UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, Plaintiffs, versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPCJOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD BARD TJOFLAT; RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA; RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST; LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., Defendants. PUBLIC CORRUPTION NOTICE ____________________________________________________________________________/ EMERGENCY MOTIONS TO ENJOIN RECORD EXTORTION BY DEFENDANTS KENNETH M. WILKINSON & JACK N. PETERSON PUBLISHED RECORD CONCLUSIVE PUBLIC CORRUPTION & PERJURY PROOF RECORD PROOF OF LACK OFAPPELLATE JURISDICTIONIN JULY 2009 RECORD EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD 1. Under color ofofficial rightand authority, Defendants Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Jack N. Peterson conspired with other Defendants and Officials to extort fees and property from Plaintiff public corruption victims under color of, e.g., legally non-existent “ resolution 569/875”, facially forged “land parcels”, a non-existent “ 07/29/09 judgment”, and fake “lien”. See Doc. ## 432; 365; 386; 282; 288; 5; 25; Civil Rights Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; APPEAL PENDING.
37
Embed
Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
DEFENDANTS’ RECORD EXTORTION, DOC. ## 386-2, 432, 2:07-CV-228, APPEAL
2. In “APPELLEE PROPERTY APPRAISER’S MOTION FOR SANTIONS FOR FILING A
FRIVOLOUS MOTION”, Doc. # 386-2, Defendant K. M. Wilkinson EXPRESSLY stated
HOW he COERCED the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting and EXTORTED fees and
property:
“In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices in thisCourt, the Appellee would respectfully request that this Court [11 th Circuit] requirethe Appellant to pay a monetary penalty in the Court for filing his frivolous motion tostrike.” See “Doc. 386-2, 11/30/2009”.\
Here for EXPRESS criminal and illegal purposes of extorting fees and property after having
fabricated fake “ land parcels ” such as, e.g., “ 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 ” on the public record,
Defendant Wilkinson violated and perverted Fed.R.App.P. 38 and 27. Here, Defendant
Judges, Defendants, and Officials concealed and conspired to conceal that the fabricated
“lot ” “00A0” had never been legally described , platted , existed , and “ owned ” by “ Lee
County, FL ”. See Plaintiffs’ record Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, private undedicated “Cayo
Costa” Subdivision, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) on file. See publicly recorded AFFIDAVITS on file;
see www.LeeClerk.org .
PLAINTIFFS HAD APPEALED FROM “ORDER”, “DOC. # 21”
3. Plaintiff public corruption victims and record landowners had appealed from Defendant
extortion under color of “authority” and “official right”:
“Because Plaintiffs previously inundated the Court with electronic submissions andfailed to comply with the Court’s order, this Court will not reinstate any electronic
filing privileges .”
Here again, Defendant “ judicial whore ” C. E. Honeywell fraudulently concealed, and
conspired to conceal, that Plaintiffs never had any “ electronic filing privileges ”.
5. Therefore here as a matter of law and fact, previously non-existent “ privileges ” could not
possibly have been “ not reinstated ”. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judge Honeywell was under
absolute obligations to again disqualify herself, 28 U.S.C. § 455, 28 U.S.C. § 144 , but
continued to preside to cover up and conceal record Government crimes. See, e.g., fake “ land
parcels ” on file; fake “ lien ”; fake “ 07/29/09 judgment ”; and prima facie Government scam
“O.R. 569/875 ”.
RECORD EMERGENCY OF EXTORTION, COERCION, AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION
6. Defendant “ judicial whore ” C. E. Honeywell is at the center of the record public corruption,
coercion, fraud, and extortion scheme under color of facially forged and incomprehensible
“resolution 569/875 ” and a fake “ lien ” and non-existent “ 07/29/09 judgment ”. See Lee
County Public Records; search of “ Busse Jorg ”.
