notice of appeal re 21
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
1/12
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDAFORT 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.; JOHNSONENGINEERING, INC.,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL & PUBLIC CORRUPTION
_______________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER, DOC. # 21, 06/11/10
1. Hereby, the Plaintiffs appeal from order, Doc. 21, Filed 06/11/10, and object to record
public CORRUPTION, BRIBERY, and EXTORTION under color of facially fake law
and/or resolution O.R. 569/875, which of course have been EMERGENCIES:
2. Defendant crooked Judge Charlene E. Honeywell disqualified herself and fraudulently
concealed prima facie Government CORRUPTION & EXTORTION scheme O.R.
569/875 under color of authority. See, e.g., Doc. ## 282; 288; 93-1; 2:07-cv-228-JES-SPC.
___________________________________
/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
Governmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, Plaintiff,pro se
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480; T: 561-400-3295____________________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M.
Judicial Corruption & Crime Victim; Plaintiff,pro se, [email protected]
State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor;
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
2/12
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 93-1 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 14
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
3/12
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 93-1 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 14
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
4/12
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 93-1 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 14
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
5/12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION
JORG BUSSE; JENNIFER FRANKLIN
PRESCOTT,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 2:10-CV-89-CEH-TGW
JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTERCHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M.WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON;GERALD BARD TJOFLAT; RICHARDJESSUP; JUDGE BIRCH; JUDGE DUBINA;RICHARD A. LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST;
LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENTBOARD; LORI RUTLAND; EXECUTIVETITLE CO.; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
Defendants.
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
NOW COMES the United States of America, by and through its
undersigned attorneys, and hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint as frivolous and barred by absolute immunity. A
memorandum in support is included herein.
BACKGROUND
This Court, unfortunately, is all too familiar with
Plaintiffs grievances and litigious history. A brief synopsis
is set forth herein, but a more thorough history of Plaintiffs
filings can be found in the Governments Motion to Dismiss in
Busse VII, No. 2:09-CV-791 [DE-69], and this Courts Order
entered on June 23, 2010 [DE-213].
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 8
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
6/12
Starting in 2007, Plaintiff Jorg Busse and others began a
campaign against Lee County, Florida, and other persons and
entities, alleging that their property in the Cayo Costa
subdivision had been illegally taken. Plaintiffs filed a
complaint with this Court alleging Constitutional deprivations.
Busse I, No. 2:07-CV-228, affd 317 Fed. Appx. 395 (11th Cir.
Mar. 5, 2009). Plaintiffs first case was not facially improper,
but after a full and fair opportunity to litigate their case,
Plaintiffs complaint was dismissed as unripe because Plaintiffs
had not availed themselves of state remedies. Plaintiffs then
persisted to file lawsuit after lawsuit now totaling nine
separate complaints attempting to re-litigate the same
constitutional claims and adding allegations of an ever-growing
conspiracy theory of fraud and corruption against anyone involved
in his previous lawsuits who opposed him.
All of Plaintiffs lawsuits except for this case and one
after-filed Complaint (No. 2:10-CV-390) have been dismissed,
often summarily, as wanting jurisdiction or meritless. Each of
Plaintiffs numerous appeals from this Courts decisions have
resulted in affirmation or dismissal. The Complaint in this case
is based on the same core facts and allegations that this Court
has rejected in each of the past cases, including Busse V, No.
2:09-CV-341, which also named each of the federal defendants
named herein, asserted the same unsupported allegations of
2
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 2 of 8
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
7/12
conspiracy and corruption, and which was summarily dismissed with
prejudice by Judge Lazzara as patently frivolous, vexatious, and
harassing with little or no chance of success [Busse V, DE-17].
ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiffs complaint is patently frivolous and barred byres judicata.
Insofar as this case involves the same parties and
indistinguishable claims as Plaintiffs prior lawsuits that have
been dismissed with prejudice, including, inter alia, Busse V,
No. 2:09-CV-341, the Court should likewise dismiss the instant
complaint on grounds of res judicata and frivolity. See Davila
v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2003)
(res judicata absolutely bars re-litigation of claims after a
final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction
where there is an identity of parties and the actions are based
on the same factual predicate). The frivolity of this lawsuit is
further evidenced by the sheer volume of filings that this Court
and the named defendants have been compelled to expend valuable
time and resources responding to; the Plaintiffs utter contempt
of this Courts authority, principles of res judicata, and the
rule of law; the scurrilous and delusory accusations lodged
against judicial officers and other irreproachable public
servants; and Plaintiffs inability to state a coherent claim
despite their painfully obvious familiarity with our Constitution
and judicial system.
