Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
7. Again, the Plaintiffs move for equal court access in this electronic Court. For the criminal
purpose of extending and concealing Governmental fraud and extortion scheme O.R. 569/875”,
this Court has obstructed the pro se Plaintiffs’ electronic Court access. Here, electronic court
access is the only practical court access from remote parts of the world where mail is
unavailable.
8. In Doc. # 338, p. 12, Civil Rights Case # 2:07-cv-228-FtM-JES-SPC, Defendant crooked Judge
John Edwin Steele expressly verbalized his obstruction of justice and prejudice:
“The copy of the Resolution attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes
that it was signed, executed, and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff
will not be allowed to assert otherwise.”
3
RESOL~JTIOX PERTAZNIdC TO PUBLIC ws
--p--m IN CAS’O COSTA SUSO!V3S3$y-c-
claim all of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use
’ 1
ke~w~y-
q?&bw
&rrr,@w -
#h$ku!H*,, t
c&gy?:$~;~~,,
: ,.,, \ I
. . ..’ : 1
’ .;
I ,.*. .
‘.
*..: .‘
7/17/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm
to another, to:
(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another
person to perform such an act; or
(c) Obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that
directly involves or affects the public agency or public entity served by the public servant.
(a) The term "public servant" does not include a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant.
(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm… 1/1
FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
SECRETS OF U.S. JUDICIAL TERROR
SECRET 3: Any faith in U.S. justice is your foe. There is NONE, so deal with it!
SECRET 4: Facts, law, reason, logic CANNOT possibly stop the judicial case fixing machine.
SECRET 5: Lawyers play along to get along – Don’t waste your money & time!
SECRET 6: The Mafia is cute compared to the U.S. judicial gang. They even wear colors.
SECRET 7: Expect terror & threats as if you were in Nazi Germany. Watch for the smell of gas!
SECRET 8: Trained for terror, only the most corrupt judges succeed on America’s benches.
SECRET 9: NOTHING favorable will ever happen in your case – Face reality & STOP being a fool!
SECRET 10: By agreement, pro se Plaintiffs will NEVER win any important or critical case.
SECRET 11: America is NOT what you have been brain washed to believe: Spell CORRUPTION!
SECRET 12: Do NOT appear in court or party with the Mafia. Plain and short, it could be unhealthy.
SECRET 13: Property, life, and freedom mean LESS in America than in China. Go travel and see!
SECRET 14: Before you disappear, leave lots of information. Someone might read it. Good luck!
55.10 Judgments, orders, and decrees; lien of all, generally; extension of liens; transfer of liens to
other security.--
(1) A judgment, order, or decree becomes a lien on real property in any county when a certified copy of it is
recorded in the official records or judgment lien record of the county, whichever is maintained at the time of
recordation, provided that the judgment, order, or decree contains the address of the person who has a lien
as a result of such judgment, order, or decree or a separate affidavit is recorded simultaneously with the
judgment, order, or decree stating the address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment,
order, or decree. A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the address of
the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is contained in the judgment, order,
or decree or an affidavit with such address is simultaneously recorded with the judgment, order, or decree. If
the certified copy was first recorded in a county in accordance with this subsection between July 1, 1987, and
June 30, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period of 7
years from the date of the recording. If the certified copy is first recorded in accordance with this subsection
on or after July 1, 1994, then the judgment, order, or decree shall be a lien in that county for an initial period
of 10 years from the date of the recording.
(2) The lien provided for in subsection (1) or an extension of that lien as provided by this subsection may be
extended for an additional period of 10 years, subject to the limitation in subsection (3), by rerecording a
certified copy of the judgment, order, or decree prior to the expiration of the lien or the expiration of the
extended lien and by simultaneously recording an affidavit with the current address of the person who has a
lien as a result of the judgment, order, or decree. The extension shall be effective from the date the certified
copy of the judgment, order, or decree is rerecorded. The lien or extended lien will not be extended unless the
affidavit with the current address is simultaneously recorded.
(3) In no event shall the lien upon real property created by this section be extended beyond the period
provided for in s. 55.081 or beyond the point at which the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first.
(4) This act shall apply to all judgments, orders, and decrees of record which constitute a lien on real
property; except that any judgment, order, or decree recorded prior to July 1, 1987, shall remain a lien on real
property until the period provided for in s. 55.081 expires or until the lien is satisfied, whichever occurs first.
(5) Any lien claimed under this section may be transferred, by any person having an interest in the real
property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under which the lien is claimed, from such real
property to other security by either depositing in the clerk's office a sum of money or filing in the clerk's office
a bond executed as surety by a surety insurer licensed to do business in this state. Such deposit or bond shall
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 1/2
7/14/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes…
be in an amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at the legal rate for
3 years plus $500 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any proceeding to enforce said lien. Such
deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any judgment, order, or decree which may be rendered for the
satisfaction of the lien for which such claim of lien was recorded and costs plus $500 for court costs. Upon
such deposit being made or such bond being filed, the clerk shall make and record a certificate showing the
transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy thereof by registered or certified
mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so transferred, at the address stated therein. Upon the filing of
the certificate of transfer, the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed, and such lien
shall be transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a service charge of up to $15 for making
and serving the certificate. If the transaction involves the transfer of multiple liens, an additional service
charge of up to $7.50 for each additional lien shall be charged. Any number of liens may be transferred to one
such security.
(6) Any excess of the security over the aggregate amount of any judgments, orders, or decrees rendered,
plus costs actually taxed, shall be repaid to the party filing the security or his or her successor in interest. Any
deposit of money shall be considered as paid into court and shall be subject to the provisions of law relative to
payments of money into court and the disposition of these payments.
(7) Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at
any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such
security is deposited for an order:
History.--s. 1, ch. 10166, 1925; s. 1, ch. 14749, 1931; ss. 1-3, ch. 17998, 1937; s. 2, ch. 19270, 1939; C GL
1940 Supp. 4865(3); s. 9, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 71-56; s. 1, ch. 77-462; s. 2, ch. 87-67; s. 7, ch. 87-145; s. 12,
ch. 91-45; s. 10, ch. 93-250; s. 15, ch. 94-348; s. 1357, ch. 95-147; s. 7, ch. 2000-258; s. 1, ch. 2001-130; s.
68, ch. 2003-402; s. 47, ch. 2004-265.
www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm… 2/2
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1
DEFENDANT JOHN E. STEELE’S RACKETEERING OF RECORD
1. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott are suing Defendant Racketeer John Edwin
Steele for, e.g., racketeering, extortion, retaliation, fraud, and reckless deprivations.
JOHN E. STEELE’S EXTORTION ON THE PUBLIC RECORD
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, 422, 365, 386, 288, 282, 1, 25, 338.
RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELE’S RECORD RETALIATION
3. By criminal means of falsifying a fake “$5,048.60 judgment”, Def. Corrupt Judge Steele
retaliated against Plaintiffs Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Doc. # 434, 425.
RACKETEER JOHN E. STEELE’S CONCEALMENT OF $24.30 JUDGMENT
4. Def. U.S. Racketeer John E. Steele fraudulently concealed the publicly recorded $24.30
money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”, Doc. ## 365; 434, 422, 425, 338.
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT AND RETALIATE
5. Racketeer John E. Steele conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants to
extort “$5,048.60”, Dr. Jorg Busse’s and Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s riparian real property,
and Hundreds of Acres of land and implied private easements under, e.g., false and
fraudulent pretenses of fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-
00001.0000”, and “under color of” prima facie forged and fraudulent “O.R. 569/875”.
STEELE CONCEALED RECORD ABSENCE OF FAKE PARCELS AND JUDGMENT
6. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele could not locate said fake “land parcels” on
the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL LACK OF ANY RECORD OF FAKE “LAND PARCELS”
7. Def. Extortionist John E. Steele conspired with other Officials and Defendants to
fraudulently conceal the lack of any “$5,048.60 judgment” and said fake “land parcels”.
DOCUMENTATION OF FINAL $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT (JUNE 15, 2009)
8. The publicly recorded $24.30 money judgment “issued as mandate June 11, 2009”, Doc.
## 365 (pp. 1), “documented”:
a. In-House Reproduction of Appellee’s Brief;
b. No. of Original Pages: “18”;
c. Total No. of Documents Reproduced: “11 (9)”;
d. Total No. of Copies: “198”;
e. Costs Requested: “$29.70”.
f. Costs Allowed: “$24.30”.
9. Here, no “sanctions”, no “fees”, and no “$5,048.60” had ever been “documented”.
DEF. RACKETEER STEELE’S FALSIFCATION OF “writ of execution”, DOC. # 425
10. In the record absence of any “$5,048.60 judgment” against Dr. Jorg Busse, no “witness” and
no “United States Judge” appeared on the face of the falsified “writ of execution”, Doc. #
425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228. See also scam Doc. ## 434, 425, 422, 338.
DEF. RACKETEER JOHN EDWIN STEELE’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
11. For criminal and illegal purposes of concealing racketeering and extortion, Defendant
Crooked Judge John E. Steele had obstructed justice and Plaintiff(s)’ Court access, Doc. #
422. In Doc. # 434, 07/22/10, Def. Steele pretended:
“No response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the
Court desires a response from plaintiff…”
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”. See
Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1).
$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT UNDER FRAP 39, COSTS
13. The $24.30 money judgment was awarded pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P.
COPY OF $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT, DOC. # 386-3
14. A copy of the final $24.30 money judgment issued as mandate was included in Defendant
Appellee’s facially fraudulent “motion for issuance of a writ of execution”, Doc. # 386. See
pages 10 and 24.
15. Of the $29.70 requested in Racketeer Wilkinson’s Bill of Costs, Doc. # 386, the 11th Circuit
allowed $24.30 for Costs under FRAP 39:
2
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 $24.30
mandate after the CASE HAD BEEN CLOSED and the 11th Circuit had LOST
JURISDICTION.
DEFENDANT’S APPELLEE’S RACKETEETING AND EXTORTION WERE ILLEGAL
21. Def. Wilkinson’s record racketeering and extortion were illegal and unauthorized by law.
3
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 the mandate is issued. Here, the judgment entered
March 5, 2009 was issued as mandate Jun 11 2009.
28. Since the clerk had responsibilities for entering a judgment, Fed.R.App.P. 36, and for
taxation of costs, Fed.R.App.P. 39(d), the duty to issue the mandate contemplated by Rule 41
was the responsibility of the clerk.
29. The Eleventh Circuit has held that the action becomes final on the date the district court
receives the appellate court's mandate. See U.S. v. Lasteed, 832 F.2d 1240-43 (11th Cir.
1987). The District Court received and filed the Appellate Court’s June 11, 2009 mandate on
JUN 15 2009 when the Appeal, No. 2008-13170-BB, became final. Thereafter, the 11th
Circuit had no jurisdiction as a matter of law. Here, there have been publicly recorded
racketeering and extortion by Government Agents.
NO 11th CIRCUIT JURISDICTION AFTER JUN 15, 2009
30. Jurisdiction followed the mandate. “The effect of the mandate is to bring the proceedings
in a case on appeal in our Court to a close and to remove it from the jurisdiction of this
Court, returning it to the forum whence it came.” It was the date on which the $24.30
mandate was received and filed, Jun 15, 2009, which determined when the district court
reacquired jurisdiction for further proceedings.
31. Issuance of the $24.30 mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Court’s receipt and filing
on June 15, 2009 was an event of considerable institutional significance. A mandate could
NOT possibly “simply” "issue", because it should have been issued, or because the panel may
have intended it to issue, or because the statute commands it to issue. See 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 Government
Racketeering and Corruption Notice.
WILKINSON’S 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 facie
criminal and illegal purposes of concealing crimes and covering up.
CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL FALSIFICATIONS
35. Just like Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson had falsified fake “land parcels”, and a fake “real
property transaction”, “O.R. 569/875”, Defendant Forger Wilkinson falsified a fake
“judgment”; “July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant JORG BUSSE in the
amount of $5,048.60.” See, e.g., INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County
Circuit Court.
36. Here, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson could not have possibly held that which had never
existed. Here, said $24.30 money judgment had been the final mandate, and the facially
null and void “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, was a prima facie racketeering and
extortions scheme just like the fake “regulation”, fake “legislative act” and/or “O.R.
569/875” that had never legally existed and never been legally recorded.
4
RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES
(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees preserved
by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filed
not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal from
the judgment shall not postpone the filing of a timely application pursuant to this rule.