EMERGENCY OF DEF. HONEYWELL’S THREATS, SANCTIONS & INTIMIDATION
7. Here again, Honeywell threatened, intimidated, and coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from
prosecuting her and the other Defendants and Officials:
“Such conduct may result in sanctions .” See Doc. # 38 , p. 2.
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
“…a judgment [was] issued by the United States Court of Appeals in and for theEleventh Circuit on July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant JorgBusse in the amount of $5,048.60.”
Here, Defendants Peterson and Wilkinson fraudulently pretended and conspired to falsely
pretend a “ July 29, 2009, judgment ”. Here, said Defendants knew that no mandate regarding
falsely pretended “ attorney’s fees ” had issued . See Doc. ## 386-2; 432-1. Furthermore
admittedly, Doc. # 432, no specific fee request or cost schedule had been made as absolutely
required under the Rules.
DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO EXTORT&DEFRAUD BY MEANS OF FAKE LIEN
11. 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 (11 th Cir.
1987). Therefore here, Defendants Honeywell, Wilkinson, and Peterson conspired with other
Officials to extort and defraud the Plaintiffs under color of a record fake “ lien ” and scam
“O.R. 569/875 ” even though the Defendants knew that no mandate had issued.
12. Just like sham “ claim ” “O.R. 569/875 ”, the non-existent “ 07/29/2010 judgment ” was a prima
facie fraud and extortion scheme. Just like the judicial concealment of Plaintiffs’ multiple
actions in State Courts since 2006, here Judges and other Officials concealed the record
absence of a falsely pretended “ 07/29/2009 judgment ” and fake “ resolution ”. See Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
DEFENDANTS MISREPRESENTED MANDATE PROCEDURE
13. Since the clerk has 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 is the responsibility of the clerk. In particular, the copy of the judgment or summary order
that is sent to the district court, in addition to being stamped " MANDATE " and "true copy",
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
will bear a sticker saying " mandate issued " and indicating the date of issuance. Second, the
attorneys for the parties will be sent a copy of the mandate that bears this sticker. Here,
Defendants Wilkinson and Peterson perpetrated their “ lien ” and “ mandate ” fraud & extortion
scheme.
14. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell and other Defendants concealed that the
subjective intent of the judicial panel deciding a particular case is irrelevant to the fact of
whether or not the mandate actually issued. Nor is the mandate deemed issued merely upon
the filing of an opinion or summary order. For any mandate to issue there must be "[a]
certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the opinion, if any, and any direction as to costs* * * unless the court directs that a formal mandate issue." See Fed.R.App.P. 41. Therefore
here, there were no mandate and no lien as fraudulently pretended by, e.g., Defendants
Honeywell, Wilkinson, and Peterson.
EMERGENCY OF CONCEALMENT OF RECORD ABSENCE OF 07/29/10 JUDGMENT
15. Here, the fictitious “ 07/29/2009 judgment ” never existed . Here, no judge had signed and/or
dated the fake “ judgment ”. The non-issued and facially forged “ mandate ” stated:
“The Clerk is directed to return unfiled all motions or other documents tendered byAppellant after issuance of this Court’s mandate and to accept no further filings fromAppellant in this closed appeal.” See Doc. # 432-1.
Here, no mandate had ever issued . Here on the record, Peterson forged a mandate for
unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting money and property from the Plaintiffs. Here
in particular, the 11 th Circuit had no authority to “direct to return unfiled all motions or
other documents tendered by Appellant ” in this non-final matter.
HONEYWELL CONCEALED RECORD MANDATE, DOC. # 365, 2:07-CV-00228
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
16. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit decides cases by opinion or by summary order.
After a certain number of days from the date on which an opinion issues, the clerk of the
appellate court files the mandate , which consists of a copy of the opinion, a judgment that
has been drafted and signed by a clerk of the court, and any direction as to costs. See
Fed.R.App.P. 41. The clerk of the court signs her name on a copy of the judgment or order
that is stamped " MANDATE " at the top of the first page and "true copy" at the bottom of the
last page. The original copies of the judgment or order and the opinion are retained by the
clerk's office, and the "true copy", along with a second copy of the first page of the judgment,
or order, plus a copy of any opinion, is sent to the district court from which the appeal wastaken. The clerk records this event, which is the issuance of the mandate , by signing her
name and the date on a docket card next to a notation indicating that the mandate has issued.
