f

.. :-"'

,

1

2010 JAN 26 PM 12: 13

us. OlSfR1CT COURT 1'1,10DL£ 01STRICT OF FLORID/> fORT MYERS. FLORIDA

PETITION NO.: 2009-01249

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARING

NOVEMBER 17, 2009

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Before Magistrate Laurie Rutland, at a hearing in the

above-styled action held at the Lee County Property

Appraiser's Building, Fort Myers, Florida, on the 17th

day of November, 2009.

MARTINA REPORTING SERVICES Courtney Building, Suite 201

2069 First Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 OFFICE (239) 334-6545

FAX (239) 332-2913

DORIGINAL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
.rr-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 2

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: I have allowed two hours. Each side will have an hour. We'll conclude two hours from when we start.

DR. BUSSE: As a formality, we are uSlng various people in here -- Mr. Peterson and this gentleman of criminal activity.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: If you would sit down. DR. BUSSE: No. I want to stand up. MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: No.

DR. BUSSE: It is my prerogative to stand. Why is

that--

MAGISTRATE:-- I prefer everyone remain seated. DR. BUSSE: Is there a problem?

DEPUTY: Yes, there is. She would like you to sit

down.

I need you to sit down.

DR. BUSSE: What is that based on?

THE BAILIFF: The magistrate is asking you to sit. DR. BUSSE: Why are you wanting me to sit down? I

have a right to stand.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: I don't allow people to stand. DR. BUSSE: I want to put this on the record, you do not allow me to stand.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: We can put this on the record.

Do you have a question?

MR. BEVAN: It's being transcribed.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,---.__ 3

DR. BUSSE: Great, it/s being transcribed, Mr. Wilkinson.

We accuse Mr. Kenneth M. Wilkinson and his office

and his agency of criminal activities, in particular fraud, criminal fraud, and civil fraud, deliberate depravations-MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: -- Sir, do you have a question? DR. BUSSE: Yes, I do.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: What lS your questionl sir? DR. BUSSE: First of all, I would like to have all

the names.

MAGISTRATE: Yes, we do that. You have to give me a chance to read the petition number and the parcel number, and then I will have everyone present identify themselves for the record. I do want to note these are public hearings. Therefore, anyone may attend these hearing as they wish,

as part of Florida government. and available to the public.

For the recordl we are here on petition number

So the hearing is open

200901249, parcel number l2-44-20-0l-0001S.01SA.

Sir, will you help me with the pronunciation? I don't want to mispronounce your name.

DR. BUSSE: You may pronounce it Dr. Busse or Dr. Busse.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Okay, and which did you prefer? DR. BUSSE: Dr. Busse is perfect.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ 4

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Okay. The petitioner is Dr. Busse.

I am special magistrate Laurie Rutland--

DR. BUSSE:-- Sorry, I don't know why it is always

swept under the table.

There is two owners on record

and this is already incorrect.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: According to my records, I have that the owners name is J-o-r-g Busse.

DR. BUSSE: I saw it earlier.

MAGISTRATE: That's fine. You can address that when we get to that point. That's who I have as filing the petition. That's what I have listed as far as the

petitioner's names.

If you want to address the issue

of ownership, that's fine when we get to that.

What I would like to do, sir, we'll start with you and we can go just around the room and have each person

state their names, relation to the petition.

If you

are observing, just say "observer" and we'll note that for the record.

After we've done that, if you are participating in the hearing and you expect to testify, I'll swear you In at that time. Then we can get started.

DR. BUSSE: It's relevant to the record that my qualifications include I am a medical physician, so I'm a medical doctor. I was a researcher fellow at the University of Chicago--

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/~ 5

DR. BUSSE: My name is Dr. Busse.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND:-- Sir.

DR. BUSSE: Let me finish. Don't interrupt me; okay? MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, right now all we are doing-DR. BUSSE: -- I'm going straight to my real estate

qualifications.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, Slr, all we need right now is your name and your relationship to the petitioner.

DR. BUSSE: I am a residential appraiser instructor for the State of Florida.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: What is your name?

I mentioned that.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: And property owner, correct,

sir?

DR. BUSSE: Yes, and I also wear the hat of state

certified appraiser.

It is very relevant.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Okay. That's fine, sir.

DR. BUSSE: 1'm also a broker associate in the state

of Florida.

I am also an appraisal instructor. That is

relevant to my allegations in the support of the fraud allegations.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, right now all we are doing is introducing ourselves with our name.

DR. BUSSE: I think it is relevant.

Is it or is it

not?

.. ~

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

6

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: You will have an opportunity

to present your case. At this point we're stating our names and relationship to the petition so we can get to the point where I can allow you to present your testimony and evidence, and then you can address that if you'd like. Ma'am?

MS. PRESCOTT: Jennifer Franklin Prescott.

I am

co~owner of the parcel in question here.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Okay. Thank you. Sir?

MR. BEVAN: My name is Brian Bevan. I am here because of my knowledge that Mr. Wilkinson is a corrupt individual. And over the last--

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: -- So are you an observer or are you participating?

DR. BUSSE: He is a victim, just like myself. MR. BEVAN: Participator.

MS. BEVAN: My name is Lisa Bevan. to these proceedings.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Let's start with this table

I'm an observer

first and then work our way to the back.

MR. EVERHART: Paul Everhart, Lee County Property Appraiser's Office, Ag. assessment department.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Thank you.

MR. ALEJO: Roger Alejo, Lee County Property Appraiser's Office, agricultural assessments.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

7

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: At the end of the table?

MR. PETERSON: Jack Peterson. appraiser's attorney today.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: And behind, if you are observing, just say that, please.

I am the property

MR. DETERLIE: Roger Deterlie, observing. MR. WILKINSON: Ken Wilkinson, observing. MS. PIERSON: Lisa Pierson, observing. MS. COPP: Holly Copp, observing.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Okay, thank you. All right, so before I begin, just a few bits of housekeeping. The procedure we'll be following: The petitioner will have an opportunity to present evidence and testimony subject to the evidentiary rules that are in place.

Then the property appraiser has the opportunity to cross-examine those who testify.

Likewise, I hear from the property appraiser as to the reasons for the denial. They may present their evidence and testimony subject to evidentiary rules in place.

You may ask questions or cross-examine them concerning their testimony_

I do not review the files ahead of time, so I'm not aware of the property or the issues in dispute.

My only concern in making my decision is the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

8

testimony and evidence will be present at the hearing. I do not allow for any submissions after the conclusion of the hearing.

If you expect to testify at this time, I would ask you to raise your right hand to be sworn in.

( SEVERAL PARTIES ARE THEREUPON SWORN.) MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: All right, sir, it is your opportunity then to present evidence or testimony in support of your request for the agricultural

classification.

I don't know anything about your

property.

It is useful if you want to tell me your

location and size of the property and the agricultural use that you are claiming.

DR. BUSSE: Yes. We'll be delighted to comment on this size of the area and the acreage of that riparian Gulf-front property in the context of this agricultural classification.

I would like to, again, in the context of the criminal activities by this office notify you, the magistrate, that both Mr. Wilkinson and his attorney and the defendant in various civil actions, Mr. Jack Peterson, who sits right there, threatened, intimidated and criminally perversed me and/or Ms. Prescott to refrain from attending this and/or other related hearings by demanding the payment of $5,000.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~, 9

I'm accusing both, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Peterson, after having dealt with them for years, of criminal activities, including public corruption, fraud, deliberate deprivations, obstruction of justice.

Now, ma'am, back to your question. We are here for the agricultural classification denial. What are we talking about? First of all, we're talking about and I'm also talking, again, as a state certified residential appraiser and appraisal instructor. We're talking about -- would you mind showing that?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: The petition, you are requesting?

