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 ____________________________________________________________________________/ NOTICE OF APPEAL RE RECORD PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND “DOC. 37” PUBLISHED RECORD CONCLUSIVE PUBLIC CORRUPTION & PERJURY PROOF RECORD PROOF OF LACK OFAPPELLATE JURISDICTIONIN JULY 2009 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM “ORDER”, “DOC. # 37, 07/07/10” 1. Plaintiff public corruption victims and record landowners hereby appeal f rom Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell’s facially fraudulent “order”, “Doc. # 37, 07/07/10”: “ Plaintiffs seek to prevent the attachment of a lien to property in Case No. 2:07-CV- 228-JES-SPC and seek a reversal of an order issued by this Court in Case No. 2:09- CV-791, Dkt. 213.” As a matter of law and pursuant to the Separation-of-Powers Doctrine, any involuntary alienation could not have possibly been any legislative function. Only a court of law could have possibly engaged injudicial due process . Here pursuant to the public record, Plaintiffs
29
Embed
Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
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 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
DEF. JUDGE HONEYWELL CONCEALED LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11 th Circuit had no jurisdiction on or around “ July 29, 2009 ”. See Doc. #
432-1. On or around “ July 29, 2009 ”, the falsely pretended “ judgment ” could NOT have
possibly been made by said 11 th Circuit, because the appellate jurisdiction had ended with
receipt of the mandate in the District Court. See Doc. # 365, June 2009 (06/15/09). Here,Honeywell extended, and conspired to extend, Defendant K. M. Wilkinson’s and J. N.
Peterson’s facially fraudulent “ lien ” scheme. See Doc.# 432. See also Ch. 56, Florida Stat.
DEF. HONEYWELL CONCEALED DEF. PETERSON’S RECORD PERJURY,
RECORD NON-ISSUANCE OF “ MANDATE ”, AND FAKE “ LIEN ”
3. Here, Def. Honeywell fraudulently concealed that no “ mandate ” regarding any “ attorney’s
fees” had issued [or could have possibly issued for record lack of appellate jurisdiction ] and
that Defendant Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Assistant Attorney, had perjured himself when
he materially misrepresented under oath, Doc. ## 432, 432-2:
“…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
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
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
4. 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.
5. Just like sham “ claim ” “O.R. 569/875 ”, the non-existent “ 07/29/2010 judgment ” was a primafacie 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
6. 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",
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.
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
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 was
taken. 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.
10. 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 tothe 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.
11. 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
other circuit, that Plaintiffs are aware of, that provides for issuance of the mandate by court
order rather than by action of the clerk.
12. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell concealed the formal requirement(s) that the
clerk's office must execute certain concrete procedures which themselves constitute issuance
of the mandate .
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
14. By his own admission, Defendant Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson frivolously filed:
“APPELLEE PROPERTY APPRAISER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FILING OF A FRIVOLOUS MOTION, Doc. # 386-2.
Said motion did NOT even invoke Fed.R.App.P. 38 and made no mention of a “ frivolous
appeal ”, whatsoever. Here, Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson violated
Fed.R.App.P. 27, because, e.g., no grounds were stated, whatsoever, in said frivolous and
fraudulent motion:
“(2) Contents of a Motion.(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.
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
(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
15. Diligent search of the Lee County Public Records for “Busse Jorg” did not show the prima
facie fraudulent “ affidavit ”, “Doc. # 432-2 filed 05/21/10” [Case No. 2:07-cv-00228].16. 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 — upon the circuit clerk’s request — add the statement of costs, or any amendment of it, to the mandate. See Exhibit.
PRIMA FACIE IDIOCY OF HONEYWELL’S ORDERS, DOC. ## 213, 236; 37, 38
17. As a matter of law and basic logic, no “ lien ” could possibly “attach ” to Plaintiffs’ “ Lot 15A”,
PB 3 PG 25 (1912), if the record title to Plaintiffs’ said riparian Gulf-front property had
“transferred ” to Lee County, Florida. Just like a bungling Government idiot, here Honeywell
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
made no sense, whatsoever. Here plain and short, Defendant Honeywell’s purported defense
and claim of a “ resolution ” and/or land use regulation were facially idiotic.
HONEYWELL CONCEALED FALSE PRETENSES OF LAND USE REGULATION
18. Here, Honeywell refused to answer plain and short questions such as, e.g., who or which
fictitious “ lawmaker ” purportedly “ regulated ” or “ restricted ” what “ land use ”? In particular,
Honeywell knew that the deceptively chosen “ land use regulation ” authorities and case law
in said fraudulent “ judgment ” and “ opinion ”, Doc. # 365, could NOT have possibly applied,
because here the legal issues were admittedly record title and ownership and NOT any
fictitious land use regulation . Here just like a Government idiot and “whore”, Honeywellrambled about “ frivolity ” to mislead and deceive and evade the record legal issues.
EMERGENCY: HONEYWELL OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE
19. Rather than recuse herself because of her record idiocy and fraud, Honeywell continued to
obstruct justice and make more facially idiotic & illegal “orders”, Doc. ## 37, 38.
20. “In Case No. 2:09-CV-791”, e.g., Doc. ## 213 , 236 , Defendant Honeywell threatened and
silenced the Plaintiffs without any authority . Here, Defendant Honeywell illegally deprived
the Plaintiffs of court access for the unlawful and criminal purposes of coercing the Plaintiffs
to refrain from further prosecution. In particular, Honeywell illegally instructed the Clerk of
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
21. 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
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
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 and
conclusive 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
22. 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).”
“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
26. 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
”
27. 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).”
See Case No. 2:09-CV-791, Dkt. 213, p. 5.
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
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
“ 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, those
rights 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
32. 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 brightday light and then covered up under false pretenses of “ frivolity ” and “ vexatiousness ” claims.
33. 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
34. 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
tarnished the reputation of this Court, and Plaintiffs were absolutely entitled to Honeywell’s
recusal. Here, the unlawful “ lien ”, threats, and extortion under color of scam “O.R. 569/875”
were EMERGENCIES on the record. See Doc. ## 365; 360.
8/9/2019 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009
“(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
36. 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
40. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Here under facially false pretenses and color of Government scam “ O.R. 569/875 ”, 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 Public Corruption - Record Proof of Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction in July 2009