Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2

8/9/2019 Emergency Motion to Enjoin Extortion & Public Corruption, 386 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/emergency-motion-to-enjoin-extortion-public-corruption-386-2 1/37



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

Crooked Judge Honeywell’s facially fraudulent “order”, “ Doc. # 21 ”, coercion, and extortion

under color of “ authority ” and “ official right ”. For criminal and illegal purposes such as, e.g.,

extorting fees and property, defrauding, and recklessly depriving the Plaintiffs of their

fundamental rights to own property, Def. “ judicial whore ” Honeywell covered up and

concealed JUDICIAL EMERGENCIES. See Doc. # 21. See also Docket of fixed Case No.

2:2009-cv-00791.



3

PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION VICTIMS HAD APPEALED FROM DOC. ## 37, 38

4. Plaintiff public corruption victims and record landowners had appealed from Defendant

Crooked Judge Honeywell’s facially fraudulent “order”, “ Doc. # 38, 07/07/10 ”, coercion, and

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.



4

8. In her fraudulent “order”, Doc. # 37 , Defendant Honeywell concealed the prima facie

illegality of a purported “ lien ” and extortion of fees and property:

“ 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 in judicial due process . Here pursuant to the public record, Plaintiffs

held exclusive, unimpeachable, marketable, and unencumbered record title to “Lot 15A” in

the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision, PB 3, PG 25 (1912).

EMERGENCY OF HONEYWELL’S RECORD CRIMES:

DEF. JUDGE HONEYWELL CONCEALED LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

9. 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 ”

10. 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:



5

“…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",



6

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



7

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





9

(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

facie fraudulent “ affidavit ”, “Doc. # 432-2 filed 05/21/10” [Case No. 2:07-cv-00228].

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 —



10

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

24. 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

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

25. 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”, Honeywell

rambled about “ frivolity ” to mislead and deceive and evade the record legal issues.

EMERGENCY: HONEYWELL OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE

26. 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.

27. “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



11

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).”

HONEYWELL CONCEALED FACIALLY FRAUDULENT OPINION & JUDGMENT

30. Here, Honeywell knew that the “ judgment ” and “ opinion ” “in Case No. 2:07-CV-228-JES-

SPC” were facially fraudulent, null, and void. See Doc. # 365; June 15, 2009. “ The Board of

Commissioners of Lee County, Florida ,” had never “ claimed ” “ Lot 15A ” “as public land ”.

HONEYWELL KNEW THAT PLAINTIFFS APPEALED FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT



12

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).”



13

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

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.

DEF. HONEYWELL FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED INCOMPREHENSIBLE SCAM

35. Here, Defendant Crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed that the law did not recognize

any “ claim as public land ” and/or “ resolution 569/875 ”. See also Chapters 95; 73, 74; 712,

Florida Statutes; ADVERSE POSSESSION ; EMINENT DOMAIN ; FLORIDA’S SELF-

ENFORCING MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT .

HONEYWELL CONCEALED NULL & VOID HOAX

36. Here Honeywell knew that said prima facie extortion scheme “ O.R. 569/875 ” had lacked any

color , legal description , and legislative signature. No name of any lawmaker and no

legislative history had existed. Just like a pedophile priest, here Honeywell raped innocent

Plaintiffs and obstructed justice and investigation of the record crimes by Defendant

Government Agents.



14

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



15

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.



16



17

42. Pursuant to local rule 3.01

“(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

evidence, or fraud. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Here, facially unexecuted sham “claim” “ O.R.

569/875 ” was a prima facie fraud and extortion scheme, because as a matter of law, no

“resolution ” and/or “ legislative act ” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs

of their record ownership and title.

44. Here in fullest support of Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion(s), the record fraud and fabrications

of a “ resolution ” and facially un-adjudicated and frivolous “ land claim ” “O.R. 569/875”

were highly relevant to the legal issues upon which the Case(s) turned. Here, the case turned

on, e.g., record Government corruption, fake “ land parcels ”, and Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable

record title to and ownership of their street and up lands along the Gulf of Mexico, accreted

riparian Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A.

DEF. HONEYWELL’S RECORD “ FRIVOLITY ” FRAUD SCHEME



18

45. " Frivolity, like obscenity, is hard to define ." See WSM Inc. v. Tennessee Sales Co., 709 F.2d

1084 (6 th Cir. 1983). For unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting fees and real property

under color of Defendants’ prima facie fraud scheme “ O.R. 569/875 ”, Crooked Honeywell

fraudulently pretended, and conspired to fraudulently pretend, “ frivolity ”/”vexatiousness ” and

illegally threaten, intimidate, and/or punish the Plaintiff landowners.