See Doc. # 365.
17. After receiving the mandate , the district clerk signs the second copy and returns it to
the circuit court clerk's office, where it is filed. Once a month, the clerk's office sends to
the clerk of each district court a list of all the mandates issued to that court during the month
so that the district clerk can verify receipt of all the mandates that were sent. In addition to
ascertaining when the mandate issues , a diligent appellate party should check the language of
the judgment itself to insure that it conforms to the order or opinion of the appellate court.
See R. Martineau, Modern Appellate Practice, Sec. 17.1 (1983). Here, it was evident that the
fake “ judgment ” and/or mandate fraudulently pretended by Defendants Wilkinson and
Peterson had never been issued as evidenced by, e.g., Doc. # 432, 2:2007-cv-00228.
18. While a panel or a judge may give directions affecting the mandate , it is the clerk, NOT the
judges, who "issues" it. There is no rule or formal authorization in the 11th Circuit, or in any
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
(A) Grounds and relief sought. A motion must state with particularity the grounds for themotion, the relief sought, and the legal argument necessary to support it.(B) Accompanying documents.(i) Any affidavit or other paper necessary to support a motion must be served and filedwith the motion.
(ii) An affidavit must contain only factual information, not legal argument.(iii) A motion seeking substantive relief must include a copy of the trial court’s opinionor agency’s decision as a separate exhibit.(C) Documents barred or not required.(i) A separate brief supporting or responding to a motion must not be filed.(ii) A notice of motion is not required.(iii) A proposed order is not required.(3) Response.(A) Time to file. Any party may file a response to a motion; Rule 27(a)(2) governs itscontents. The response must be filed within 10 days after service of the motion unless thecourt shortens or extends the time. A motion authorized by Rules 8, 9, 18, or 41 may be
granted before the 10-day period runs only if the court gives reasonable notice to the parties that it intends to act sooner.(B) Request for affirmative relief. A response may include a motion for affirmative relief.The time to respond to the new motion, and to reply to that response, are governed byRule 27(a)(3)(A) and (a)(4). The title of the response must alert the court to the requestfor relief.”
EMERGENCY OF CONSPIRACY OF CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND PERJURY
22. Diligent search of the Lee County Public Records for “Busse Jorg” did not show the prima
23. Here in particular, Def. Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Crooked Officials Kenneth
M. Wilkinson and Jack N. Peterson had violated 11 th Circuit Local Rules, FRAP 39, p. 154,
and that no “ lien ” or “ judgment ” could have possibly existed.
FRAP 39. Costs
(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, unlessthe court extends the time.(3) The clerk must prepare and certify an itemized statement of costs for insertion inthe 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 —
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
Court to obstruct and interfere with the orderly filing of Plaintiffs’ pleadings. See criminal
Complaints to law enforcement.
PLAINTIFFS DEMANDED RELIEF FROM HONEYWELL’S IDIOTIC ORDERS
28. Here, Honeywell knew that the Plaintiffs were never divested of their unimpeachable record
title to their riparian Gulf-front property against their will. In particular, Honeywell knew that
scam “ O.R. 569/875 ” was not, and could not have possibly been any land use and/or police
power regulation . As a matter of absolute law, no police power regulation could possibly
transfer title against a landowner’s will. Honeywell knew and concealed that the “ judgment ”
and “ opinion ” “in Case No. 2:07-CV-228-JES-SPC” were on their faces judicial shit andconclusive proof of public corruption and conspiracy to defraud and deliberately deprive
under color of fake “ resolution 569/875 ”, which had never existed.
