Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 10

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 10

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

HONEYWELL’S EXTORTION: FAKE “resolution”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 8 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 10

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

’JUDICIAL WHORE’ CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL RAPED PLAINTIFFS AGAIN:

DOC. # 213, P. 5
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
“I. BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa Subdivision of Lee County, Florida (Dkt. 1, ¶1; Dkt. 5, ¶1). 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).”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

PUBLIC PROPERTY TAX RECORDS:
PLAINTIFFS PAID PROPERTY TAXES:
LAND PARCEL “12-44-20-01-00015.015A” “LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 LOT 15A”

“PAID”
By Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Dr. Jorg Busse, Record Unimpeachable Landowners
http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
“The Constitution of the United States and rules of court provide for the right of trial by jury. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 38. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2072, peremptory rules of court such as Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 56 cannot be used to deny petitioners fair access to the courts and circumvent the United States Constitution. (a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrates thereof) and courts of appeals. (b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect. 28 U.S.C. § 2072. The District Court's preemptory action of dismissing this cause at a premature stage, equates to the denial of access to the courts. It is beyond dispute that the right of access to the courts is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has found several constitutional bases for this right. See, e.g., Chambers v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148, 28 S.Ct. 34, 35 (1907)(right of access is a privilege and immunity secured under article IV of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment); California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510, 92 S.Ct. 609, 611 (1972). (right of access is one aspect of First Amendment right to petition); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2986 (1974) (right of access is founded in the Due

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Process Clause. A number of federal circuit courts have likewise found the right of access to the courts to be protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375, 1387 (5th Cir. 1979). Graham v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 804 F.2d 953, 959 (6th Cir. 1986).” “. . . Thus, it has been clear that a public official may be held liable in damages when his actions are found to violate a constitutional right and there is no qualified immunity, see Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 (1978). Today the Court recognizes that this principle also applies to a local government when implementation of its official policies or established customs inflicts the constitutional injury. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 707-708.”

“For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted. See, e.g., Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 174-175 (1965). And, the complaint is to be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(f); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Thus, even if respondent did not advance claims based on the First Amendment, or on the Equal Protection Clause, their complaint should not be dismissed if any of those provisions could entitle him to relief. Conley, supra, at 45-46. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 202 (1986).”

See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009);

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Busse, et al. v. Lee County, Florida, et al., 317 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009).
“The standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 12(b)(6) - Failure to state a claim - is, the appeals court should affirm the district courts dismissal "only if 'it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46; 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 (1957). Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 201 (1986), see Due v. Tallahassee Theatres, Inc., 333 F.2d 630, 631 (5th Cir. 1964); Parr v. Great Lakes Express Co., 484 F.2d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. Howell, 318 F.2d 162, 166 (9th Cir. 1963); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, pp. 601-602 (1969).”

“A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's allegations expansively. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081 (1972). Moreover, it is a well settled principle of law that "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974). Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 201 (1986).”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

CORRUPTION EXPOSED:
See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009):
“I. BACKGROUND A. Current Action The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida. On May 5, 2008, the Appellants filed the present pro se complaint against numerous state and county officials n1 alleging that they had violated the Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to their Cayo Costa property. Most of the allegations in the complaint concern the 1969 Lee County Resolution 569/875, which claimed the undesignated areas on the east and west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision plat and all accretions thereto as public land to be used for public purposes. The Appellants' Lot 15A is on the west side of the Cayo Costa subdivision on the Gulf of Mexico and is adjacent to land that was claimed through Resolution 569/875 to create the Cayo Costa State Park.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 The complaint named the following defendants (herein collectively "the Appellees"): (1) the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; (2) the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks; (3) Lee County, Florida; (4) the Board of Lee County Commissioners; (5) Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorneys [*3] Jack Peterson, Donna Marie Collins, and David Owen; (6) Lee County property appraisers Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Sherri L. Johnson; and (7) Cayo Costa State Park employees Reginald Norman, Harold Vielhauerin, Linda Funchess, Reagan Russell, and Tom Beason.

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell EXTORTION OF PROPERTY & FEES:
• 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”:

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 9 of 10

Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 276-2

Filed 12/03/07 Page 10 of 10

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful