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-SPC

JOHN 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 MOTION

FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF DEF. CROOKED JUDGE C. E. HONEYWELL,

28 U.S.C. § 144, 28 U.S.C. § 455, PUBLIC POLICY

PUBLISHED RECORD CONCLUSIVE PUBLIC CORRUPTION & PERJURY PROOF

RECORD PROOF OF LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN JULY 2009

EMERGENCY DEMAND FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF CROOKED HONEYWELL

1. For the record criminal and unlawful purposes of extorting fees and property, Defendant

“judicial whore” Corrupt Judge C. E. Honeywell fraudulently concealed, e.g., a non-existent

“07/29/09 judgment”, fake “lien”, fake “land parcels”, and facially forged “resolution

569/875”. See Doc. ## 386; 432; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

2. Said Defendant Honeywell had previously disqualified herself and must be recused in this

Case as well. See also record recusals of Def. Judges S. Polster Chappell and J. E. Steele.

The public record conclusively proved Honeywell’s crimes, and Plaintiffs sued Def.

Honeywell in her private individual capacity. Def. Honeywell’s crimes such as, e.g.,

extortion, deliberate deprivations, and title fraud were outside the scope of any immunity

and official capacity.

EMERGENCY OF HONEYWELL’S CASE FIXING & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

3. Honeywell had fixed Plaintiffs’ Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and illegally obstructed justice

and Plaintiffs’ court access, Doc. # 236, 07/02/10:

“3. The Clerk is further directed to no longer accept ANY filings from Plaintiffs
in this case because a judgment has been entered and Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal as to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 213), and this case is CLOSED.”

Defendant Honeywell procured and conspired to procure the “judgment”, Doc. ## 213, 214,

through record extortion and fraud schemes such as, e.g., facially forged “land parcels”, fake

“resolution 569/875”, fake “lien”, and “forged 07/29/09 judgment”. See Lee County Public

Records; search “Busse Jorg”.

4. Here, Def. Honeywell knew that pursuant to the Lee County Public Records, the purported

“lien” and “07/29/09 judgment” was a fraud and extortion scheme under color of official

right, fake “land parcels”, and facially forged “resolution 569/875”.

PLAINTIFFS APPEALED FROM “ORDER”, “DOC. # 38, 07/07/10”

5. Plaintiff public corruption victims and record landowners hereby appeal 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 and
failed to comply with the Court’s order, this Court will not reinstate any electronic
filing privileges.”

2
 Here again, Defendant “judicial whore” C. E. Honeywell fraudulently concealed, and

conspired to conceal, that Plaintiffs never had any “electronic filing privileges”.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

3
 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

10. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed that the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the 11th 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 11th 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”

11. 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 the
Eleventh Circuit on July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant Jorg
Busse 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

4
 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

12. 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). 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

5
15. 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

16. 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 by
Appellant after issuance of this Court’s mandate and to accept no further filings from
Appellant 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 11th 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

17. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th 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

6
 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

7
 UNFIT DEF. HONEYWELL MISREPRESENTED JURISDICTION AND MANDATE

21. Furthermore, Def. Honeywell concealed that jurisdiction follows receipt of the mandate:

"The effect of the mandate is to bring the proceedings in a case on appeal in our
Circuit to a close and to remove it from the jurisdiction of this Court, returning it to
the forum whence it came."

It is the date on which the mandate is issued and received by the district court, which

determines when the district court reacquires jurisdiction for further proceedings. Issuance of

the mandate was an event of considerable institutional significance. A mandate could NOT

possibly “simply” "issue", just 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.

DEFENDANT WILKINSON’S FRAUDULENT & FRIVOLOUS MOTION, DOC. # 386-2

22. 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 the
motion, 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 filed
with 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 opinion
or 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
 (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 its
contents. The response must be filed within 10 days after service of the motion unless the
court 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 by
Rule 27(a)(3)(A) and (a)(4). The title of the response must alert the court to the request
for relief.”

EMERGENCY OF CONSPIRACY OF CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND PERJURY

23. 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].

24. Here in particular, Def. Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Crooked Officials Kenneth

M. Wilkinson and Jack N. Peterson had violated 11th 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, 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. See Exhibit.

PRIMA FACIE IDIOCY OF HONEYWELL’S ORDERS, DOC. ## 213, 236; 37, 38

25. 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

9
 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. “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

29. 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

10
 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

30. 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 Lee

County, 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

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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

11
 “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

34. 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”

35. 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 Lee

County, 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

12
 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

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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

39. 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:

13
 “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 by
the 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

40. 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.

41. 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

42. 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.

14
15
43. Pursuant to local rule 3.01

“(e) Motions of an emergency nature may be considered and determined by the

Court 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

44. 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.

45. 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

16
46. "Frivolity, like obscenity, is hard to define." See WSM Inc. v. Tennessee Sales Co., 709 F.2d

1084 (6th 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.

47. 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 and

never legally described or conveyed anything.

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

48. 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 “Cayo
Costa” 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

49. 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

17
 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.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

18
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand

1. 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; 28

U.S.C. § 144;

2. 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”;

3. 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;

19
4. 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];

5. 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);

6. 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;

7. 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;

8. 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;

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

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

# 12-44-20-01-00015.015A as affirmed by the public record;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. 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.

/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT

Governmental 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 se
State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor;
JRBU@aol.com

21
 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”:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36