DR. BUSSE; The information pertaining to the strap

number.

I'm reading on the record that the strap, as

based on the United States Rectangular Survey System, 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, that's the parcel or strap number or PID ( property identification number). As the audience notices, there are 17 digits to that parcel

number.

The first six identifying the section option

range; Ol identifies the plat that I brought here.

That

very plat can be found in the Lee County Plat Book 3, page 25. The next five digits indicate or designate block number 15, an accreated lot. And the last four digits designate the lot a riparian lot on the Gulf of Mexico.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-, 10

Now, ma'am, this Slze of that riparian lot or land parcel on the Gulf of Mexico was surveyed ln 2008. That survey determined that riparian parcel to be approximately 2.5 acres in size.

So you ask me to start and identify the characteristics of that riparian Gulf-front property. Again, it was determined by Measurement Science Corporation, identified as "L", in Lima, "B" as in bubble, 7359, to be approximately 2.5 acres in size. Can we mark this?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Did you submit documents ahead of time?

DR. BUSSE: Yes, for the participants to see. MAGISTRATE RUTLAND; Are you asking me to submit

that in evidence, sir?

DR. BUSSE: It is already in evidence, but I want to work with it.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Did the property appraiser receive that document prior to the hearing? Does the property appraiser have any objection to that document being entered into evidence?

MR. ALEJO: We're familiar with the document. No objection to it.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: So that will be marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. And, sir, if you are going to

'--'. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"~ 11

refer to that--

DR. BUSSE: -- This is a logistical question, how do we make it possible for you, who has to make a determination/ to see this riparian Gulf-front property? I want you to examine it and draw your conclusions because it is evidence in the file.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Let me ask you, sir, is this a copy that can be kept? Can I mark on this/ or do you need us to make a copy?

DR. BUSSE: I need you to make a copy.

Like I said,

everything was sent and is on line. All these items have been profusely published to bring Mr. Wilkinson to justice and stop his fraud schemes, which brings us to

this plat.

So myself/ again Dr. Busse, and Jennifer

Franklin Prescott/ bought this riparian Gulf-front land parcel in reference to this plat. This is, as you can read/ the second revised plat Cayo Costa, property of A.C. Roach, which was publicly recorded in 1912. It can be found in Lee County Plat Book 3/ page 25. It says, II All streets , including this riparian street along side the Gulf of Mexico, to be 60-foot wide."

Now, ma'am, back to your question: Where is this property? This is a residential undedicated private subdivision. Where? On the Cayo Costa Island in Lee County. Ma'am, are you familiar with that location?

"---,..,_

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

12

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: No, sir, I'm not familiar with

the--

DR. BUSSE:-- So what's my point here? My point

is, this is a barrier Island. The sand is shifting day and night while we speak. This is a production by the crook sitting there, Mr. Wilkinson, of the barrier island called Cayo Costa. He totally destroyed a public record. Why? Because he is a crook and he doesn't know what he's doing.

All right, coming back to your question, ma'am, we now know where this land parcel, within a private

undedicated residential subdivision, is located.

It lS

located on the Gulf of Mexico. It is located in this

block, block number 15A.

Is there any question to you

where this riparian lot 15A on the Gulf of Mexico on Cayo Costa Island in the Cayo Costa private undedicated residential subdivision is located?

MAGISTRATE: No, sir. showed me.

DR. BUSSE: Okay. What is the point here?

I looked at the pictures you

Mr. Peterson, one of the crooks who conspired brazenly, egregiously--

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: -- Sir, you need to sit down.

DR. BUSSE: I am going to refer to this.

I am--

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: If you need to get up to refer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

13

In terms of

to an exhibit, that's fine, I understand. testifying, we all remain seated.

DR. BUSSE: I want to be clear, as Mr. Peterson

repeatedly in multiple federal courts has stated, this is a street. Who owns title to that adjoining platted street? Ms. Prescott and myself.

Let me be specific, document number five in the so-called first case in the United States District Court, characterized by number 228, document five, he identified that street. Mr. Peterson, can you remember that?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, this isn't the point in time when you ask questions. He hasn't testified you don't get to ask him any questions.

DR. BUSSE: It may help to stipulate to certain facts. As long as you stipulate to the fact this is one of the many platted 60-foot wide streets and/or roadways,

we have no problem.

I want you to stipulate this is a

street, like any other street, platted in 1912, Plat Book 3, page 25. It is critical to characterize properly, and not crookedly and not deceptively, what the petitioners own. They own a riparian Gulf-front land parcel, as platted In 1912, not as perverted and corrupted by this crook over there, Mr. Wilkinson.

So it is very simple:

In a 1912 plat of a

-~ 1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S 14

subdivision, which is a private undedicated residential, with a land parcel lSA, end block lS, on the Gulf of

Mexico. Ma'am, you asked the question.

I give you an

answer. Is the answer clear as to what we're talking about? Because it is so relevant to expose the perversion, the egregious crookery to make this a SOx135 fixed boundary parcel. What a hoax. What incompetence, Mr. Wilkinson. You have no clue what you are doing.

So why, ma'am, am I talking about that? Are you familiar with this?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: If you pass it down here, I can't see that far.

DR. BUSSE: Okay. I will read it to you.

It says

and I understand your problem. The front of that very 2.S-acre-approximately parcel on the Gulf-front,

5 Ox13 S doesn't exist. And it says stupidly II no sign of any bees on the property. as well as no hives.~ So let me translate. No sign of any bees within the 50 purportedly, fictitiously 50x135 lot.

We, the petitioners, own a riparian land parcel on the Gulf of Mexico. I am referencing the 421, 2009

opinion by the Federal Appellate Court.

That is the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in which that very appellate court determined us to be

'''$~, 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.---- 15

the owners of record of that parcel called lot 015A.

So here on your own record, incompetently and stupidly, Lee County and the other defendants are referring to a 50x135 lot.

Now, it says right on here, on this very public record plat, that such does not exist. The dimensions are referenced right on here, and there is no such 50x135 lot.

Now, ma'am, you asked me -- I appreciate your question -- where is this land parcel located? It lS located on a barrier island. You know what a barrier island is? Sand shifts by the minute. Barriers shift_ So what is the natural boundary as platted in 1912? It is forever the Gulf of Mexico_ Wherever that Gulf or that body of water lS movlng, that's where the boundary is and that's what we own, bounded by the Gulf of Mexico_

Now, when a crook like Kenneth M. Wilkinson comes along and brazenly defrauds myself, like I am stupid, we stand up. We defend our constitutional right to own a riparian water-front, in this case Gulf-front property, against crooks like Wilkinson.

Now, ma'am, it is egregious when Jennifer Prescott and myself walk in here on a sunny day in Florida and we talk to one of the analyst, who, in my humble

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/""-, 16

opinion, happen to be quite helpful. His name -- and I hate to drag him into this scandal -- Dennis Talerico. Mr. Wilkinson, do you know this man?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir.

DR. BUSSE: No, I'm asking.

I just want to be sure.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Okay, but you can't ask those questions.

DR. BUSSE: Mr. Dennis Talerico -- and I'm assuming counsel stipulated there is such an analyst -- point blank he said, 1!0f course this is on the street. You own the street land and easement under Florida law. It is a Gulf-front property. Of course that is your land. I!

Now, Sharon Smith, another lady, told me, "Of course you own your riparian Gulf-front lot. You own the street. I!

Now, in other words, the natural boundary, the natural monument of that parcel we're talking about today in the context of an agricultural classification

is the Gulf.

So it can be broken down in the riparian

upland.