3
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 3 of 8
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
8/12
B. Plaintiffs yet again fail to articulate a plausible claimupon which relief can be granted.
As this Court noted in the sound and cogent analysis of the
Busse litigation contained in its June 23, 2010, Order [Busse
VII, DE-213, at pp. 20-21], Plaintiffs allegations, to the
extent any sense can be made of them, are essentially criminal in
nature. In that same Order, the Court has already analyzed and
explained why Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the
various constitutional provisions upon which they rely. The only
other vehicle for charging essentially criminal conduct in a
civil forum is a suit under the civil provisions of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (civil RICO), 18
U.S.C. 1964(c).1
Complaints asserting civil RICO claims must comply not only
with the plausibility criteria articulated in Twombly and Iqbal
but also with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)s heightened pleading
standard. American Dental Assn v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283,
--- (11th Cir. 2010). As the Court previously noted, Plaintiffs
repetitious and voluminous pleadings are convoluted and
incomprehensible, contain[] incoherent and rambling claims of
alleged wrongdoing, and consist of conclusory statements
The case of Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed. Appx. 231 (11th1
Cir. 2008), a matter to which the Busse cases have frequentlybeen analogized [see, e.g., Busse V, DE-17], was a civil RICOcase filed against every judge and other governmental official(totaling 129 defendants) that plaintiff imagine[d to] have donehim wrong. Id. at 235.
4
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 8
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
9/12
wholly lacking a factual basis [Busse VII, DE-213, at pp. 12,
15, 18]. The Complaint in this case consists of more of the same
incoherent drivel, and fails to buttress any of the sensational
and outlandish accusations already presented to and decided by
the Court with the kind of additional factual support needed to
plead a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Consequently, this case should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
C. Even assuming the truth of the allegations, Plaintiffscivil claims are barred by the doctrine of absoluteimmunity.2
Few doctrines [are] more solidly established at common law
than the immunity of judges from liability for damages from acts
committed within their judicial jurisdiction. Pierson v. Ray,
386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). Judicial immunity applies even
when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly,
id. at 554, and prevails even over allegations of bribery and
conspiracy such as Plaintiffs assert here, see Sparks v. Duval
County Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976, 978 (5th Cir. 1979). Judicial
immunity provides judges with a blanket immunity from civil
liability, to include civil liability under RICO, for any
Insofar as this is an official capacity suit properly2
brought against the United States and not the individual federalofficers, the United States may assert any defense based uponjudicial immunity that would otherwise be available to theindividual officer. See 28 U.S.C. 2674.
5
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 5 of 8
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
10/12
judicial act over which they may exercise jurisdiction. Wilson
v. Bush, 196 Fed. Appx. 796, 799 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Glick
v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754 (7th Cir. 1986).
Likewise, [o]fficials charged with the duty of executing a
facially valid court order enjoy absolute quasi-judicial immunity
from liability for damages in a suit challenging conduct
prescribed by that order. King v. Thornburg, 762 F.Supp. 336,
341 (S.D. Ga. 1991). Because absolute quasi-judicial immunity
derives from judicial immunity, it applies whenever a Deputy U.S.
Marshal executes a judicial order for which the issuing judge
would be immune from liability. Id.
In the instant Complaint, Plaintiffs continue their
insidious attack on the judicial orders that were issued on the
merits of his initial case, the sanctions that were imposed by
the Eleventh Circuit for pursuing a frivolous appeal, and the
writ of execution that was issued to enforce the judgment. [See
Compl., DE-1,passimreferences to the fraudulent orders and
writ of execution]. The entry of orders, sanctions, and writs
of execution are quintessential judicial functions over which the
named judicial defendants would have absolute judicial immunity
from civil suit. Therefore, the claims arising out of the
judicial acts of Judges Dubina, Tjoflat, Birch, Steele, Lazarra,
and Chappell should be dismissed. Deputy Marshal Richard
Jessups primary involvement in this case appears to be related
6
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 6 of 8
-
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
11/12
to the performance of his duty to serve Busse with the writ of
execution. [Busse I, DE-429.] Accordingly, Deputy Jessup would
be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and the claim arising out
of his acts should likewise be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the
Court dismiss Plaintiffs complaint.
Date: June 30, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
TONY WESTASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Matthew L. FesakMATTHEW L. FESAK
Special Attorney andAssistant United States AttorneyCivil Division310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800Raleigh, NC 27601-1461Telephone: (919) 856-4530Facsimile: (919) 856-4821E-Mail: [email protected]. Bar No. 35276
7
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 7 of 8
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/9/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 21
12/12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that I have this 30th day of June, 2010,
served a copy of the foregoing upon the below-listed party
electronically or by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail, addressed
as follows:
Jorge Bussec/o Legal and Consular Department100 N. Biscayne Blvd.Suite 2200Miami, FL 33132
Jennifer Franklin PrescottP.O. Box 845
Palm Beach, FL 33480
/s/ Matthew L. FesakAssistant United States Attorney
8
Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 29 Filed 06/30/10 Page 8 of 8