HONEYWELL’S RECORD TRICKERY, DECEPTION, FRAUD, AND FRIVOLITY
29. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge C. E. Honeywell conspired with other Defendants and
Government Officials to perpetrate, e.g., record deception, trickery, and fraud under
fraudulent pretenses of fictitious “ resolution 569/875 ”:
“In a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of LeeCounty, Florida, Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land(“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9).”
31. Defendant Honeywell knew that Plaintiffs were the unimpeachable title holders and tax
payers of record, and that several Appeals have been pending regarding the prima facie
extortion and fraud on the public record.
32. Here, “ judicial whore ” Honeywell knew that no judgment had ever existed to support any
“lien ”. See Doc. # 365. Here, Def. Honeywell conspired with other Defendants such as, e.g.,
Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Jack N. Peterson and fraudulently concealed fake land parcels
“12-44-20-01-00000.00A0 ” and “ 07-44-21-01-00001.0000 ” and the prima facie illegality
and nullity of the fraudulent “ judgment ” and “ opinion ” in Case 2:07-cv-00228.
PLAINTIFFS HAD SUED DEFENDANT CROOKED JUDGE C. E. HONEYWELL
33. The Plaintiff public corruption victims had sued Defendant Corrupt U.S. Judge Charlene E.
Honeywell and other Defendant U.S. Agents in their private individual capacities for prima
facie unlawful and criminal acts outside any “ immunity ” and “ official capacity ”. Here,
Defendant Crooked Honeywell had multiple conflicts of interest and concealed her unlawful
and criminal acts. See 28 U.S.C. § 455, 28 U.S.C. § 144.
DEFENDANT CROOKED HONEYWELL CONSPIRED TO CONCOCT “ resolution ”
34. In particular, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell concocted and conspired with other
Defendants and Government Officials to concoct a “ resolution ” and/or “ law ” for facially
unlawful and criminal purposes of deliberately depriving & defrauding the Plaintiffs and
extorting real property and fees “under color of” sham “claim” “ O.R. 569/875 ”. In the record
absence of any “ legal description ” in said Government scam “ O.R. 569/875 ”, Honeywell
idiotically pretended:
“In a resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of LeeCounty, Florida, Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land(“Resolution 569/875") (Dkt 5, Ex. 3, p. 9).”
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
Here on the public record, Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
no “ lawmaker ” had ever “ adopted ” prima facie sham “ resolution 569/875 ” and that no “ legal
description ” of accreted riparian “Lot 15A”, S.T.R.A.P. # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, had
appeared in said prima facie scam “ O.R. 569/875 ”. In particular, Honeywell concealed and
conspired to conceal that any involuntary alienation would have exclusively been a judicial
function. Here, Honeywell fabricated said judicial trash even though she knew that no
“legislative act ”, “resolution ”, law and/or “ O.R. 569/875 ” could have possibly involuntarily
divested the Plaintiffs of their record property. Here plain and short, Honeywell acted like a“ judicial whore ” in obvious contempt of law and order. Here, Honeywell’s record policy and
custom has been to pervert the law and perpetrate fraud on the Court.
37. Here, Def. Crooked Honeywell knew that the Plaintiffs had fundamental rights to own their
riparian street and up lands on the Gulf of Mexico and exclude Government.
DEF. CROOKED HONEYWELL CONSPIRED TO COVER UP AND CONCEAL
38. Here, Honeywell covered up, and conspired to cover up, for the prima facie unlawful and
criminal acts of Defendant Crooked Judges John E. Steele, Joel Dubina, Susan H. Black, and
Stanley F. Birch, who had fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, Doc. ##
338, 365; Case No. 2:07-CV-228:
“ Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law .”
See prima facie vile judicial trash, Doc. # 365; ¶ D.“ Additionally, substantive due process protects only fundamental rights, that is, thoserights which are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Such rights are created bythe Constitution, and do not include property rights .”
