KENNETH M. WILKINSON RECORD RACKETEERING & EXTORTION $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATES JUNE 11, 2009

1. 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 2. The $24.30 money judgment was awarded pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P.

COPY OF $24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT, DOC. # 386-3 3. 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.

4. 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:

$24.30 WERE THE ALLOWED ACTUAL AND NECESSARY COSTS

5. Here, $24.30 were the allowed actual and necessary costs.

$24.30 MONEY JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL ON JUNE 15, 2009 6. Pursuant to Doc. ## 365 (p. 1), 386-3 (p. 1), the U.S. District Court received and filed the

$24.30 money judgment on June 15, 2009:

RACKETEERING: EXTORTION OF MONEY:

“FRIVOLOUS APPEAL” MOTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NEVER FILED 7. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson extorted money, Doc. # 386, by fraudulently pretending

a Rule 38 motion, which Wilkinson knew he had never filed: “The Judgment

4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 27-4 …”

Said Rule 27-4 motion could not have possibly been for a “frivolous appeal”.

2

THE 11th CIRCUIT HAD CLOSED CASE ON 06/11/2009 8. The 11th Circuit had CLOSED THE CASE on 06/11/2009:

BRIBERY

9. 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 10. Def. Wilkinson’s record racketeering and extortion were illegal and unauthorized by law.

RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:

FED.R.CIV.P. 54; LOCAL RULE 4.18; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1924; FRAP 39 11. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., became final on June 15,

2009.

“LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES (a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's 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.”

DEF. WILKINSON VIOLATED REQUIREMENTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920-1924 The $24.30 money judgment was unauthorized by law. Itemization was for $24.30. No documentation for $24.30. The record unauthorized Bill of Costs was for $24.30. Bill of Costs must be verified as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1924. No known affidavit. Plaintiff(s) objected to the unauthorized $24.30 money judgment. The unauthorized $24.30 money judgment was procured through, e.g., publicly

recorded racketeering and extortion by illegal and criminal means of fraud and extortion scheme “O.R. 569/875”, and facially forged “land parcels” “00A0” and “00001”. See RICO Complaint in U.S. District Court.

RACKETEERING & EXTORTION IN VIOLATION OF:

FRAP 39 [FED.R.APP.P. 39] 12. A copy of Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., is attached.

“(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate. (1) A party who wants costs taxed must — within 14 days after entry of judgment — file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs.”

13. Here, the “judgment”, No. 2008-13170-BB had been “entered: March 5, 2009”, Doc. ## 365, 386. Defendant Appellee Wilkinson had filed with the circuit clerk a $24.30 Bill of Costs. “Date signed” was “3-17-2009”, which was “issued on: Jun 11 2009”, Doc. ## 365, 386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

3

14. No “proof of service” existed on the record. 15. The “14 days after entry of judgment” on “March 5, 2009” had expired on March 19,

2009. APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 19. 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.

20. 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… 21. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt by reference their Federal action in this published Government

Racketeering and Corruption Notice. WILKINSON’S RACKETEERING, RETALIATION, AND COERCION

22. 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 …”

23. 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 24. 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.

25. 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 - 2212/1/09

RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES

(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees preservedby appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filednot later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. The pendency of an appeal fromthe judgment shall not postpone the filing of a timely application pursuant to this rule.

Search Law School Search Cornell

LII / Legal Information Institutehome search find a lawyer donate

main page faq index search

U.S. Code

Ask A LawyerOnline.Get an Answer ASAP!

Donations cover only20% of our costs.

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

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

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 123 > § 1924

§ 1924. Verification of bill of costsBefore any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of cost or disbursement shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by himself or by hisduly authorized attorney or agent having knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been necessarily incurred in the case andthat the services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed.

FranchiseAttorneyFull ServiceFranchise LawPractice ScottWeber-Partner(813) 472-7892www.franchiselegalteam

Employment LawAttorneySexualHarassment,Unemployment,Overtime,Minimum Wage239.262.2141www.WeldonRothman.c

Adams &Associates PAKnow yourBankruptcyRights. Call forFree Consultation.www.richardadamslaw.c

Randall Spivey -AttorneySpivey Law Firm -Personal Injury &Wrongful Deathwww.spiveylaw.com

7/30/2010 United States Code: Title 28,1924. Ver…

…cornell.edu/…/usc_sec_28_0000192… 1/2

Search Law School Search Cornell

LII / Legal Information Institutehome search find a lawyer donate

main page search | civil procedure overview

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

VII. JUDGMENT > Rule 54. Prev | Next

(a) Definition; Form.