In other words, Ms. Prescott and myself own

the riparian upland, and we also own the street, which ln 1912, was 60 feet or so wide through shifting sands on the barrier island. Every fool understands in Florida where sands shift, where islands shift, where natural boundaries shifts. The Gulf of Mexico shifts.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
---- 17

So of course you can stand there, ma'am, and watch

it.

You can see the surf take sand away.

80 to argue

on your own official document -- may I have it one more time?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: This back?

DR. BUSSE: Also, we have your original document.

I may not have given it back to you. The very document, here it is. Sorry.

Again, what is the point? The point of all this lS that Mr. Wilkinson, with the aiding and abetting

Mr. Peterson, are fraudulently pretending to this quasi judicial body that the petitioner's parcel only 50x135.

So it is facially stupid.

It is facially unintelligent

because their very plat says it's not. Their very plat says the boundary is the Gulf of Mexico forever.

So don't, Mr. Wilkinson, screw with us; okay? Even

Can you see it?

a fool can see what the boundary is. The Gulf of Mexico. Okay?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, sir, I'm going to ask you

to direct your comments to me because I am the magistrate.

DR. BUSSE: Sorry.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Because I make the decision.

DR. BUSSE: Sure, makes perfect sense. You understand when a man like Mr. Wilkinson, who the public believes

is honest, defrauds us people, to where it takes me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

18

years to set the most simple matter, clear; where it takes my time; injures me of better things to do, to expose a crook like him for fraudulent claims.

Now, ma'am, what is even more egregious is that

Mr. Peterson, his photo is out there in the hallway.

In 1981, it says -- I'm assuming right now that in 1981

he came into office.

Since 1981 he has not been

intelligent enough to figure out a lot, a parcel, 12-44-20-01-00 -- here is the change, not 15, but 00.

There is no block.

OOAO was forged.

So ma'am, I am bringing to your attention the forged, fictitious, nonexistent purported Lee County parcel ending on OOAO. That lS a facial forgery for which Mr. Wilkinson, Kenneth M. Wilkinson, is responsible. He has concealed and conspired to conceal that that parcel is a prima facie forgery. Why? Because he wants to take away the very street that leads to our riparian parcel.

Now, Mr. Wilkinson and the other crook, Roger Alejo, would find it very upsetting if we claimed their street, the very street that leads to their property. Here, ma'am, that is the very street as platted, as described originally as 50-foot wide; based on the accretions, now much

larger. These crooks want to take that very street land

to which we hold the title -- not Lee County -- and they

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

19

want to take the street easement.

Now, ma'am, it is extremely corrupt what's happening in Lee County-- extremely. You've heard about federal

law enforcement investigating what's happening. It lS a known fact how corrupt Lee County is.

Let me tell you something that I found; A memorandum from the office of this man, Mr. Peterson, issued a memorandum, dated December 29, 2000 -- here it

is -- to various Lee County officials.

And in this

memorandum, which is part of our record, again dated December 29, 2000 from the Office of the County

Attorney.

It says in the second paragraph that the

recorded plat, which is this plat, ma'am, this very plat in Book 3, page 25, in Cayo Costa undedicated private residential subdivision, at that very recorded plat designates roadways throughout the subdivision, again, a private undedicated private subdivision.

However, there is no dedication of roads to the

public indicated on the plat.

Now, ma'am, what does

that mean to you and me? That means you must -- shall -- make a determination that these implied private road easements across the subdivision are owned by the

various owners.

We bought in reference to the plat.

We own those private implied easements and nobody can

take them away.

The public has no access. There is no

_..-~, 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
-,""" 20

land between the Gulf of Mexico and Charlotte Harbor, which belongs to Lee County, as this crooked official Wilkinson and this crooked official Peterson is stating In its wire and fraud publications.

Now, ma'am, can you understand the anger we feel, as honest people, who own property in Lee County, when

a man like Peterson and Wilkinson have the audacity to ask us, as the record owners and marketable title, to pay these crooks $5,000 so they can coerce us to refrain from our legitimate claims.

Mr. Peterson, I'm not supposed to speak to you, but you can comment if my credibility has any deficiencies.

One more time; The memorandum, itself, stated there there is 60-foot wide roadway easements and they

were never dedicated.

It says, ~There is no indication

of an acceptance, nor of an attempt to establish acceptance.~

So, ma'am, I think you and I, you and Ms. Prescott and all the people in the room who claim any proficiency in real property law, we can stipulate to the fact that these are private easements obtained through applied

covenant under Florida law.

They are unencumbered by

any public easement. One more time: The public has no access, no right to use any of those private implied street easements.

~ 1
-,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,~ 21

Ma'am, we are com1ng back to the forgery by

Mr. Wilkinson.

Lot (A), I want it to be on the record

that 12-44-20 -- that's for the strap

and then 01

for this plat, and then 5xO for the block, and for the lot ~OAD.

Now, ma'am, the critical task for you today -- we did this in federal court and we are doing it again please don't make the mistakes of Judge or Magistrate Polster-Chappell, who participated in this scheme.

If you can find that particular land parcel which

was never -- and I'm warning you, it was never/ never

subdivided or platted by this man! A.C. Roach -- if you

can find it, I leave this room.

So I'm asking you to

please look at this and show me where that forged

parcel -- there is no joking

I'm not going to leave

the room if you cannot show it to me because it is on

your books.

It 1S on the Lee County books.

There 1S

something purportedly called a lot (A), which is owned by Lee County! which was never platted or subdivided. This is one-to-one real property law. Everything, all descriptions I referenced as to this plat, that parcel does not exist. Ma'am! I am handing it over to you.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Did you want this document to be placed into evidence?

DR. BUSSE: It is all right in evidence.

It is a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

22

public record. There is only one plat. This is just magnified for your own person courtesy. It's a magnifying glass.

MR. PETERSON: No objection.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Admitted as Petitioner's 2. Do you need a copy of this, sir?

DR. BUSSE: No. It is blown up.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: You took Exhibit 1 back.

I

need that back in order to make a copy.

DR. BUSSE: If you want to make a copy, I will be happy to.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: That map may be a little more tricky because of its size.

DR. BUSSE: We identify that as Plat Book 3, page 25.

Mark that as Exhibit 2. We'll hand that back to you.

NOW, ma'am, in the federal court, United States District Court, this crook over there was represented by an attorney by the name of Sheri Johnson, with Dan Johnson. Now, she submitted, on behalf of the defendant in federal court, crook official Wilkinson, this very plat. You can see what Wilkinson and/or Sheri Johnson, the attorney, labeled as Exhibit A showed new boundaries. The fat black line -- let's make this Exhibit 3. So Exhibit A, as designated by Wilkinson and Attorney Sheri Johnson, drew in new lines. He has no

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 23

right to screw around with a 1912 plat. What's going through your head, sir?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir[ you will sit down.

DR. BUSSE: I want to make it clear what is happening

here.

These are criminal activities. Now, ma'am, that

lot "All --

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: If you want to mark that as an exhibit, you have to pass it down.

DR. BUSSE: Yes. So this is -- and your technology should allow the Lee Org. website. And the parcel I just gave you, 12-44-20-01-000AO, that is the forged parcel.

Now, Mr. Wilkinson, who is ln charge of this data, says under "Legal Description": Cayo Costa, In reference to the plat, which is Exhibit 2 in Plat Book 3, pg. 25, all unnumbered and accreated lands.

Mr. Wilkinson, if you can figure out shit from Shinola -- and I am using offensive language to show the audience how bad you are.

MR. PETERSON: Objection. I've heard just about enough.

DR. BUSSE: Okay.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, we are not going to use curse words in here.

DR. BUSSE: Okay.

