judicial racketeering in america - def. john e. steele
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
2/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
3/32
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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.
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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.
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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.
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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.
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
10/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
11/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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)]
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
15/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
16/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
17/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
18/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
19/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
20/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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:
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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-
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 17 of 18
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 18 of 18
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
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
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 1 of 18
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
30/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
31/32
-
8/9/2019 Judicial Racketeering in America - Def. John E. Steele
32/32