“Judgment” as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from whichan appeal lies. A judgment should not include recitals of pleadings, a master'sreport, or a record of prior proceedings.

(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving MultipleParties.

When an action presents more than one claim for relief — whether as a claim,counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim — or when multiple parties areinvolved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more,but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines thatthere is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision,however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rightsand liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to anyof the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of ajudgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

(c) Demand for Judgment; Relief to Be Granted.

A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what isdemanded in the pleadings. Every other final judgment should grant the reliefto which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that reliefin its pleadings.

(d) Costs; Attorney’s Fees.

(1) Costs Other than Attorneys’ Fees.

Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise,costs — other than attorney's fees — should be allowed to the prevailingparty. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agenciesmay be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costson 14 days' notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court mayreview the clerk's action.

(2) Attorneys’ Fees.

(A) Claim to Be by Motion. A claim for attorney's fees and relatednontaxable expenses must be made by motion unless the substantive lawrequires those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages.

(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute or a court orderprovides otherwise, the motion must:

(i) be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment;

(ii) specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitlingthe 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 aboutfees for the services for which the claim is made.

Donations cover only20% of our costs.

Notes

Law About ... CivilProcedure

Attorneys: reachinterested clients bysponsoring an LII page

Rule 54. Judgments; Costs

Divorce AttorneySW FLAMartin Law Firm,P.L. DivorceAttorney in CapeCoralwww.mlg-legal.com

Adams &Associates PAKnow yourBankruptcyRights. Call forFree Consultation.www.richardadamslaw.c

Don't Pay DebtCollectorsSue HarassingDebt Collectors.Make Them PayYou. 100% Free &Fast HelpWeStopDebtCollectors.c

DivorceAttorneysLife is Better afterDivorce 30 yearscombinedexperiencewww.roberts-robold.com

7/30/2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule…

www.law.cornell.edu/…/Rule54.htm 1/2

Buy Document Now

United States v. Lasteed

U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com

Citation Number available at www.versuslaw.com

November 24, 1987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,v.RONALD ALBERT LASTEED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

F. Lee Bailey, Daniel Patrick Leonard Bailey & Fishman, for Appellant.

Leon B. Kellner, U.S. Attorney, Samuel Rosenthal, Chief, Criminal Appellate Section, Department of Justice, Joel M. Gershowitz,Department of Justice, for Appellee.

Hill and Vance, Circuit Judges, and Propst,*fn* District Judge.

Author: Vance

Vance, Circuit Judge:

This case presents an intricate timing issue involving a retrial, an interlocutory appeal followed by an intercircuit transfer, and anuncertain period of excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The question is whether the 70 day periodfollowing a mistrial within which a defendant must be tried again begins to run when the court of appeals issues its mandate, orwhen the district court receives the mandate. We affirm the district court's ruling in this case that the clock begins to run against thegovernment 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 afraudulent scheme, and conspiracy to commit these offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1342, 1343, 2314, and 371. Appellant wastried originally in October, 1984 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On October 10, 1984 the districtcourt 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 ofFlorida. Defendant took an interlocutory appeal of the Texas district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The United States Courtof 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 fileda 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 otherfalse statements and misrepresentations relating to his education, background, other investors in the Ionagen process, andgovernmental interest in his work. The prosecution also produced various wire transmissions and recordings of meetings betweenappellant and Al Hill, Jr., a potential investor in the scheme.

II.

7/29/2010 FindACase™ | United States v. Lasteed

…findacase.com/…/wfrmDocViewer.aspx 1/4

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 425 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 1

�JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as providedby 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 initiatingthe civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

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)

� 1 U.S. Government � 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State � 1 � 1 Incorporated or Principal Place � 4 � 4

of Business In This State

� 2 U.S. Government � 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State � 2 � 2 Incorporated and Principal Place � 5 � 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a � 3 � 3 Foreign Nation � 6 � 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

� 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY � 610 Agriculture � 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 � 400 State Reapportionment� 120 Marine � 310 Airplane � 362 Personal Injury - � 620 Other Food & Drug � 423 Withdrawal � 410 Antitrust� 130 Miller Act � 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice � 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 � 430 Banks and Banking� 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability � 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 � 450 Commerce� 150 Recovery of Overpayment � 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability � 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS � 460 Deportation