I am repeating the fact that lS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 24

a fraudulent legal description. All unnumbered and accreated lands is not by any standard, certainly not by the Lee County Property Appraiser's Office, that is not a legal description. That is trash, Mr. Wilkinson, and you know it. You are just there to defraud us.

So one more time--

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND:

If you would direct your

comments to me and not him.

DR. BUSSE; Yes, ma'am, I will do that.

So ma'am,

can we stipulate that is not a legal description?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND; -- Sir, I'm not stipulating to

anything.

I am here to listen to your testimony and

evidence and make--

DR. BUSSE: -- I'm asking you, do you believe all unnumbered and accreated lands is a legal description? Yes or no? Otherwise, we don't have to continue.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, I am not answering your questions. I'm here to listen to your testimony and evidence and make a decision.

DR. BUSSE: I want to point out evidence of criminal

activity.

I am ramping up the p.r-e s s ur e against you. You

asked me to point my comments to you.

I'm to you --

and I believe you are a magistrate, special magistrate.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Uh-hmm.

DR. BUSSE: I am on the public record ln the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-~ 25

presence of these witnesses, notify -- and what is your

name?

DEPUTY; Deputy Suptin. DR. BUSSE; Suptin? DEPUTY; Suptin.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: We are not going to direct questions to the deputy.

DR. BUSSE: No, no. I want this to be a recording of criminal activity, because all unnumbered and accreated lands in the State of Florida is not -- I

repeat -- is not a legal description.

If you want to

tell me otherwise, please do so. This lS not a legal description.

I ask you to please identify our Exhibit Number 2, that articular forged document, could you identify it?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, I'm not answering your questions. I am here to listen to your testimony and evidence and make a decision concerning one issue-DR. BUSSE: The lssue lS--

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, you didn't let me finish. DR. BUSSE: Yes.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: The one lssue, which is whether or not this property qualifies as a bona fide commercial agricultural operation for tax year 2009. That is the only issue I have authority to make any

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 26

decision on.

DR. BUSSE: Do you have the authority to determine what we're talking about is the same thing? We are talking about something that doesn't exist. We are talking about lot (A), which does not exist, which was forged to take the street land and street easement that you identified on that plat, away from these owners.

So I am repeating one more time: Yes, we are talking about the agricultural classification, but we must have no doubt in our minds what land parcel we are talking about.

We are not talking about the SOx135 land parcel,

which isn't even platted.

That is facial prima facie

evidence of its nonexistence.

That very plat says all

those parcels are not having those measures.

Now, I am bringing to your attention the fact any natural boundary in construction and interpretation of a plat is superceded by what? By a natural boundary and natural monument, such as here, the Gulf of Mexico.

So we are bringing it back to the very question you just posed. Werre talking about the classification of a piece of land that's being mischaracterized. Its very fundamental characteristics are being concealed. We are being told by Lee County -- its own information that we're talking about -- a 50xl35 parcel front 50,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'-'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 27

depth 135.

We have spent time so far to just clarify to unconceal the characteristics of that parcel. You cannot make any determination if you don't even know,

as the magistrate, what we are talking about, because you are being deceived in a fraudulent fashion when

Mr. Wilkinson tells you that, "No, the street is not ours". We hold the title, the only recorded title, the perfected marketable title, to that street easement. We own the land to that street. However, Mr. Wilkinson,

in conspiracy with Mr. Peterson, claims there is a lot

OOAO, again, ending on OOAD.

That lot was never platted.

It never legally existed. You can't find it on Plat Book 3, page 25.

So when they look for bee hives on a 30x135-foot

land parcel, that is nonsense.

That's incompetent.

That's stupid. That doesn't exist.

We own a land parcel which bounded by the Gulf of Mexico, which pursuant to a 2008 survey on the record, Exhibit I, which is bounded by the ordinary high water mark of the Gulf of Mexico.

So I am bringing it back to your very point. You asked me in the beginning: What is the size, area, characteristics of the land parcel, the agricultural classification of we are talking about? And no one in

1
-~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 28

this room has any clue because they are trying to defraud us of the very street easement and land that brings us to the very parcel 15A.

So another piece of evidence is, again, this

production.

Cayo Costa, Lee County, product of GIS and

map sales department, Lee County, Office of Kenneth M. Wilkinson, CFA.

Now, we tried to speak to Mr. James Sharon and this gentleman there, who we believe participated in the conspiracy to tell the world that we do not own that platted, adjoining street easement and street land.

Now, when you look at this map, it shows the boundary of our riparian parcel is here, rather than here.

However, down here, you see, comparable with riparian parcels, where the boundary is drawn out; somewhat consistent with the ordinary high water mark. So there is a discrepancy. There is no due process and there is no equal protection. If the riparian parcel lS here pursuant to the plat is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico, it must be properly reflected on these forged productions by Mr. Wilkinson's office.

We own all the way across, through these accretions, these accreated lands, all that sand that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

29

was deposited against our upland. We -- and only we -hold the title to that.

NOW, you see that subdivision. Again, it's

undedicated.

It is private. It's residential. How

many times can I say it? It is bounded by the Gulf forever, by Charlotte Harbor. The County owns nothing. The County holds no title to any land.

Where is the title? I ask you, I employ you, I demand of you -- that you shall determine who holds the public record title.

r am also letting you know, that the Eleventh Circuit and you have the case on file on record -- determined

that we are the owners of that lot.

I quote, "on the

Gulf of Mexico, adjacent to land claimed by Lee County. 11 Lee County never claimed anything, which legislator claimed anything purportedly by 06975? It's a sham. It's another forgery.

Ma'am, I bring to your attention the official record, 569877, a forged claim. No single Lee County legislator can be identified -- no legislator whatsoever.

Now, Mr. Peterson fraudulently pretended and conspired to fraudulently pretend that Lee County claimed land. He knew there never was any legal claim whatsoever.

Ma'am, you have the job to compare claims to

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
;--,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 30

property. We have an automatically quieted record title pursuant to Florida Marketable Title Act. Lee County has nothing ~~ zero, zilch.

If you show me, give me the direction of any Lee County title, we would have some claim or evidence of claim.

Now, this is 01569, never had color, never

executed, never signed, or sealed.

It was purely a

hoax. You can't right yourself into ownership. In other words, ma'am, and you understand I hope that 056975 did not create or transfer any property interest

or property estate to Lee County, Florida.

I am, again,

putting this as a report of criminal activity on this public record.

And ma'am, be prepared: This will reach the world.

I am telling you, we will not stand for these constitutional violations for deliberate depravations for these fraud schemes.

Again, this 0569875 is not anything.

It was never

legally recorded.

It is not

It never legally existed.

any entitlement to any ownership claim by Lee County.

Now, again, ma'am, Mr. Wilkinson, a crook on the public record world wide, at this website, misleads and deceives the world by wire. And that is a criminal activity alone, to mislead the world that Lee County

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 31

purportedly owns something described as unnumbered in

the Lee County Plat.

If you cannot discern that that

is not a legal description. especially when all legal descriptions are in reference to a plat, that is not, number one, any legal description and certainly not any platted legal description, because none of that can be described to by any surveyor.

Ma'am, I am bringing to your attention the following

fraud schemes:

056965 under Florida Marketable Title

Act was absolute null and void, a hoax. Nothing. It

never legally existed.

So Lee County never had a

claim. Lee County has no authority to put this trash on the public record to defraud and deliberately deprive the petitioners.

Ma'am, absent of a legal description, there is

acreage of 174.1, I don't know what crooked methodology

they are using.

I am pointing to Mr. Wilkinson.

There

is no way -- and I am talking to you as a state certified residential appraiser -- no, ma'am, that doesn't come lightly. You do your apprenticeship. The basic starting point for any basic methodology is to determine what

you are talking about.

