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-cv00089, 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-CA003185 (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 “07-44-21-0100001.0000”. 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…

6