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander � 368 Asbestos Personal � 640 R.R. & Truck � 820 Copyrights � 470 Racketeer Influenced and� 151 Medicare Act � 330 Federal Employers’ Injury Product � 650 Airline Regs. � 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations� 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability � 660 Occupational � 840 Trademark � 480 Consumer Credit

Student Loans � 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health � 490 Cable/Sat TV (Excl. Veterans) � 345 Marine Product � 370 Other Fraud � 690 Other � 810 Selective Service

� 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability � 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY � 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits � 350 Motor Vehicle � 380 Other Personal � 710 Fair Labor Standards � 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange

� 160 Stockholders’ Suits � 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act � 862 Black Lung (923) � 875 Customer Challenge� 190 Other Contract Product Liability � 385 Property Damage � 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations � 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410� 195 Contract Product Liability � 360 Other Personal Product Liability � 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting � 864 SSID Title XVI � 890 Other Statutory Actions� 196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act � 865 RSI (405(g)) � 891 Agricultural Acts

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS � 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS � 892 Economic Stabilization Act� 210 Land Condemnation � 441 Voting � 510 Motions to Vacate � 790 Other Labor Litigation � 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff � 893 Environmental Matters� 220 Foreclosure � 442 Employment Sentence � 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) � 894 Energy Allocation Act� 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment � 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act � 871 IRS—Third Party � 895 Freedom of Information� 240 Torts to Land Accommodations � 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act� 245 Tort Product Liability � 444 Welfare � 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION � 900Appeal of Fee Determination� 290 All Other Real Property � 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - � 540 Mandamus & Other � 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access

Employment � 550 Civil Rights � 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice� 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - � 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee � 950 Constitutionality of

Other � 465 Other Immigration State Statutes� 440 Other Civil Rights Actions

V. ORIGINTransferred fromanother district(specify)

Appeal to DistrictJudge fromMagistrateJudgment

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)� 1 Original

Proceeding� 2 Removed from

State Court� 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court� 4 Reinstated or

Reopened� 5 � 6 Multidistrict

Litigation� 7

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

� CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: � Yes � No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE ANDJENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFERFRANKLIN PRESCOTT, STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSS

DR. JORG BUSSE AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JENNIFERFRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURTS,UNITED STATES CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE, TONYWEST, BEVERLY B. MARTIN, JOHN EDWIN STEELE, RYAN BAR

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

18USC§1964,18USC§§1961-1968,18USC§1341,4th,7th,14th,1st,5th,11th U.S. Const.Amend. Civil Rights Act

Racketeering/Civil RICO, Corruption, Obstruction of Justice, Extortion of Property & Money; 4th, 7th, 14th, 1st U.S.

19,000,000.00 ✔

07/27/2010 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS /S/DR. J. BUSSE /S/J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE AND JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY(S) GENERAL,

Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1-2010-cv-000_____ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURTS, UNITED STATES CUSTOM & IMMIGRATION SERVICE, TONY WEST, BEVERLY B. MARTIN, JOHN EDWIN STEELE, RYAN BARRY, CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, RICHARD A. LAZZARA, JACK N. PETERSON, RYAN BARRY, DREW HEATHCOAT, BETTYE G. SAMUEL, STANLEY F. BIRCH, JR, GERALD B. TJOFLAT, SUSAN H. BLACK, JOEL F. DUBINA, SHERRI L. JOHNSON, EUGENE C. TURNER, LEE COUNTY, FL, COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS, ED CARNES, JOHN E. MANNING, U.S. RACKETEERING AGENTS, HUGH D. HAYES, JOHN LEY, RICHARD JESSUP, DIANE NIPPER, LYNN GERALD, JR., KENNETH L. RYSKAMP, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES “BARRY” STEVENS, JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., MARK ALLAN PIZZO, ANNE CONWAY, CHARLIE GREEN, REAGAN KATHLEEN RUSSELL, RICHARD D. DEBOEST, II, CHENE M. THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND $19,000,000.00 __________________________________________________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE & COLLIER COUNTIES, FL, AND OF UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL ACTS BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS & OFFICIALS

IN THEIR PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES OUTSIDE ANY “IMMUNITY”

COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1961-1968

COMPLAINT OF GOVERNMENTS’ MALICIOUS CIRCULAR ARGUMENT FOR PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, AND RETALIATION:

‘THE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN ALLEGATIONS ARE FRIVOLOUS. THEREFORE THE CASE IS FIXED AS FRIVOLOUS.’

REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HAGUE [PAGES TOTAL: 196 + 213 (Exhibits)]

FRAP 39. Costs

(a) Against Whom Assessed. The following rules apply unless the law provides or the court

orders otherwise:

(1) if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against the appellant, unless the parties agree

otherwise;

(2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;

(3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;

(4) if a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed

only as the court orders.

(b) Costs For and Against the United States. Costs for or against the United States, its agency,

or officer will be assessed under Rule 39(a) only if authorized by law.

(c) Costs of Copies. Each court of appeals must, by local rule, fix the maximum rate for taxing

the cost of producing necessary copies of a brief or appendix, or copies of records

authorized by Rule 30(f). The rate must not exceed that generally charged for such work

in the area where the clerk’s office is located and should encourage economical methods

of copying.

(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.

(1) A party who wants costs taxed must — within 14 days after entry of judgment — file

with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs.

(2) Objections must be filed within 14 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court

extends the time.

(3) The clerk must prepare and certify an itemized statement of costs for insertion in the

mandate, but issuance of the mandate must not be delayed for taxing costs. If the

mandate issues before costs are finally determined, the district clerk must — upon the

circuit 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:

(1) the preparation and transmission of the record;

(2) the reporter’s transcript, if needed to determine the appeal;

Rev.: 12/09 154 FRAP 39

(3) premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending

appeal; and

(4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal.

(As amended Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Mar. 10, 1986, eff. July 1, 1986; Apr. 24, 1998,

eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

* * * *

11th Cir. R. 39-1 Costs. In taxing costs for printing or reproduction and binding pursuant to FRAP

39(c) the clerk shall tax such costs at rates not higher than those determined by the clerk from time

to time by reference to the rates generally charged for the most economical methods of printing or

reproduction and binding in the principal cities of the circuit, or at actual cost, whichever is less.

Unless advance approval for additional copies is secured from the clerk, costs will be taxed only

for the number of copies of a brief and record excerpts or appendix required by the rules to be filed

and served, plus two copies for each party signing the brief.

All costs shall be paid and mailed directly to the party to whom costs have been awarded. Costs

should not be mailed to the clerk of the court.

11th Cir. R. 39-2 Attorney’s Fees.

(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.

(b) Required Documentation. An application for attorney’s fees must be supported by a

memorandum showing that the party seeking attorney’s fees is legally entitled to them. The

application must also include a summary of work performed, on a form available from the clerk,

supported by contemporaneous time records recording all work for which a fee is claimed. An

affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the information contained in the application and

demonstrating the basis for the hourly rate requested must also accompany the application.

Exceptions may be made only to avoid an unconscionable result. If contemporaneous time records

are not available, the court may approve only the minimum amount of fees necessary, in the court’s

judgment, to adequately compensate the attorney.

Rev.: 12/09 155 FRAP 39

(c) Objection to Application. Any party from whom attorney’s fees are sought may file an

objection to the application. An objection must be filed with the clerk within 14 days after service

of the application. The party seeking attorney’s fees may file a reply to the objection within 10 days

after service of the objection.

(d) Motion to Transfer. Any party who is or may be eligible for 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.

Rev.: 12/09 156 FRAP 39

3. Reproduction of Statutes, Rules, and Regulations. Costs will be taxed for the reproduction of

statutes, rules, and regulations in conformity with FRAP 28(f). Costs will not be taxed for the

reproduction of papers not required or allowed to be filed pursuant to FRAP 28 and 30 and the

corresponding circuit rules, even though the brief, appendix, or record excerpts within which said

papers are included was accepted for filing by the clerk.

Rev.: 12/09 157 FRAP 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JORG BUSSE

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2:07-cv-228-FtM-29SPC

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; BOARD OF LEECOUNTY COMMISSIONERS; THE LEE COUNTYPROPERTY APPRAISER; STATE OF FLORIDABOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNALIMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, STATE OFFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION,

Defendants.___________________________________

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s

Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property

(Doc. #432) filed on May 21, 2010. No response has been filed and

the time to respond has expired.

Upon review, the Court desires a response from plaintiff.

Recognizing that a Pre-Filing Injunction (Case No. 2:09-cv-791-FTM-

36SPC, Doc. #245) was issued on July 20, 2010, prohibiting any

further filings without leave of Court, the Court will grant

plaintiff leave to file a single responsive document to defendant’s

motion.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff may file one response to defendant’s Motion for

Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. #432)

within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order. If no response is

received, the Court will rule on the motion without the benefit of

a response and without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of

July, 2010.

Copies: PlaintiffCounsel of record

-2-

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 434 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2