for Plaintiffs successful litigation and proof of Governmental corruption


9/38

9

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

retaliated against Plaintiff Government corruption victims.

CORRUPT JUDGES/OFFICIALS COVER UP FOR CORRUPT JUDGES IN FLORIDA

30. Here, said search warrant :

a. Originated in said corrupt Court/Government system (Middle District of Florida); b. Was signed by a judicial officer and/or judge presiding over Plaintiffs prosecution of

Defendant fellow Judges for fraud in said corrupt Court (U.S. Magistrate A. E. Porcelli,Tampa);

c. Was yet another fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived Plaintiffs of their fundamental Federal and Florida Constitutional rights to defend against Government,corruption, oppression, and fraud.

FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT(S) FOR RACKETEERING & EXTORTION PURPOSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLAINTIFFS ENTITLEMENT TO SUE & REDRESS THEIR RECORD GRIEVANCES

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

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

Amendments:

a. Without Government intimidation and threats ;

b. Without fear of Government retaliation and racketeering ;

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

Defendant Officials.

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


10/38

10

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

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

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

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

prosecution.

PLEADINGS BY INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED MAIL TO THIS COURT

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

RR813156286DE 82062664 6501 231110 1719 RF634919363DE 82061648 9530 221110 1644

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

This OBJECTION was mailed by international certified priority mail .

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

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

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

which incapacitated the Plaintiff Government corruption victims and disrupted this and

other rightful litigation ;

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

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

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

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

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

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


11/38

11

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

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

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

justice and illegal intimidation.

/s/Dr. Jorg Busse, Private Attorney General;Victim of Government and judicial corruption in Florida, U.S.A.

/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Private Attorney General;Victim of judicial and Government corruption in Florida, U.S.A.

ATTACHMENTS

Rule 65, Fed. R. Civ. P.

Transcript of Corrupted Judicial Proceedings, November 7, 2007, before Crooked Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell

Fraudulent affidavit , instrument # 2009000309382, Lee County, FL

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

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

BY INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED DELIVERY & MAILTo:

U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Hampshire55 Pleasant Street, Clerks Office Concord, NH 03301, UNITED STATES OF AMERICAT: 001.603.225.1423

From:Jennifer Franklin Prescott andDr. Jorg Busse

P.O. Box 1140Naples, FL 34106-1140United States of America


12/38

Search Law School Search Cornell

LII / Legal Information Institute home search find a lawyer donate

main page sea rch | civi l p rocedure ove rview

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

VIII. P ROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES > Rule 65. Prev | Next

(a) Preliminary Injunction.

(1) Notice.

The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverseparty.

(2) Consolidating the Hearing with the Trial on the Merits.

Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction,

the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with thehearing. Even when consolidation is not ordered, evidence that is receivedon the motion and that would be admissible at trial becomes part of the trialrecord and need not be repeated at trial. But the court must preserve anyparty's right to a jury trial.

(b) Temporary Restraining Order.

(1) Issuing Without Notice.

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

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show thatimmediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant

before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

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

(2) Contents; Ex piration.

Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the dateand hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable;state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in theclerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time afterentry not to exceed 14 days that t he court sets, unless before thattime the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverseparty consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must beentered in the record.

(3) Expediting the Preliminary-Injunction Hearing.

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

(4) Motion to Dissolve.

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

Donations cover only20% of our costs.

Notes

Law About ... CivilProcedure

Attorneys: reachinterested clients bysponsoring an LII page

Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders

Eurail GlobalPassesBuy directly fromEurail website.Special Student

Discounts!www.eurail.com/Glob

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

www.law.cornell.edu//Rule65.htm 1/2


13/38

(c) Security.

The court may issue a preliminary injunct ion or a t emporary restraining orderonly if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers properto pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have beenwrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and itsagencies are not required to give security.

(d) Contents and Scope of Every Injunction and RestrainingOrder.

(1) Contents.

Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must:

(A) state the reasons why it issued;

(B) state its terms specifically; and

(C) describe in reasonable detail and not by referring to the complaint orother document the act or acts restrained or required.

(2) Persons Bound.

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

(A) the parties;

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

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

(e) Other Laws Not Modified.

(1) any federal statut e relating t o t emporary restraining orders or preliminaryinjunctions in actions affecting employer and employee;

(2) 28 U.S.C. 2361 , which relates to preliminary injunctions in actions of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader; or

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

(f) Copyright Impoundment.

This rule applies t o c opyright- impoundment proceedings.

Prev | Next

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

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

www.law.cornell.edu//Rule65.htm 2/2


14/38

MA

U.S. District CourtDistrict of New Hampshire (Concord)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00321-JL

USA, Ex Rel et al v. USA et alAssigned to: Judge Joseph N. LaplanteReferred to: Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCaffertyCase in other court: USDC-FL, Middle (Ft. Myers), 2:07-00228-

JES-SPCCause: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

Date Filed: 07/29/2010Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory ActionsJurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff

USA, Ex Rel

Plaintiff

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

Plaintiff

Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott 10 Benning St, #135West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402561 400-3295PRO SE

V.

Defendant

USA

DefendantUS Courts

Defendant

US Custom & Immigration Service

Defendant

Tony West

Defendant

11/29/2010 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:nhd

ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl 1/5


15/38

Beverly B. Martin

Defendant

John Edwin Steele

Defendant

Ryan Barry

Defendant

Charlene Edwards Honeywell

Defendant

Sheri Polster Chappell

Defendant

Kenneth M. Wilkinson

Defendant

Richard A. Lazzara

Defendant

Jack N. Peterson

Defendant

Drew Heathcoat

Defendant

Bettye G. Samuel

Defendant

Stanley F. Birch, Jr.

Defendant

Gerald B. Tjoflat

DefendantSusan H. Black

Defendant

Joel F. Dubina

Defendant

Sherri L. Johnson

Defendant




16/38

Eugene C. Turner

Defendant

Lee County, Florida, Board of Commissioners

Defendant

Ed Carnes

Defendant

John E. Manning

Defendant

Hugh D. Hayes

Defendant

John LeyDefendant

Richard Jessup

Defendant

Diane Nipper

Defendant

Lynn Gerald, Jr.

Defendant

Kenneth L. Ryskamp

Defendant

Charlie Crist

Defendant

Charles Barry Stevens

Defendant

Johnson Engineering, Inc.

Defendant

Mark Allan Pizzo

Defendant

Anne Conway




17/38

Defendant

Charlie Green

Defendant

Reagan Kathleen Russell

Defendant

Richard D. Deboest, II

Defendant

Chene M. Thompson

Defendant

Lee County, Florida, Commission

Date Filed # Docket Text07/29/2010 1 COMPLAINT against all Defendants with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number

14649003479) filed by Jorg Busse, Jennifer Franklin Prescott. (Attachments: # 1Complaint (pages 31-60), # 2 Complaint (pages 61-90), # 3 Complaint (pages 91-120), #4 Complaint (pages 121-150), # 5 Complaint (pages 151-180), # 6 Complaint (pages181-190), # 7 List of Exhibits in Support of Complaint, # 8 Exhibits A - J, # 9 Exhibits K - S, # 10 Exhibits T - X, # 11 Exhibits Y - Z, # 12 Exhibits AA - KK, # 13 Exhibits LL -PP, # 14 Exhibit QQ, # 15 Exhibits RR - TT, # 16 Exhibits UU - VV, # 17 Exhibits WW- ZZ, # 18 Civil Cover Sheet)(jeb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)

08/02/2010 Case assigned to Judge Joseph N. Laplante. The case designation is: 1:10-cv-321-JL.Please show this number with the judge designation on all future pleadings. (jeb) (Entered:08/02/2010)

