Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BRIBERY
1. Def. Corrupt U.S. Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell accepted Defendants’ bribes.
2. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Chappell conspired with Defendant Lee
425, Case 2:2007-cv-oo228 (under appeal), in the record absence of any “$5,048.60
judgment”.
“This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson as the
Lee County Property Appraiser’s Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (Doc.
#386) filed on November 30, 2009.”
3. Idiotically, Defendant Crooked U.S. Magistrate Polster Chappell falsified a “referral” to the
“On August 22, 2008, the Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to the
Eleventh Circuit Rule 27-4. The Motion was referred to this Court by the District
Court on January 26, 2009. The Motion is now ripe for the Court’s review.” Id.
Here, nothing was “referred” and nothing was “ripe for the Court’s review”, see Docket.
“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. The Judgment to date remains
outstanding.” Id.
d. NEVER raised the issue of a “frivolous appeal”, Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P., Doc. # 365;
e. NEVER incurred any actual and necessary attorney’s fees;
f. NEVER filed the fictitious “rule 38 motion” “on August 22, 2008”.
“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.”
6. For bribes, Def. Crooked Chappell concocted and conspired to concoct entitlement:
“As such, the Defendant Wilkinson is entitled to tax against the property and the [fake]
Writ of Execution is due to be granted.”
7. Here for Defendants’ bribes, Def. Chappell fraudulently “granted” said “writ”, Doc. # 425,
Case 2:2007-cv-00228. Chappell conspired with the Defendant Clerk to issue the forged
“writ”. Said Def. Clerk and Def. Chappell knew and concealed that
a. The recording of mandates and judgments was exclusively the Clerk’s responsibility;
b. NO “$5,048.60 judgment” had ever been recorded as the mandate, Docket 2:2007-cv-
00228;
c. NO judgment could have been possibly outstanding;
d. NO judgment could have possibly become a lien under § 55.10, Fla. Stat.;
e. Said fake writ was a prima facie racketeering and extortion scheme, U.S.A. Ex Rel. et
al. v. U.S.A.
2
3
4