46. Here on their faces, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were fraudulent, “frivolous as filed”

and “frivolous as argued”. Here, Honeywell’s orders had no basis in law or fact and were for

the criminal purposes of extorting property and fees. Honeywell recklessly misrepresented

law and facts, because on its face, null and void “ O.R. 569/875 ” was a hoax and scam andnever legally described or conveyed anything.

DEF. HONEYWELL CONCEALED DEFENDANTS’ FORGED S.T.R.A.P. NUMBERS

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;

ii. Township 44 S;iii. Range 20 E;

c. “00015” identified “Block 15”, PB 3, PG 25;d. “015A” identified accreted riparian Gulf-front “Lot 15A”, PB 3 PG 25.

PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 46 and 46(c), FED.R.APP.P., MOTIONS

48. According to the record, Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendants and

Officials to perpetrate fraud on the Court(s) and keep the Plaintiffs away from the Court



19

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.



20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand

1. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining said EXTORTION and CORRUPTION under color of

authority and prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”, said fake “ lien ”, and fake “ 07/29/09

judgment ”;

2. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining said record EXTORTION and CORRUPTION under

color of “O.R. 569/875”, because as a matter of law, no “ law ” or “ resolution ”, whatsoever,

could have possibly alienated Plaintiffs’ record property against their will;

3. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining said record EXTORTION and CORRUPTION and

embarrassingly idiotic Governmental and judicial hoax of a “ public land claim ” [see, e.g.,

Doc. ## 213; 214; 212; Case No. 2:07-cv-00228];

4. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining Def. objectively partial/crooked Judge Honeywell, and

Defendants Jack N. Peterson, and Kenneth M. Wilkinson from perverting the record &

concealing Plaintiffs’ record ownership of Lot 15A, PB 3, PG 25 (1912);



21

5. An EMERGENCY order relieving the Plaintiffs from the fraudulent judgment, orders, and

proceedings of record such as, e.g., Doc. ## 210, 212, 213, 214 . for said well-proven reasons;

6. An EMERGENCY order relieving the Plaintiffs from the fraudulent concealment of their

State action, 2006-CA-003185 , Lee County Circuit Court, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA;

7. An Order compelling Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why she did

not fraudulently conceal Plaintiffs’ record ownership of said Lot 15A, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-

00015.015A as evidenced in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and pleadings;


not fraudulently conceal Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership of said Lot 15A, Parcel# 12-44-20-01-00015.015A as affirmed by the public record;


not maliciously pervert the dispositive affirmation of Plaintiffs’ record ownership by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit, Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al. , 343 Fed.

Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009);


not capriciously conceal Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership of said Lot 15A, Parcel

# 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, which the Defendants Lee County had asserted before the 11 th

Circuit U.S. Appellate Court, Appeal # 08-13170, BUSSE v. LEE COUNTY;

11. An Order compelling Defendant Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why her “rulings” were not

NULL AND VOID and procured through the criminal scheme of false “ frivolity ” and

“vexatiousness ” pretenses and the concealment of said fake “ legal descriptions ”, fake “ land ”

“ parcels ”, and fake “ Government ownership ” “claims” and contentions;



22

12. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell, because she

disrespected the law, disrupted the proceedings in favor of the Defendants, perverted the

facts of record, and could not possibly be trusted to be impartial and fair, 28 U.S.C. § 455;

/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTTGovernmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, Plaintiff, pro se P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480; T: 561-400-3295

____________________________________ /S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M.Judicial Corruption & Crime Victim; Plaintiff, pro seState Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor;[email protected]



23

Def. Crooked Honeywell’s Real Estate Fraud:

• Fake “ lot ” and “ block ” numbers such as, e.g.:o “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;o “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;

Neither fake “lot” “00A0” nor “block”“00001”ever existed.

• Fake “ Government ownership ” claims;• Fake “ transaction(s) ” such as, e.g., “ O.R.

569/875 ”;• Fake “ resolution ” and “ law ” “ claims ”;• Fake “ land ” “ parcels ”;• Fake “ frivolity ” “ defenses ”;• Fake “ vexatiousness ” contentions;• Fake “ legal descriptions ”:



24



25



26



27



28



29



30



31



32



33



34



35



36