That's where you started. Tell

me about the size, area, and the acreage. And I do, and I continue to do, to point out the sheer fraud. 174.1 acres without a legal description? That's fraud.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

32

That's criminal fraud. And I want this man in jail, In handcuffs, because he 1S wasting the time of the owners in this subdivision.

There was a Mr. Parnell, who was spiteful in his efforts to find justice. He was screwed by the man sitting right there and the people working for him and Mr. Peterson because he made the same allegations and provided conclusive evidence that this very plat did not have -- may I have it one more time -- that there

is no lot "N'i that there is only a street. Mr. Peterson again, said ln document number five, the so-called

first case, presiding Judge Mr. John Edward Steele.

Now, when Ms. Prescott and I were in federal court and we exhibited this conclusive evidence of the pr1ma

facie evidence of any such forged lot "A" and lot "1", another forged parcel on this side, we were sanctioned. You don't sanction people for spelling out the truth

and bringing a crook like Wilkinson to justice.

If

this happens here, be prepared. We'll make you a part of the process.

But I am bringing to your attention that there is no lot "A". There is a street. Again, I am challenging you, can it be stipulated that, pursuant to this plat which says all streets are 60 feet wide, as stated and asserted by crooked Jack M. Peterson before the district

~ 1
\
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_, 33

court, the federal district court, and before the Eleventh Circuit, he said there is a street.

It happens to be we own that street. Again, we own implied private street and we own the entire width pursuant to Caple versus Taliaferro.

Now, ma'am, I'm asking you to stipulate there is

no park anywhere platted.

There is no park. Mr. A.C.

Roach, who surveyed the land and subdivided it and platted it in 1912, this is the fourth of four plats. In 1912 he did not plat any part. There is no hoax, such as a Lee County park. There is no park ever platted. The park does not exist. Now, when we say that that's a lie, that's fraud, we have a right to own our riparian lot 15A, we were sanctioned. We were called II frivolous II.

Ma'am, I'm telling you, if you would like to call us equally frivolous, I am bringing to your attention that there 1S no park.

We don't take allegations lightly. When officials accept bribes and officials pay bribes, suppress people's constitutional right to address their grievances, we take it very seriously. We are from different countries. We'll fight and everyone will be in jail.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, if you take your seat.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

34

DR. BUSSE: I want to bring to your attention this

is purportedly not a street, lot Ill".

I am going to

put that on the record as another forgery. And that lS

07-44-21-01-0000-1000.

So there is no purported

fictitious purported lot one on that 1912 subdivision plat.

Again, since 1981 crooked official Wilkinson has maintained fraudulently -- has fraudulently pretended this very street is purportedly part of this forged land parcel.

So ma'aml you said you are here to help us get an exemption of agricultural classification. As long as we don't know what we are talking about, we canlt even address the very issue here before us. Now, when someone looks in the wrong spot for bee hives, then all

I can tell you it is a hoax.

It .i s nonsense.

We insist, before we go any further, we stipulate on the record that we own, pursuant to the prima facie evidence before you, that we ownl number one, the land, the adjoining platted street, the accretions to the street since 1912, half of the alley adjoining on the east side and all the implied easements, all the implied street and alley easements across the private undedicated residential Cayo Costa subdivision. Now, ma'am, that ownership has absolutely nothing to do with

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
?"~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~" 35

ln other words, 569865 1S totally irrelevant to

that ownership.

So unless we clarify who owns what and

that Lee County owns zilch, because it never held any title, we cannot proceed.

That's called appraisal methodology.

I happen to

be a state certified residential appraiser and appraisal

instructor.

I will not let anyone corrupt the most

primitive fundamental concepts, such as, "What are we looking at? We are looking at a legal description."

So we have not managed to clarify what the

petitioners own.

I made the request on the record

and you told me you haven't studied. the record so you

couldn't know -- I, over and over, since the initiation of this petition requested, demanded that the erroneous information be corrected.

We came here and called law enforcement to have Mr. Roger Desjarlais sitting right there, correct the

information.

He threatened us. He referenced the

$5,000 to refrain us from correcting the information.

I am, again, speaking on the record that Mr. Dennis Pelarico, an analyst, took this prima facie evidence.

Here is a witness.

We were both at the window.

He

said, HOf course.H He pulled up the land parcel and he said, "That is a riparian Gulf-front lot. This is block

15.

That is your lot, 15A.

You own the entire width

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

36

and your lot is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico.~

Now, ma'am, it's funny Roger Desjarlais and the deputy threatens us to where we had to call law enforcement. A man like Dennis Pellirico and a woman

had no problem identifying the simple fact, prima facie evidence, that we are a riparian lot.

So I bring it to your attention multiple forgeries, 05865 is not a claim. A hoax. Never signed, executed, no legal description in that hoax. Never asserted. Crooks like Peterson and Wilkinson and Desjarlais want to defraud us and claim Lee County owns our street land and accreations thereto.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Let me just tell you that you have 35 minutes until your time is finished.

DR. BUSSE: Great.

MAGISTRATE: If you want that document In evidence, you have to make sure you hand that back.

DR. BUSSE; We'll give it back at the break. This is one version of the 2008 survey performed by Science Corporation. It shows high water mark of Gulf of Mexico is the natural boundary of 15A that supposedly one of these two gentlemen looked for bee hives in the riparian upland[ which they wrongly and erroneously said is 50x135, which it is not. And they didn't bother to look here, where it says "accreated lands".

~. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 37

The way that reads, it is this way. They didn't bother to look here.

It brings us to the agricultural classification. I saw this other display here. They are looking in the

wrong spot.

That's why they are wrong, unless we are

stipulating today that we are owning, pursuant to the plat publicly recorded 1n 1912, we are owning up to the

Gulf of Mexico.

So look for the bee hives there. This

really doesn't belong here.

But in 2008 these people have conspired to have

open camp site fires in a residential undedicated private subdivision. Now, I called it criminal when people start fires, knowing they are illegitimate, they are illegal, that they are criminal activities that led to 200 acres of destruction, including of our property.

We submitted photos of the fire damage.

We interviewed

fire staff of the state forestry department. We were

damaged.

Again, bringing back this set of people,

professionals purportedly, who is unable to be honest. They are concealing legal descriptions, legal boundaries, mischaracterizing on their own information what we own and then say, "Look, the bee hives, we couldn't find them." You never looked. They are concealing the very essential facts, which are that we pay the taxes, we

and/or our predecessors of title, since 1912.

Nobody

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

38

else did and not Lee County.

The MRTA automatically

acquired our title. We are coming to you today with a perfected marketable title to riparian Gulf-front. No one will send us out of here saying any other way. Nothing else was presented ever by these crooks. When they had nothing else to say, they called us "frivolous" and they paid off judges to say we are frivolous.

Mr. Peterson, you are a lousy attorney. You have nothing better to say.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: No, Slr. We are not gOlng to direct comments to individuals.

DR. BUSSE: Okay. Thank you.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: That is the fourth time I've

warned you on that. that.

11m not going to have any more of

DR. BUSSE: The zoning was equally forged. You cannot zone a forged parcel which doesn't exist. I am bringing it to your attention that Mr. Wilkinson fraudulently pretends there is agricultural zoning

within a residential private subdivision.

It is nonsense,

ma'am.

I cannot be any more clear about it. You cannot

zone something that was never legally platted or subdivided.

The fence we had around that 2.S-acre approximately

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

39

land parcel was destroyed.

That is a criminal offense.

We have mUltiple records on varlous court records where the State documented in its own photos, in a

temporary injunction motion, that fence. was then criminally removed.

The size with which you started for this

That fence

agricultural hearing, lS critical to its highest and

best use.