08/02/2010 NOTICE. This case has been designated for Electronic Case Filing. All further submissionsshall be filed in compliance with the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing.Pro se litigants are not required to file electronically and may continue to file documents in

paper format. Persons filing electronically are strongly encouraged to complete theinteractive training modules available on the courts website. To access these modules, click HERE . (jeb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)

08/02/2010 2 Summons(es) Issued by Mail as to Ryan Barry, Stanley F. Birch, Jr, Susan H. Black, EdCarnes, Sheri Polster Chappell, Joel F. Dubina, Drew Heathcoat, Charlene EdwardsHoneywell, Sherri L. Johnson, Lee County, Florida, Board of Commissioners, LeeCounty, Florida, Commission, John E. Manning, Beverly B. Martin, Jack N. Peterson,Bettye G. Samuel, John Edwin Steele, Charles Barry Stevens, Gerald B. Tjoflat, EugeneC. Turner, USA, Kenneth M. Wilkinson. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECFDesignation (#91))(jeb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)

08/03/2010 3 Summons(es) Issued by Mail as to Anne Conway, Charlie Crist, Richard D. Deboest, II,




18/38

Lynn Gerald, Jr, Charlie Green, Hugh D. Hayes, Richard Jessup, Johnson Engineering,Inc., Richard A. Lazzara, Diane Nipper, Mark Allan Pizzo, Kenneth L. Ryskamp, CheneM. Thompson, Tony West. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECF Designation (#91))(jeb) (Entered: 08/03/2010)

08/04/2010 4 Summons(es) Issued by Mail as to John Ley, Reagan Kathleen Russell, US Courts, USCustom & Immigration Service. (Attachments: # 1 ECF-Notice of ECF Designation(#91))(jeb) (Entered: 08/04/2010)

11/18/2010 5 MOTION to Extend Time to to Serve the Defendants after said FBI raid; compel FBI toreturn plaintiffs' seized computers, equipment, camera, records, and summons; order restraining Defendant Officials and Tampa FBI from any further intimidation andobstruction of justice filed by Jorg Busse. (dae) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

11/19/2010 ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to ExtendTime. Text of Order: The motion is granted in part, to the extent that plaintiffs

shall have until December 29, 2010, to effect service on defendants. The motion isdenied in all other respects. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.

65, and this court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs to challenge the executionof a warrant relating to a pending federal criminal investigation or proceeding,issued by a judicial officer in the Middle District of Florida. So Ordered byMagistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. (dae) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt

11/29/2010 09:11:56

PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:10-cv-00321-JL

Billable Pages: 3 Cost: 0.24




19/38


20/38


21/38


22/38


23/38


24/38


25/38

Tax Year 2010

Next Lower Parcel Number Next Higher Parcel Number Tax Estimator Tax Bills Print

Owner Of Record

BUSSE JORG +PRESCOTT JENNIFER FPO BOX 7651NAPLES FL 34101

Site Address

ACCESS UNDETERMINEDCAPTIVA FL 33924

Legal Description

CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25LOT 15A

Classification / DOR Code

VACANT RESIDENTIAL / 00

[ Viewer ] Tax Map [ Print ]

[ Pictometry Aerial Viewer ]

Property Values (2010 Tax Roll)

Just 25,000

Assessed 25,000

Portability Applied 0

Assessed SOH 25,000

Taxable 25,000

Building 0

Building Features Incl. in bldg value

Land 25,000

Land Features Incl. in land value

SOH Difference 0

Exemptions

Homestead 0

Additional Homestead 0

Widow 0

Widower 0

Disability 0

Wholly 0

Senior 0

Agriculture 0

Attributes

Land Units of Measure LT

Total Number of Land Units 1.00

Frontage 50

Depth 135

Total Number of Buildings 0

Total Bedrooms 0

Total Bathrooms 0

Total Buildings Sq Ft 0

1st Year Building on Tax Roll 0Historic District No

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

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

Lee County Property Appraiser

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

Taxing Authorities

Sales / Transactions

Parcel Numbering History

Solid Waste (Garbage) Roll Data

Elevation Information

Appraisal Details

11/8/2010 Lee County Property Appraiser - Onlin

leepa.org/Display/DisplayParcel.aspx? 1/1


26/38


27/38


28/38


29/38


30/38


31/38


32/38


33/38


34/38


35/38


36/38


37/38

Presseschau zu WikiLeaks

"Massenvernichtungswaffe gegen das Vertrauen"

