COMPLAINT OF RAMPANT PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, AND OF
UNLAWFUL AND CRIMINAL ACTS BY DEF. U.S. AGENTS & OFFICIALS
IN THEIR PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES OUTSIDE ANY “IMMUNITY”

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

[CC: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

DEFENDANT CORRUPT U.S. JUDGE CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL

RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY
1. The Plaintiff public corruption victims are suing Defendant corrupt U.S. District Judge
Charlene Edwards Honeywell (“Honeywell”), a female Afro-American Judge, in her private
individual capacity. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts on record were
outside any immunity and official capacity.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL ILLEGALITY & CRIMINALITY OF FAKE “WRIT”
2. On or around 07/14/10, Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell conspired with, e.g.,
U.S. Defendants Chappell and Steele to fraudulently conceal the prima facie nullity and
illegality of a facially forged “writ of execution” and “July judgment”, Case No. 2:2010-cv-
00089, Doc. # 48, p. 1:
“On February 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Chappell issued an order granting Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson's Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (2:07-CV-228,
Dkt. 424). Shortly thereafter, the writ was issued (2:07-CV-228, Dkt. 425).”
3. Defendant crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P.
4. Defendant corrupt U.S. Judge Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to
conceal that Defendant Co-conspirator Chappell had fabricated a mandate and/or judgment,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 424:
“On July 28, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit issued a Judgment awarding Wilkinson
$5,000.00 in attorney’s fees and double costs in the amount of $48.60, as sanctions
for Busse’s pursuit of a frivolous appeal.”
5. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that admittedly
Defendant Wilkinson had never alleged a “frivolous appeal” and that no mandate or
“judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000.00 in attorneys fees…” had ever existed, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
6. In the certified record absence of any “Rule 38 motion” by Def. Wilkinson, a fraudulent
“judgment” in the amount of “$24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11 2009”, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228.
7. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that the mandated
“amount of $24.30” had been paid and was not “outstanding”:
“The Judgment to date remains outstanding.”
 8. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with other U.S. Agents to
conceal that
a. No such mandated “judgment” existed, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;
b. No mandated “judgment” was ever “recorded in the Public Records of Lee
County”;
c. The fraudulently alleged “certification” was facially forged;
d. “Instrument No. 2009000309384” could not have possibly become any “lien” on
any property pursuant to Ch. 55, 56; and 55.10 Florida Statutes; and
e. No “writ of execution” legally existed.
9. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired with U.S. Defendants
Chappell, Steele, and other U.S. Agents to conceal that nothing in that or any other Case
could have possibly “served as a lien against” any property under Florida and Federal law:
“A certified copy of the Judgment was recorded in the Public Records of Lee County,
Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384 and serves as a lien against the property.”
10. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
a. Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”;
b. Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been awarded any mandated “judgment”;
c. Def. Wilkinson was not “entitled to tax….”;
d. The prima facie fraudulent “Writ” was due to be denied as unlawful and
unauthorized.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF JURISDICTION & FRAUD ON THIS COURT
11. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed the jurisdiction of
this Court over the unlawful acts of the Defendant U.S. Agents and recklessly deprived the
Plaintiffs of any chance of justice and adjudication of their perfected claims:
“B. Supplemental Jurisdiction
The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims rests
within the discretion of the district court.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086,
1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had
original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court, therefore, declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.”
12. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that this Court had jurisdiction of
any and all claims involving the Defendant U.S. Government Officials and including “state
claims”.
13. Defendant Honeywell had no “discretion” but was absolutely obligated to adjudicate
Plaintiffs’ claims, because United States Agents had perpetrated unlawful and criminal acts
of record.
14. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Co-Defendant U.S. Judges Steele and
Chappell themselves had removed Plaintiffs’ state action, 2006-CA-003185, BUSSE v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
15. “Declining jurisdiction” over unlawful and criminal U.S. Governmental acts proved
Defendant Honeywell’s fraud on the Courts and required her disqualification.
RECKLESS OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF COURT ACCESS RIGHTS
16. Recklessly, Defendant Honeywell obstructed Plaintiffs’ court access on 06/23/10, Doc. #
213, p. 21:

2
 “With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.”
17. On 07/07/10, Defendant Honeywell again fabricated “loss” of “electronic filing
privileges” in response to Plaintiffs’ “specific” demand for “equal court access and privileges
for filing purposes.” See Doc. # 38, p. 1; see Def. Honeywell’s previous fabrications, Case
No. 2:09-CV-791, Doc. ## 133, 151.
RECORD CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & ADJUDICATION
18. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Defendant U.S. Judges and Officials not to
justly and speedily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven “state claims” against Federal
Defendants.
DENIAL & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS
19. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell recklessly and disparately denied the
Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws under fraudulent pretenses, Doc. # 213, p. 19:
“In this case, Plaintiffs claim that they were denied equal protection of the laws by
Defendants in relation to Lot 15A. As a general matter, Florida counties may exercise
eminent domain over property not owned by the state or federal government. Fla.
Stat. § 127.01(1)(a); id. “Since a state landowner would not be subject to eminent
domain power but [Plaintiffs], as . . . [alleged] private landowner[s], would be,”
Plaintiffs cannot be similarly situated to a state landowner. Busse, 317 Fed. Appx. at
973. Plaintiffs, “therefore cannot rely on [their] disparate eminent domain treatment
vis-a-vis state landowners as the basis for an equal protection claim.” Id.
Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and dismisses their Equal Protection claim.”
20. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell fixed and fraudulently
concealed Plaintiffs’ perfected “equal protection claim” and the record absence of any
“eminent domain” “exercise”. On 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed
that none of the Government Defendants ever had any “eminent domain power” and
perpetrated fraud on the Court.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL U.S. JURISDICTION & OBSTRUCT COURT ACCESS
21. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Federal Defendants to conceal Federal
jurisdiction and obstruct Plaintiffs’ meaningful court access.
22. In particular, Defendant Honeywell conspired to conceal that of course, the Plaintiffs
rightfully prosecuted 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th and 5th Amendment violations by Federal Defendants in
Federal Court.
23. On or around 06/23/10, Defendant U.S. Judge Honeywell fabricated “necessary state
procedures”, Doc. # 213, p. 18:
“They have not exhausted the necessary state procedures to address their dispute
prior to filing in federal court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses their Seventh Amendment
claim.”
24. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that Plaintiffs’ prosecution of
Federal Defendants for Seventh Amendment Violations did of course not require “necessary
state procedures”. Brazenly and idiotically, Defendant Honeywell concocted “necessary
state procedures” on the record. Said reckless fabrications were outside Honeywell’s scope
of immunity and official capacity.