So when we are talking about a land parcel

which is made out to be only 50x135, you are talking

about converting the highest and best use.

It then

goes into the appraisal and the evaluation of the property.

Ma'am, it is obvious that these people have no

clue what they are talking about.

They are doing it

deliberately, wrongly to defraud us, to deprive us deliberately of the street easement, of the street land which are private, as in this memorandum of Lee County and the Office of the County Attorney admitted and conceded.

So before you today we're talking about

agricultural classification.

These very people have no

clue what land parcel we are talking about. They are materially misrepresenting our ownership, our unimpeachable record ownership.

The fact that we pay taxes, the fact Lee County

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

40

never had any title to anything, Lee County fraudulently pretended 05659 unsigned, unsealed, no legal description

purportedly conveyed some sort of interest.

It did not.

It lacked the legal description.

So I think it lS

obvious, absent any proper legal description, absent any proper identification of the boundaries of our land parcel, that we can't even perceive to make any intelligent or any rational determination. Again, I am pointing out that I requested--

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: -- Sorry, It lS now 5:30. DR. BUSSE: Okay.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: At this point in time your

time has expired.

I would ask if the property appraiser

has any questions for the petitioner before we move into the presentation of their case.

MR. PETERSON: We'll save any cross until we feel like it's necessary. But we have a statement of facts to read into the record.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: At this time the property appraiser can proceed with their case.

MR. PETERSON: Very well. Mr. Alejo has a statement
of facts he'll put into the record.
MR. ALEJO: On August 31, 2006 Mr. Busse applied
for a BR agricultural classification for his 50x135-foot vacant residential lot.

- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.~, 41

DR. BUSSE: ~~ Sir.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: No, sir. Sir, sir, you are not going to interrupt. You will have an opportunity to ask questions. But at this point in time we listened to you for an hour. They get their hour.

DR. BUSSE: I want to bring to your attention that after all this and after the conclusive evidence of the parcel, he willfully and criminally misrepresents~~ MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: ~~ Sir, you don't have an opportunity now to make a statement. This is the property appraiser's time to talk. Mr. Alejo?

MR. ALEJO: On the barrier island of Cayo Costa. It

has a zoning classification of AG2.

The Property

Appraiser's Office reviewed the subject property and documents on September 14, 2006.

On September 15, 2006 Paul Everhart from the agricultural assessment office and Pete Mayor, a commercial analyst, physically inspected the property. They walked the entire 50x135 lot and found no evidence of bee hives documented, and photographs were taken.

Following the physically inspection of Mr. Busse's lot, Paul Everhart called Mr. Busse and asked where the bee boxes were. Mr. Busse responded that the bees were there on his Cayo Costa property. Again, there was no evidence of a bee yard. Aerial photographs used by the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

42

Property Appraiser's Office between 2006 and 2009 are of sufficient resolution that a bee box measuring 20 inches by 17 inches by 48 inches would be clearly visible.

Mr. Busse's property is, for the most part, clear of vegetation; thereby, allowing aerial photographic

inspections.

There is no evidence of a bee yard.

Mr. Busse did not, nor did any agent on his behalf, apply for an agricultural classification for the subject property in 2007, 2008 or 2009.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Anything further from the Property Appraiserts Office at this time?

MR. PETERSON: No.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sirt you may question

Mr. Alejo only about the testimony he has given. If you have a specific question regarding what he has testified to, you may ask a question concerning his testimony. Your questions will be limited only to those issues he

discussed in his testimony.

Do you have any questions

20 you can ask at this time?

21 BY MR. BUSSE:

22 23

Q.

Mr. Alejo -- is it correct that--

MAGISTRATE: Sir, sit down please.

24 BY MR. BUSSE:

25

Q.

Is it correct, Mr. Alejo, that you legally described

9
10
11
12
13
/r--~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 43

1 the depth and front of our riparian Gulf-front parcel as 2 50x135?

3 4

Yes, sir.

Mr. Alejo, lS it correct that our riparian

A.

Q.

5 Gulf-front parcel, 12-44-20-01-0001S.01SA, is bounded by the 6 natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico?

7

I was only reviewing the property regarding the

A.

8 application submitted to our office.

Q.

You didn't answer the question.

I'm asking you,

the parcel--

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: -- You only ask him questions about what he testified to.

DR. BUSSE: Yes, he testified to 50x135, ma'am. MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: He didn't testify as to any

riparian rights.

DR. BUSSE: I ask the questions, not you. MR. PETERSON: Objection.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir.

DR. BUSSE: I'm asking you to allow me to ask.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, let's go back.

If you

insult me, we'll adjourn the hearing and you won't be asking anymore questions.

DR. BUSSE: You asked me to clarify, to ask questions

in regard to his statement. He stated 50x135.

So in

reply to that statement, I asked him, is our riparian

-~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 10

44

parcel, which lS merely an objective and properly characterizes our land parcel, lS our riparian Gulf-front land parcel, ending in OlSA, bounded by the natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico? Yes or no?

MAGISTRATE: Mr. Alejo, does the property have the Gulf of Mexico next to it? Does it run up next to the Gulf of Mexico?

MR. ALEJO: Yes, ma'am.

9 BY DR. BUSSE:

Q.

Okay. Who owns the street land and street easement

11 which adjoins the riparian upland?

12 MAGISTRATE: He didn't testify as to any information

about any easements. That question is not appropriate. DR. BUSSE: Malam, 11m asking who owns the street land and easement. We hold title to that street. MAGISTRATE: I understand what your question is.

He didn't testify as to that. He testified

specifically as to what he felt the size was and the application that his office received and the inspection he made. He did not make any testimony with regard to any easements.

DR. BUSSE: Ma'am, any and all testimony by Mr. Alejo In reference to that parcel, any and all mischaracterizations, any concealment of the fundamental characteristics is a criminal activity.

13
---,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 45

1

It lS

MAGISTRATE: Sir, I ruled on that question.

2 not relevant. Do you have another question?

3 DR. BUSSE: What is not relevant?

4 MAGISTRATE: The questioning of Mr. Alejo as to a

5 street easement.

6

DR. BUSSE: Ma'am, allow me to be polite. You

7 contradict yourself. You asked to characterize--

8 9

MAGISTRATE: -- Sir, the question is not relevant.

It will not be asked.

If you have another question--

10 BY DR. BUSSE:

11

Mr. Alejo, based on your statement that that

Q.

12 parcel lS bounded by the Gulf of Mexico, what approximately 13 is the area and the size? The question the magistrate judge 14 earlier raised.

15 MR. PETERSON: Objection.

16 DR. BUSSE: Objection is not valid.

17 MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Mr. Alejo, did you testify it

18

was 50x135?

19 MR. ALEJO: I did testify it was 50x135.

20 MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Okay.

21 BY DR. BUSSE:

22

What is the approximate size, knowing that you

Q.

23 stated that the boundary is the Gulf of Mexico?

24 MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: What's your question?

25 DR. BUSSE: The question is, what he believes is the

46

1

approximate Slze, based on his previous statement, of

2 the boundary of the Gulf of Mexico.

3 THE COURT: He just answered that.

4 DR. BUSSE: He has not. It's impossible.

5 MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Next question.

6 BY DR. BUSSE:

7

Mr. Alejo, what is the size of that parcel which

Q.

8 you stated is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico?

9 MAGISTRATE: This is the third time you asked him

10

that.

Mr. Alejo, this is the last time I will allow the

11 question to be asked. will you please answer it.

12 13 14

MR. ALEJO: I answered it.

It is 50x135.

MAGISTRATE: We are not going to answer that

question agaln.

Thatls the third time you've answered

15 that.