Die Kom m entatoren der deutschen T ageszeitungen sehen durch die Verffentlichu ngT ausender diplomatischer Dokum ente v or allem die US-Auenpolitik beschdigt. Aber auch

WikiLeaks wird kritisiert: Die Motiv e fr die Enth llungen seien wenig transparent. Zudem werde Vertrauen v ernichtet.

Dazu heit es in der"Sddeutschen Zeitung" : "Nach der V erffentlichung der gesto hlenen Depeschen, Analysen, Handlungsanweisungen und Kommentare drngt sich nun die Frage auf, wie lange die USA noch Frchte ihres diplomatischen Dienstes genieen knnen. Die v on der Internet-Organisation Wikileaks verbreitete Beute eines Datendiebes zerstrt nmlich das Bindegewebe, das die unter Staaten betriebeneKommunikation ausmacht: die Vertraulichkeit. Ohne Vertraulichkeit keine Information, kein Geben undNehmen, kein Zugang. Ohne Information aber auch keine Kenntnis, keine Urteilskraft, keine richtigen

Entscheidungen. Wikileaks hat sich als Massenvernichtungswaffe fr das letzte Quntchen V ertrauenerwiesen."

"An den neuen Enthllungen ist wenig sensationell", findet die"Mitteldeutsch e Zeitung" : "Zumal die Aufgabe jedes diplomatischen Dienstes vo r allem darin besteht, die Heimatregierung mit zutreffenden undungeschminkten Einsichten ber die jeweiligen Gastlnder zu v ersorgen. Dennoch sind alle Beteiligten blogestellt. Und das wird allen Beteuerungen zum Trotz Einfluss haben auf die knftigen Beziehungen. DieUSA haben ihr Gesicht verloren, weil sie das erste Gebot diplomatischer Arbeit gebrochen haben: DiskretioDieses Vertrauen wieder herzustellen, wird schwer sein. A nders als die Berichte von Wikileaks berKriegsverbrechen oder Folter ntzen diese Enthllungen deshalb niemandem."

"Lunte ans Pulverfass legen"

"Eine riesige Blamage fr die amerikanische Diplomatie sind nicht die Inhalte", betont die"Neue Westflische" , "sondern die Tatsache, dass sie an die ffentlichkeit gelangt sind. Mit wie viel kindlichemGlauben an Vorschriftenhrigkeit, Wohlverhalten und Verschlsselungstechnik muss man ausgestattet sein, wenn man im Jahr 201 0 glaubt, ber das Internet verbre itete Daten geheim halten zu knnen? Muss man dasState Department fr so ausgesprochen tumb halten? Man muss wohl, und das ist der eigentliche Skandal."

Die "Landeszeitung" aus Lneburg sieht es hnlich: "Die tiefen Einblicke in die Welt hinter der US-diplomatischen Fassade sind fr westliche Gemter eher harmlos. Peinlich ist der Umgang mit Daten in den

11/30/2010 Presseschau: Kritik an den USA und W

tagesschau.de//wikileakspressescha 1/3


38/38

USA selbst. Wenn hunderttausende Mitarbeiter in US-Behrden Zugriff auf die Daten in internen Netzenhaben, muss man sich darber wundern, dass es nicht schon vo rher Lecks gegeben hat. Der vermeintlicheSpa ber Wikileaks-Enthllungen endet aber dort, wo Aussagen verffentlicht werden von US-Diplomaten wonach einige arabische Herrscher nichts gegen eine Militrintervention der USA zur Zerstrung desiranischen Atompro grammes htten. Denn so wird fahrlssig Lunte ans Pulverfass Nahost gelegt."