3
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
25. Without any meritorious “defense” or “claim”, and under facially idiotic pretenses of
“frivolity” and “vexatiousness”, Defendant Honeywell deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of
court access.
CONCEALMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY AND
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
26. Defendant Honeywell conspired to fraudulently conceal that property rights are most
fundamental rights. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell conspired to brazenly
and irrationally concoct, Doc. # 213, p. 20:
“Property rights would not be fundamental rights since they are based on state law.”
Id. Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have been denied their alleged property rights in
Lot 15A. These property rights are defined by state law. Therefore, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismisses
their Substantive Due Process Claim.”
27. No halfway intelligent and non-corrupt judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes could
have possibly denied that property rights and the right to own property are most fundamental
rights. Honeywell’s above assertion was recklessly false and for unlawful and criminal
purposes of extorting property and fees and illegally bypassing due process and equal
protection of the law.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PREVIOUS “STATE ACTION”
28. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ State action, Case No. 2006-CA-
003185 (Lee County Circuit Court), BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Doc. # 213, p. 15:
“Although they have been previously told by the Eleventh Circuit that they must
proceed in state court prior to bringing suit in federal court for several of their claims,
Plaintiffs refuse to do so and continue to re-file their complaints with additional
Defendants and claims all surrounding the same property dispute.”
29. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Officials such as, e.g., Defendants Steele and
Polster Chappell to conceal Plaintiffs’ 2006 State action of record, 2006-CA-003185.
30. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendants Steele and Chappell had
removed Plaintiffs’ record 2006 State action to Federal Court. See 2:2008-cv-00899.
31. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental entitlement to sue
Defendant U.S. Agents in Federal Court.
06/23/2010 SLANDER OF RECORD REAL PROPERTY TITLE, DOC. # 213
32. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell unintelligently slandered Plaintiffs’
record marketable title to riparian Lot 15A, Doc. # 213, 2:2009-cv-00791:
“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 Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et
al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009); Busse, et al. v. Lee
County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).”
07/14/2010 FABRICATION OF “WRIT OF EXECUTION”
33. On or around 07/14/2010, Defendant Honeywell irrationally fabricated a “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 48, p. 1, 2:2010-cv-00089:
“In the motion, Plaintiffs appear to seek a release of the writ of execution and
attachment of a lien to property issued in Busse v. Lee County, Florida, et al., Case

4
 No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before Judge John Steele and
Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell.”
34. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed the record lack of any “writ of execution”. See
Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
35. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the record 03/05/2009 “judgment” and
paid “amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on 06/11/2009”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228,
contradicted the possibility of any “writ of execution”.
36. Because of her irrational contradictions on record, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were
facially arbitrary, capricious, incomprehensible, and idiotic:
37. In particular, no rational, competent, and honest judge in Defendant Honeywell’s shoes
could have possibly reconciled a fake “writ of execution” with a fake “claim”.
38. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of any
involuntary title transfer to Government, no “writ of execution” could have possibly existed.
39. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that in the hypothetical event of a “writ of
execution”, there could not have possibly been any involuntary title transfer to Lee County,
Florida.
RECORD EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY
40. For unlawful and criminal purposes of extorting fees and Plaintiffs’ record property,
Defendant Honeywell fabricated a “writ of execution”.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD “06/11/2009 MANDATE”
41. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that a facially fraudulent 03/05/2009
“judgment” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and was received by the U.S. District
Court on 06/15/2009. See Doc. # 365; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF CLOSURE OF CASE 08-17130-BB ON 06/11/2009
42. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit had closed Case No. 2008-13170-BB on 06/11/2009.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF “$24.30” MANDATE
43. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit had “allowed the amount of $24.30” “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009”
44. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the “amount of $24.30” was not
outstanding.
45. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that no “writ of execution” could have
possibly existed on the record.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENCE OF “RULE 38 MOTION”
46. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.
Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD COERCION
47. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson expressly
coerced the Plaintiff corruption victims to refrain from prosecution on the record. See
Wilkinson’s “Rule 27-4 motion”.
COERCION
48. On the record, Defendant Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution.
49. Without any authority or justification, Defendant Honeywell threatened and published the
Plaintiffs on the record.

5
 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENT “LAND PARCELS”
50. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant Wilkinson had unlawfully and
criminally forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-
00001.0000”.
51. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said forged “parcels” did not appear on
the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3 Page 25.
52. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said non-existent land parcels had never
been legally described, platted, and/or conveyed in reference to said Plat of Survey, PB 3 PG
25 (1912) and had never existed…