16 BY DR. BUSSE:

Q. My question to you is, Mr. Alejo, the street that is platted on the 1912 platl who holds title to that adjoining

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
?-'" street?

MAGISTRATE: Sirl he didn't testify as to any title matters whatsoever. That is not relevant.

DR. BUSSE: Ma'am, we are talking about a land parcel. And you are prejudicial because he is saying

it is 50x135[ when the surveyor said

and that is

prima facie evidence[ which you seem to refute or

47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

to.

Your question is, where did he look for the bee

ignore

it is 2.5 acres.

So ma'am, I'm asking him if

he looked for the bee hives on the street land, which we hold title to? Yes or no?

THE COURT: You can ask him where he looked for the bee hives.

DR. BUSSE: That's what I just said.

THE COURT: He just testified he didn't see any bee hives. You can ask him that question. You can't ask him about title issues and things he didn't testify

11 hives?

12 DR. BUSSE: Yes.

13 BY DR. BUSSE:

14 15 16

Where did you look for the bee hives? On the 50x135 lot that was applied for.

We applied under 15A, which includes the street.

Q.

A.

Q.

17 Did you look for any bee hives on our adjoining street land?

18 19

We didn't see any bees or bee boxes.

Mr. Alejo, I asked you, did you see any bee hives

A. Q.

20 on the adjoining platted street land to which the petitioners 21 hold perfected automatically acquired title--

22 MR. PETERSON: Objection.

23 MAGISTRATE: Did you look anywhere else, besides

24 the 50x135, the amount of land this applied for?

25 MR. ALEJO: I reviewed the property applied for

48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

this. Do you have any more questions?

DR. BUSSE: Yes, I do.

only.

MAGISTRATE: That's your answer. Sir, you are not part of the hearing. You shouldn't even be discussing things with this gentleman. This is his chance to ask questions.

MR. BEVAN: You swore me ln as a participant.

MAGISTRATE: Each person

this gentleman needs to

ask questions.

DR. BUSSE: I'm addressing this to the magistrate judge. Magistrate Judge, you are prejudicial in misrepresenting the characteristics of the application. The parcel is what the public record says it lS. You

will not tell me today that I applied for let me continue.

MAGISTRATE: No, sir, we are not going to get into

excuse me

18 MAGISTRATE: You have five more minutes for

19 questions. At quarter-to-six your questioning time will

20 be concluded.

21 BY DR. BUSSE:

22

Mr. Alejo, you said that the property is bounded

Q.

23 by the Gulf of Mexico. Did you look along side the boundary 24 of the Gulf of Mexico for any bees?

25

MR. PETERSON; Objection. Mischaracterizes the

MR. BEVAN: What is it? 22 BY DR. BUSSE:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 23

49

witness' testimony.

DR. BUSSE: Mr. Alejo, please answer. MR. PETERSON: Objection.

MS. PRESCOTT: Can I ask a question? MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Yes, ma'am.

MS. PRESCOTT: Mr. Alejo, what is the lot Slze in feet and inches?

MAGISTRATE: He answered that three or four times. MS. PRESCOTT: To the Gulf of Mexico.

MAGISTRATE: RUTLAND: He testified he looked at the property 50x135. That's where he looked for bees. Is there a different question you are asking?

MS. PRESCOTT: We would like to know the Slze. MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: He answered that.

MS. PRESCOTT: No, to the Gulf of Mexico. MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: He said his office has the

size of 50x135.

DR. BUSSE; 135 does not bring you to the Gulf of Mexico. Because 135 does not bring you to the Gulf of

Mexico, you gave an incorrect answer.

Q.

What is the length? What is the depth to the Gulf

24 of Mexico? It lS not 135. Please state to this audience the 25 depth to the Gulf of Mexico, which you conceded was the

50

1 boundary.

2 MR. PETERSON: Objection.

3 MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Mr. Alejo, do you have an

4 answer to that question?

5 MR. ALEJO: I do not.

6 MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: He doesn't know.

7 DR. BUSSE: Approximately?

8 MAGISTRATE: He doesn't know.

9 MR. BEVAN; He hasn't answered.

10

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: He already answered. He said

11 he doesn't know.

12 BY DR. BUSSE:

13

How do you typically determine that distance?

Q.

14 MAGISTRATE: You can't determine the distance if he

15 doesn't know.

16 BY DR. BUSSE:

17 18 19 20

Do you believe it lS more than 1,000 feet? MAGISTRATE: If he doesn't know, he can't speculate. MS. PRESCOTT: He is an appraiser. He should know. DR. BUSSE: It's amazing. Ma'am, you started

Q.

21 asked me what the size is. That is the critical

22 question.

23

MAGISTRATE: He doesn't know was his answer.

24 BY DR. BUSSE:

25

So how do we get an answer, Mr. Alejo? Is there

Q.

51

6

boundary at the Gulf of Mexico. He testified the property abutted the Gulf of Mexico.

DR. BUSSE: He stated the property is the Gulf of

1 any way to get an answer to that question? Do you have a 2 survey, Mr. Alejo?

3 MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Are you getting off his

4 testimony now.

5 BY DR. BUSSE:

Q.

Is there any boundary survey that you and/or the

7 office have in your possession?

MAGISTRATE: He didn't testify to any survey, sir. DR. BUSSE: I'm asking if he has ever looked at any survey of that land parcel.

MAGISTRATE: You can answer that.

MR. ALEJO: I only reviewed what I was provided in

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

2006.

DR. BUSSE; You don't answer the question. Was

15 there any survey?

16 MAGISTRATE: Did you look at a survey, Mr. Alejo,

17 of the property?

18 MR. ALEJO: No, I did not.

19 BY DR. BUSSE:

20

Q.

Then how did you determine the boundary of the

21 Gulf of Mexico?

22 MAGISTRATE: He didn't say he determined the

23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

52

Mexico. So where did you get that information from, Mr. Alejo?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, your time has expired.

1S now quarter~-

DR. BUSSE: Ma'am, you're cutting me off.

Read the

question back. You are corrupting this discovery process.

MR. BEVAN: Read it back. Read it back.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Sir, your time for questioning

lS~-

DR. BUSSE:-- Not over. He hasn't answered the question.

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: At this point I am going to allow the property appraiser, if it, has any other

15 witnesses they wish to call.

16 MR. PETERSON: I will call Jorg Busse.

17 BY MR. PETERSON:

18

Q.

Has any court 1n any case that you filed not been

19 dismissed?

20

A.

The Eleventh Circuit, sir, determined that the

21 petitioners are the owners of~~

22

23 to~~

24 25

Q.

In fact, isn't it true 1n a case that you refer

It

A.

The--

MAGISTRATE: ~- You are overwhelming the court

S3

1

reporter.

2 DR. BUSSE: Which 1S the United States Court of

3 Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined -- this is a

4 dispositive determination -- that the petitioners are

5 the unimpeachable record owners of said land parcel

6 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, I quote flon the Gulf of Mexico,"

7 as Mr. Alejo also stated, which is adjacent to the park.

8 That was a dispositive determination of the ownership

9 issue. That's what all the cases turned on. Now,

10 Mr. Peterson--

II MR. PETERSON: -- Why don't you let me ask the

12 questions.

13

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: I'm so mad, Slr.

,-

14 MR. PETERSON: Objection. If he wants to argue, save

15 it for argument.

16 DR. BUSSE: Sorry, I am going to finish my answer.

17 18 19

MAGISTRATE: Gentlemen, I don't find other cases as

being relevant in any respect.

I don't see any need to

continue that line of questioning.

If you have any

20 questions for the witness, you can proceed with those

21 questions.

22 BY MR. PETERSON:

23

Isn't it true the case you referred to was dismissed

Q.