12/1/09 4 - 22
7/30/2010 United States Code: Title 28,1924. Ver…
U.S. Code
m a in page faq index sea rch
Ask A Lawyer
Online.
Get an Answer ASAP!
Franchise
Attorney
Full Service
Franchise Law
Practice Scott
Weber-Partner
(813) 472-7892
www.franchiselegalteam
Employment Law
Attorney
Sexual
Harassment,
Unemployment,
Overtime,
Minimum Wage
239.262.2141
www.WeldonRothman.c
Adams &
Associates PA
Know your
Bankruptcy
Rights. Call for
Free Consultation.
www.richardadamslaw.c
Randall Spivey -
Attorney
Spivey Law Firm -
Personal Injury &
Wrongful Death
www.spiveylaw.com
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
…cornell.edu/…/usc_sec_28_0000192… 1/2
7/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute or a court order
provides otherwise, the motion must:
(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.
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule54.htm 1/2
7/29/2010 FindACase™ | United States v. Lasteed
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
F. Lee Bailey, Daniel Patrick Leonard Bailey & Fishman, for Appellant.
Leon B. Kellner, U.S. Attorney, Samuel Rosenthal, Chief, Criminal Appellate Section, Department of Justice, Joel M. Gershowitz,
Department of Justice, for Appellee.
Author: Vance
This case presents an intricate timing issue involving a retrial, an interlocutory appeal followed by an intercircuit transfer, and an
uncertain period of excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The question is whether 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 district 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 district court's receipt of the mandate.
I.
Appellant Ronald Lasteed was indicted along with Joseph Peeples for mail and wire fraud, inducing interstate travel in execution of a
fraudulent scheme, and conspiracy 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 United 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 dismiss the indictment. The Fifth Circuit issued its mandate on March 13, 1986.
Appellant contends that the Speedy Trial Act's 70 day period commenced on that date.
The district court in Florida did not receive the Fifth Circuit's mandate until May 19, 1986, more than two months after it was
issued.*fn2 The government contends that the Speedy Trial Act's 70 day period commenced on that 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 water into combustible fuel.*fn3 Appellant called the product of
this process "Ionagen," and claimed it was a gasoline substitute.*fn4 There was 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
appellant and Al Hill, Jr., a potential investor in the scheme.
II.
…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx 1/4
2JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The 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 provided
by 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 initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
(c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
DR. JORG BUSSE AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JENNIFER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 610 Agriculture u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 400 State Reapportionment
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 Influenced and
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers’ Injury Product u 650 Airline Regs. u 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
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 Liability u 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s 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 Actions
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 Stabilization Act
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 Matters
u 220 Foreclosure u 442 Employment Sentence u 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) u 894 Energy Allocation Act
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act u 871 IRS—Third Party u 895 Freedom of Information
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 Determination
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
Plaintiffs,
(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;
(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 clerk’s office is located and should encourage economical methods
of copying.
(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 clerk’s 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:
(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.
(a) Time for Filing. Except as otherwise provided herein or by statute or court order, an
application for attorney’s 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 “attorney’s fees” includes fees and expenses authorized by
statute, 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.
(d) Motion to Transfer. Any party who is or may be eligible for attorney’s fees on appeal may,
within the time for filing an application provided by this rule, file a motion to transfer consideration
of attorney’s 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 attorney’s fees on appeal
after prevailing on the merits upon remand may, in lieu of filing an application for attorney’s fees
in this court, request attorney’s 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 such
supporting 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 bill
of 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.
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and
36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any
motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of
July, 2010.
Copies:
Plaintiff
Counsel of record
-2-
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 17 of 18
case only.
as Documents #418 and #419 which attaches a filing for case number
It is accordingly
FURTHER ORDERED:
Prescott or Mr. Busse, for filing in this closed case, except for
-17-
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 18 of 18
January, 2010.