"Vertrauen wird zerstrt"

Die Zeitung"Die Welt" kritisiert: "Was Wikileaks nun zerstrt hat, ist die Freiheit des ve rtraulichendiplomatischen Gesprchs. Denn was fr Privatpersonen gilt, gilt auch fr den V erkehr zwischen Staaten:Offenheit im beiderseitigen Umgang ist nur mglich, wenn man darauf vertrauen kann, dass das Gesagte nichmorgen in der ganzen Welt nachlesbar ist. Und noch etwas so llte zu denken geben: Bisher gingen Wikileaks-Enthllungen fast ausschlielich zu Lasten von demokratischen Staaten, die ohnehin ein v ergleichsweisehohes Ma an Transparenz aufweisen. Die inneren Vorgnge der echten sc hwarzen Lcher dieser Erde -Diktaturen wie I ran und Nordkorea - hat Wikileaks aber b isher nicht ans Licht der ffentlichkeit gezerr t. DieFreiheitsfeinde sind es aber, die die 250 .000 US-Depeschen am akribischsten studieren und den grtenNutzen daraus ziehen werden."

Auch der "Weser-Kurier" kann den Enthllungen nichts abgewinnen: "Die Motiv e v on Julian Assange undseinen Mitstreitern sind lngst nicht v on der Transparenz, fr die sie angeblich kmpfen. Zumindest fllt aufdass sie ihre beeindruckenden Fhigkeiten nahezu ausschlielich dazu e insetzen, die US-Regierung zuschwchen. Nun muss man mit einer Supermacht kein Mitleid haben, die durc h eigene Unfhigkeit verwundbar geworden ist. Aber die Frage ist erlaubt, wem eine so v orgefhrte und geschwchte US-Regierntzt - und ob uns das nicht am Ende sehr schadet."

"Wenig originell"

"Warum die Aufregung?", fragt die"Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" mit Blick auf die deutsc he Politik und fhrt weiter aus: "Was Wikileaks aus amerikanischen Archiven ins Internet gepumpt hat, pfeifen, so es ddeutsche Politik angeht, in Berlin die Spatzen vo m Dach. Die Beschreibungen deutscher Politiker in denangeblichen Botschaftsberichten sind, was fr ihre Authentizitt spricht, wenig originell. 'Mutti' risikoscheu Westerwelle kein Auenpolitiker: derartige Befunde hat man schon aus v ielen ranghohen Mndern und mitmancher Ergnzung gehr t. So schreibt nicht nur die amerikanische Diplomatie ber deutschesFhrungspersonal - so denkt und spricht deutsches Fhrungspersonal bereinander."

"Es ist wunderbar, dass wir diese A kten lesen knnen", schwrmt die"Frankfurter Run dschau " . "Sie zeigenuns, wie menschlich-allzumenschlich es auch in der Diplomatie zugeht. Dieser FDP-Mann zum Beispiel, derden Koalitionsverhandlungen sitzt und sein Protokoll gleich der US-Botschaft weitergibt - das hat doch etw

Rhrendes. Nur von ihm mchte ich nicht hren, dass Wikileaks eine Ruberbande ist. Wenn Wikileaks so weitermacht, wird die Internetplattform nicht nur den Regierenden das Regieren erschweren, sondern auchuns das Regiertwerden. Wir Brger werden immer weniger uns darauf hinausreden knnen, wir htten nichtsgewusst. Wir werden genau wissen, und wir werden darum auch v iel strker einbezogen werden in das, wasgetan werden muss. Das Leben wird unbequemer werden. Wir werden uns fter engagieren mssen. Es gilt wieder: Mehr Demokratie wagen!"

11/30/2010 Presseschau: Kritik an den USA und W

nh 8 order ecf 111210 motion extension of time

Documents