24 by the Federal Court of Appeals?

25

Are you referring to the case ln which Richard A.

A.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,~
14
15
16 54

Lazzara was a defendant, and therefore under an absolute recusal obligation, just like Judges John Edwin Steele and Magistrate Sheri Polster-Chappell and Douglas M. Fraiser, is that the case you are referring to?

MAGISTRATE RUTLAND: Let me direct this again. MR, PETERSON: I am through with my questioning. MAGISTRATE: This is pending in another

jurisdiction?

MR. PETERSON: They are not pending. dismissed.

They are all

MAGISTRATE: That doesn't have any impact on my ruling as to this matter. What is involved in any other jurisdiction.

MR. PETERSON: Just one more question then. BY MR. PETERSON:

Q. Were there, in fact, any bee hives anywhere on that 17 island that you put there?

18

A.

Yes, they were. They were on the riparian Gulf-front

19 parcel of the approximate Slze of 2.5 acres. Mr. Alejo 20 today stated on the record and answered that parcel, that

21 riparian parcel, is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico.

Therefore,

22 it couldn't possibly have a depth of 135 feet, but rather 23 more than 2,000 feet.

24 He did not look, by his testimony, on the street

25 land.

1

55

And, you know, Mr. Peterson, the fires within a

2 private residential subdivision burned down more than 200

That is a criminal and reckless act.

I hope that

3 acres.

4 answers your question.

5 MAGISTRATE: Any other questions from this witness?

6 MR. PETERSON: Oh, I think we've heard plenty.

7 MAGISTRATE: Mr. Alejo, let me just clarify. There

8 was no application made for tax year 2009; and therefore,

13
14
l5
l6
l7
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~', 9 lO 11 l2

no denial was issuedJ as you received no application; is that correct?

MR. ALEJO; That's correct.

MAGISTRATE; All right. I am going to allow each

side a five~minute closing summary.

It is ten minutes

to six. The petitioner may go first. You have five minutes to summarize. Then the property appraiser may

summarize.

Then I will issue a ruling on the matter.

DR. BUSSE: The officials have facially failed to properly characterize the property and land parcel applied for. On questioning, Mr. Alejo stated he only looked for bee hives within 50x135 feet of an area.

However, the riparian land parcel in question In dispute here today is bounded by his own admission and by the admission of other Lee County officials and, of course, by the prima facie evidence of the plat, it lS bounded by the natural boundary of the Gulf of Mexico.

-~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,~, 56

Therefore, it is nonsense to say he could have seen the agriculture use when he looked at approximately one-seventeenth of the entire land.

I also contest we didn't file it. Apparently in the use of press evidence, like a riparian Gulf of Mexico boundary. We object to that statement, that we did not apply.

We object to the mischaracterization of our record title of our record ownership we own, pursuant to the 421, 2009 Eleventh Circuit dispositive determination. We own our riparian lot.

We are also referring to Lay versus State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

We are referring and adopting by reference In this presentation the case before the Eleventh Circuit, West Peninsula Title Company which references Caples versus Taliaferro, and supports our ownership of the street land where Mr. Alejo never looked.

Again, ma'am, I perceive prejudice. You asked me what the size and the area of the lot is. When we asked to ascertain the exact boundaries, which are governed by the Gulf of Mexico, you interrupted us and blocked

discovery.

However, we were lucky Mr. Alejo had

already determined, pursuant to the plat, the conveyance is our conveyance of approximately 2.S-acre riparian

1
"'-...._
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 57

Gulf-front lot.

We, again/ object to the allegation that we didn't file an application. Also we are referencing the mailbox

rule.

There is ample evidence of our application.

We are considering this another attempt to misrepresent our ownership as it was affirmed and dispositively declared by a judge In the Eleventh

Circuit.

The case was Prescott.

She is a petitioner.

The judgment can be found of public record. We are the owners of the riparian lot. That riparian lot is not 135 feet deep. Any natural boundaries supercedes any

fixed measure or distance.

This is a Gulf-front

property, which is constantly shifting.

So it is unintelligent and irrational to refer to a fixed boundary when that street has constantly seen accretion by the defendant's own admission since 1912. So we own a street of constantly changing dimensions.

So the notion you are presenting a fixed 50x135 boundary, what this gentleman is saying, makes no

sense.

This is a barrier island which is constantly

shifting distances. So pursuant to the conveyance, the boundary is forever the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Alejo stated that.

We are objecting to his allegation that we did not

file.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-, 58

We are objecting to the fact he only looked on approximately one-seventeenth of the property.

We are objecting to criminal coercion and demanding a payment of $5/000 prior to coming into this hearing for the illegal purpose of coercing us to refrain from defending our ownership of the riparian parcel.

This lS a 1912 plat.

The construction and

interpretation is very simple, very straightforward. The natural boundary is the Gulf we ownl pursuant to that Eleventh Circuit judgment dated 4-21-09. We own all the way to the natural boundary Gulf of Mexicol as Mr. Alejo stated.

MAGISTRATE: Your time is up for your closingl sir.

From the Property Appraiserls Officel brief summary. Five minutes.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honorl recognizing the Court's limited jurisdiction here, in regards to whether or not an agricultural exemption should applYI I submit the unimpeached testimony of Mr. Alejo in regards to his personal observations back in 2006 on the lot, as it appears on the platl is the testimony that should be observed in that matter. Despite the petitioner's fantasy to the contrarYI there isn't any court anywhere that says he owns anything other than the lot described by Mr. Alejo. That's all.

1
.--..,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 59

MAGISTRATE: At this time I am going to review the basis for my decision in this matter and the jurisdiction of this Court that I have under consideration.

The only issue for consideration at this hearing is the issue of whether or not the subject property

qualifies for agricultural qualification.

The magistrate

is not here, nor cannot consider, any boundary dispute, any rights to riparian rights, to easements, or adjoining land. The only issue I have that I can make a ruling or decision on is whether or not the property qualifies

for this tax year 2009 for the agricultural classification.

The testimony of the property appraiser 1S that no application was filed by the petitioner requesting that agricultural classification for tax year 2009~ Therefore, no application having been made, no denial issued from the Property Appraiser's Office for the tax year 2009

there being no application and no denial, there is no subject matter that can be appealed from because there was no denial because there was no request for the agricultural classification for the tax year 2009.

Florida case law and Florida statutes are crystal clear: Without an application, a person, even if entitled to the exemption or classification, even if they meet

all the criteria, they cannot give that exemption if

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

60

they failed to make an application for the tax year in question.

Because there was no application, no denial issued, being no denial, there 1S no matter to be appealed

from.

On that basis, the magistrate is denying petition

number 200901249. There being no further business at this time, the hearing stands adjourned.

DR. BUSSE: May I comment on one thing? MAGISTRATE: You are off the record. You can't comment.

MR. BEVAN: Okay, go ahead.

It is being transcribed.

MAGISTRATE: We have to have that exhibit back.

MR. BUSSE: It is obvious the 2006 application was in bad faith because it was micharacterizatioD, SOx13S. I wanted you to be aware of that.

MAGISTRATE: I can't consider anything once the

hearing is adjourned.

I made my ruling in this matter.

There will be no further business conducted concerning this petition.

61

,~

CERTIFICATE OF OATH

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF LEE

I, SHELLY FLAHERTYt certify that I was

authorized to and did stenographically report the

foregoing hearing, and that the transcript is a true

record of the testimony given by the witness.

I further certify that I am not a relative,

employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties,

nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'

attorneys or counsel connected with this action, nor am

I financially interested in this action.

Dated this 1st day of January, 2010

.~~

SHELLY FLAHERTY

SHORTHAND REPORTER