Copies:
Parties of record
-18-
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 422 Filed 01/26/10 Page 1 of 18
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
provided below. The Court notes that the Eleventh Circuit Court of
#388, #390, #392, #393) filed in this case for failure to pay the
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
14
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EMERGENCY MOTION
_______________________________________________________________________/
1. Pursuant to the multiple Affidavits before this Court, the Judicial Officers in this Court
However here, no eminent domain court proceedings ever occurred. No just compensation was
ever paid to the pro se Plaintiffs, and no title ever transferred. Here, Lee County, Florida, never
BRIBERY
2. Here, Defendant crooked Judges John Edwin Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell accepted
Defendants’ bribes for the criminal purpose of defrauding and deliberately depriving the
Plaintiffs of their equity. Here, said corrupt Judges and Judicial Officers violated their oath of
office.
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
17
CERTIFIED DELIVERY
COVER UP OF GOVERNMENT SCAM “O.R. 569/875”
20
TRANSCRIPT OF 11/17/2009 ROGER ALEJO PERJURY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYp-Mb242D0
PS USE CODE
ADDRESS WETLANDS
SITE INSPECTION
AGENDA DATE
GRANTOR
BLUE SHEET
ITEM
CCMB
INSTRUMENT
PRIOR STRAP
ITEM 2 ITEM 3
PCL
VALUE DATE
CCMB 2 CCMB 3
7. BACKGROUND:
I
The State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Im rovement Trust Fund, is in the recess of purchasing land on
Cay0 Costa Island from a private landowner through the 8tate CARL Pro A list of %e properties being purchased is
attached. From the title search and title commitment issued, it has been r eter&ned that Lee County ma have an interest in ’
land which has accreted to the lots being conveyed to the State of Florida by Alice MS. Robinson. A 1J69 Resolutron b
the Board of County Commissioners pertaining to ublic lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision, recorded m Official Record Jook
569 Pa e 875 created a claim to all accretions to Pots lyin within the area of the Subdivision now bemg conveyed. As a
resdlt ofthis Resolution, the State of Florida is requesting &, ee County to convey any interest it may have m these accreted
R~~a~ore private property owner, Ahce l$.S. Robmson, m order to clear trtle for its purchase of the propertres from Ms.
.
Due to the ongoin of ac uisition on Cayo Costa Island by the State of Florida and Lee+Countythrpugh the CARL
Matching Funds tI!YTF
. .P. elect, an8 the ongoing cooperation of the State and County to accomphsh acquisrtron of land on the
Island, staff recommends approval of the requested motion.
County funds are not needed to complete this transaction.
8,MANAGEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS:
.
COUNTY LANDS
9. RECOMMENDEDAPPROVAL i .
'. - e.
*
i@\OFFICEELS\CAYCOSTA.LWC’~sf
RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES
(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees preserved
by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filed
not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal from
the judgment shall not postpone the filing of a timely application pursuant to this rule.
12/1/09 4 - 22
7/30/2010 United States Code: Title 28,1924. Ver…
U.S. Code
m a in page faq index sea rch
Ask A Lawyer
Online.
Get an Answer ASAP!
Franchise
Attorney
Full Service
Franchise Law
Practice Scott
Weber-Partner
(813) 472-7892
www.franchiselegalteam
Employment Law
Attorney
Sexual
Harassment,
Unemployment,
Overtime,
Minimum Wage
239.262.2141
www.WeldonRothman.c
Adams &
Associates PA
Know your
Bankruptcy
Rights. Call for
Free Consultation.
www.richardadamslaw.c
Randall Spivey -
Attorney
Spivey Law Firm -
Personal Injury &
Wrongful Death
www.spiveylaw.com
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
…cornell.edu/…/usc_sec_28_0000192… 1/2
7/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…
(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute or a court order
provides otherwise, the motion must:
(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.
www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule54.htm 1/2
7/29/2010 FindACase™ | United States v. Lasteed
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
F. Lee Bailey, Daniel Patrick Leonard Bailey & Fishman, for Appellant.
Leon B. Kellner, U.S. Attorney, Samuel Rosenthal, Chief, Criminal Appellate Section, Department of Justice, Joel M. Gershowitz,
Department of Justice, for Appellee.
Author: Vance
This case presents an intricate timing issue involving a retrial, an interlocutory appeal followed by an intercircuit transfer, and an
uncertain period of excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The question is whether 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 district 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 district court's receipt of the mandate.
I.