See prima facie vile judicial trash, Doc. # 338, p. 10, ¶ B.
EMERGENCY OF RECORD JUDICIAL “SHIT” AND CORRUPTION
39. Here, no intelligent , rational , fit , and honest judge, juror, and/or person in Steele’s, Dubina’s,
Birch’s, and Black’s shoes could have possibly determined such utterly arbitrary, capricious,
and contemptuous shit. Here, said judicial Crooks disrespected and raped the law in bright
day light and then covered up under false pretenses of “ frivolity ” and “ vexatiousness ” claims.
40. American society has been built upon and around the fundamental Constitutional right to
own property and exclude Government. Here of course, said Government Crooks’ record
perversion of both Federal and Florida Constitutions was an EMERGENCY of the first order.
EMERGENCY OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION & FRAUD
41. Here, Plaintiff public corruption victims defended against fraudulent “ claims ”, defenses ,
prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”, and said fake “ land parcels ”. “Judicial whore” Honeywell
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2
“(e) Motions of an emergency nature may be considered and determined by theCourt at any time, in its discretion (see also, Rule 4.05). The unwarranted designation of a motion as an emergency motion may result in the imposition of
sanctions .”
Here, Defendant “judicial whore” Honeywell was NOT the Court. Defendant objectively
crooked Judge Honeywell has been merely an objectively partial and corrupt judicial officer,
who has been raping the law under color of, e.g., “ O.R. 569/875 ” and facially forged “ land
parcels ”.
DEF. “WHORE” HONEYWELL CONSPIRED TO EXTEND RECORD FRAUD
43. Rule 60(b) allows courts to vacate improperly entered judgments and final orders. In
particular, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a district court to vacate
a judgment against a party who shows circumstances such as, e.g., mistake, newly discovered
47. Here, Def. Honeywell knew that a “Parcel” or “S.T.R.A.P.” Number is a 17 digit parcel
identifier in the form of Section-Tier (Township)-Range-Area-Block.Lot. 12-44-20-01-
00015.015A appeared on Plaintiffs Notice of Paid Taxes for their riparian Lot 15A, PB 3, PG
25 (1912). Here in particular,
a. “01” identified the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated residential “CayoCosta” Subdivision as recorded and legally described in Lee County Plat Book 3,Page 25;
b. Said Plat of Survey identified (U.S. Governmental Survey System)i. Section 12;
under fraudulent pretenses and color of incomprehensible and idiotic “ land claim ” “O.R.
569/875 ”. See, e.g., Dkt. ## 213, 236, Case No. 2:09-cv-00791. Here, Honeywell knew that
the law never recognized facially null and void “ O.R. 569/875 ”. Said Defendant deliberately
deprived and deceived and conspired to deprive and deceive Plaintiffs and other record
landowners in Lee County, FL.
49. Here, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiff(s)’ Motions under Rule 46, and
46(c), Fed.R.App.P. Rule 46(c) has been the appellate court's disciplinary rule "for conduct
unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule." Sanctions
under Rule 46(c) can include removal of the attorney(s)’ name(s) from the roll authorized to practice before the court. See also Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules 5 and 6.
50. Honeywell refused to look to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in order to assess costs, expenses and
attorney fees solely on the attorney. Unlike Rule 38 and Section 1912, which are limited to
appellate courts, section 1927 could be used by any court of the United States to assess
liability for excessive costs when the attorney "multiplies the proceedings in any case
unreasonably and vexatiously." Furthermore, section 1927 directs the court to require the
attorney to "satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees," as opposed to
being jointly and severally liable.
51. Here under facially false pretenses and color of Government scam “ O.R. 569/875 ” and a fake
“lien ”, and fake “ 07/29/09 judgment ”, Def. Honeywell conspired with other Officials to fix
the Cases and intimidate and threaten the Plaintiffs for unlawful purposes of extorting
Plaintiffs’ property and fees and coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting the
Defendant Government Agents.
8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2