Appellant Ronald Lasteed was indicted along with Joseph Peeples for mail and wire fraud, inducing interstate travel in execution of a
fraudulent scheme, and conspiracy 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 United 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 dismiss the indictment. The Fifth Circuit issued its mandate on March 13, 1986.
Appellant contends that the Speedy Trial Act's 70 day period commenced on that date.
The district court in Florida did not receive the Fifth Circuit's mandate until May 19, 1986, more than two months after it was
issued.*fn2 The government contends that the Speedy Trial Act's 70 day period commenced on that 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 water into combustible fuel.*fn3 Appellant called the product of
this process "Ionagen," and claimed it was a gasoline substitute.*fn4 There was 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
appellant and Al Hill, Jr., a potential investor in the scheme.
II.
…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx 1/4
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1
2JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The 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 provided
by 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 initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
(c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
DR. JORG BUSSE AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JENNIFER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 610 Agriculture u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 400 State Reapportionment
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 Influenced and
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers’ Injury Product u 650 Airline Regs. u 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
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 Liability u 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s 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 Actions
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 Stabilization Act
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 Matters
u 220 Foreclosure u 442 Employment Sentence u 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) u 894 Energy Allocation Act
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act u 871 IRS—Third Party u 895 Freedom of Information
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 Determination
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
Plaintiffs,
(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;
(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 clerk’s office is located and should encourage economical methods
of copying.
(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 clerk’s 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:
(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.
(a) Time for Filing. Except as otherwise provided herein or by statute or court order, an
application for attorney’s 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 “attorney’s fees” includes fees and expenses authorized by
statute, 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.
(d) Motion to Transfer. Any party who is or may be eligible for attorney’s fees on appeal may,
within the time for filing an application provided by this rule, file a motion to transfer consideration
of attorney’s 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 attorney’s fees on appeal
after prevailing on the merits upon remand may, in lieu of filing an application for attorney’s fees
in this court, request attorney’s 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 such
supporting 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 bill
of 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.
JORG BUSSE
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and
36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any
motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of
July, 2010.
Copies:
Plaintiff
Counsel of record
-2-
RESOL~JTIOX PERTAZNIdC TO PUBLIC ws
--p--m IN CAS’O COSTA SUSO!V3S3$y-c-
claim all of raid lands and accretions thereto for the use
’ 1
ke~w~y-
q?&bw
&rrr,@w -
#h$ku!H*,, t
c&gy?:$~;~~,,
: ,.,, \ I
. . ..’ : 1
’ .;
I ,.*. .
‘.
*..: .‘
PS USE CODE
ADDRESS WETLANDS
SITE INSPECTION
AGENDA DATE
GRANTOR
BLUE SHEET
ITEM
CCMB
INSTRUMENT
PRIOR STRAP
ITEM 2 ITEM 3
PCL
VALUE DATE
CCMB 2 CCMB 3
7. BACKGROUND:
I
The State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Im rovement Trust Fund, is in the recess of purchasing land on
Cay0 Costa Island from a private landowner through the 8tate CARL Pro A list of %e properties being purchased is
attached. From the title search and title commitment issued, it has been r eter&ned that Lee County ma have an interest in ’
land which has accreted to the lots being conveyed to the State of Florida by Alice MS. Robinson. A 1J69 Resolutron b
the Board of County Commissioners pertaining to ublic lands in Cayo Costa Subdivision, recorded m Official Record Jook
569 Pa e 875 created a claim to all accretions to Pots lyin within the area of the Subdivision now bemg conveyed. As a
resdlt ofthis Resolution, the State of Florida is requesting &, ee County to convey any interest it may have m these accreted
R~~a~ore private property owner, Ahce l$.S. Robmson, m order to clear trtle for its purchase of the propertres from Ms.
.
Due to the ongoin of ac uisition on Cayo Costa Island by the State of Florida and Lee+Countythrpugh the CARL
Matching Funds tI!YTF
. .P. elect, an8 the ongoing cooperation of the State and County to accomphsh acquisrtron of land on the
Island, staff recommends approval of the requested motion.
County funds are not needed to complete this transaction.
8,MANAGEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS:
.
COUNTY LANDS
9. RECOMMENDEDAPPROVAL i .
'. - e.
*
i@\OFFICEELS\CAYCOSTA.LWC’~sf