You are on page 1of 29

7/14/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S.

District Co…
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10-cv-00390-JES-AEP

Prescott et al v. Honeywell et al Date Filed: 06/21/2010


Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Jennifer Franklin Prescott represented by Jennifer Franklin Prescott
P.O. Box 845
Palm Beach, FL 33480
PRO SE

Plaintiff
Dr. Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
P.O. Box 7561
Naples, Fl 34101-7561
239/595-7074
PRO SE

V.
Defendant
Charlene Edwards Honeywell

Defendant
Sheri Polster Chappell

Defendant
John Edwin Steele

Defendant
Jennifer Waugh Corinis

Defendant
A. Brian Albritton

Date Filed # Docket Text


06/21/2010 1 COMPLAINT against A. Brian Albritton, Sheri Polster Chappell, Jennifer Waugh
Corinis, Charlene Edwards Honeywell, John Edwin Steele with Jury Demand (Filing fee $
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/3
7/14/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
350 receipt number F013917) filed by Jennifer Franklin Prescott, Jorg Busse.
(Independent Action for relief from Government fraud, corruption, and writ of execution)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SLU) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/21/2010 Summons Issued as to A. Brian Albritton, Sheri Polster Chappell, Jennifer Waugh
Corinis, Charlene Edwards Honeywell, John Edwin Steele. (SLU) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/22/2010 2 STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages. Signed by All
Divisional Judges on 12/7/09. (SLU) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/22/2010 3 ORDER directing the Clerk to reassign this case to the next available District Judge. The
undersigned hereby disqualifies herself from these proceedings. All magistrate judge
matters will continue to be addressed by the assigned Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge
Charlene E. Honeywell on 6/22/2010. (BGS) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/22/2010 4 Case Reassigned to Judge John E. Steele. New case number: 2:10-cv-390-FtM-
29DNF. Judge Charlene E. Honeywell no longer assigned to the case. (SLU) (Entered:
06/22/2010)
06/25/2010 5 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER. Certificate of interested persons and corporate
disclosure statement due by 7/9/2010. Signed by All Divisional Judges on 6/25/2010.
(BJH) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
06/25/2010 6 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track
2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 7/6/2010. Signed by All Divisional Judges
on 6/25/2010. (BJH) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
06/28/2010 7 ORDER of recusal. This case shall be transferred to the next assigned Magistrate Judge.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier on 6/28/2010. (brh) (Entered:
06/28/2010)
06/28/2010 8 Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. New case number: 2:10-
cv-390-FtM-29SPC. Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier no longer assigned to the
case. (SLU) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/30/2010 9 ORDER. The undersigned hereby disqualifies herself from these proceedings, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(i). SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/29/2010. (LMH) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
07/02/2010 10 Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli. New case number: 2:10-cv-
390-FtM-29AEP. Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell no longer assigned to the
case. (SLU) (Entered: 07/02/2010)

PACER Service Center


Transaction Receipt
07/14/2010 19:43:47
PACER Login: we0083 Client Code:
Docket
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 2/3
7/14/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Docket
Description: Search Criteria: 2:10-cv-00390-JES-AEP
Report
Billable
2 Cost: 0.16
Pages:

ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 3/3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,


Plaintiffs,

versus Case # 2:10-cv-00390-JES-AEP

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL;


JOHN EDWIN STEELE; JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON,

Defendants.

INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION
____________________________________________________________________________/

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN RECORD THREATS, EXTORTION, CRIMES

BY DEFENDANT “JUDICIAL WHORE” CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL

PUBLISHED RECORD CONCLUSIVE PUBLIC CORRUPTION & PERJURY PROOF

NOTICE OF FAKE “lien” and FAKE “07/29/2009 judgment”, CH. 55, FLA. STAT.,

AND FACIALLY FORGED “judgment”, DOC. # 386-5

EMERGENCY OF CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL RECORD PERJURY

1. Defendant Crooked Judge Charlene E. Honeywell fraudulently concealed and agreed to

conceal that Defendant JACK N. PETERSON had perjured himself, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.

2:2007-cv-00228:

“KENNETH M. WILKINSON, as Property Appraiser of Lee County, Florida, is the


holder of a judgment issued by the United States 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, said Defendant Crooked Government Officials Honeywell, Wilkinson, and

Peterson conspired with other Defendants, Judges, and Officials to fraudulently conceal

the non-existent “July 29, 2009 judgment” and the non-existent “lien”. See Ch. 55,

Florida Statutes.

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL “CLOSURE OF CASE # 08-13170-BB ON 06/11/2009”

2. Here, said Defendants conspired with other Defendants to fraudulently conceal that “CASE

NO. 2008-13170-BB” had been CLOSED on June 11, 2009. See Appellate Docket on file.

11th Circuit Record and Exhibits had been RETURNED to this Court on 06/11/2009.

RECORD “JUN 11 2009 BILL OF COSTS” IN THE AMOUNT OF “$24.30”

3. The facially fraudulent “judgment issued as mandate June 11 2009” and received by the U.S.

District Court “2009 JUN 15 AM 11:20”, Doc. # 365, was in the amount of “$24.30”, Doc. #

386, 386-3, 365; “BILL OF COSTS” “issued on JUN 11 2009”; 11th CIRCUIT FORM MISC-

12 (12/07).

4. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never claimed more than “$24.30”, and therefore under the

Rules, was never entitled to more than “$24.30”. See attached Fed. R. App. P. Here as a

matter of record, Defendant Wilkinson and/or his Attorney had “sworn” and/or “affirmed”

that the costs claimed were “$24.30”. See Doc. # 386-3; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

“$24.30” WAS FINAL AMOUNT [FRAUDULENTLY ALLOWED]

5. 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).

HONEYWELL CONCEALED DEFENDANTS’ CONCOCTION OF FAKE “$5,048.60”

2
6. Here, Defendant Crooked Honeywell concealed and agreed to conceal that Defendants

Peterson and Wilkinson had concocted an “amount of $5,048.60”. Plaintiff Government

corruption and crime victims sued Defendants KENNETH M. WILKINSON, JACK N.

PETERSON, and CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL in their private individual capacities.

RECORD EXTORTION, PUBLIC CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

7. Under color of non-existent authority, Lee County, Florida, Defendants and Officials

fabricated and conspired to fabricate fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and

“07-44-21-01-00001.0000”. See Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912).

CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP & CONCEAL RECORD GOVERNMENT CRIMES

8. In these State and Federal Cases since 2006, Defendant U.S. Judges idiotically conspired

with other Officials to conceal the prima facie record forgeries of said non-existent “land

parcels”. See, e.g., record Transcript of corrupted proceedings before Defendant “judicial

whore” Sheri Polster Chappell in November 2007 on file; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

DEF. CROOK HONEYWELL CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL 2006 STATE ACTION

9. Even though the State Court Judge himself was a Co-Defendant in this U.S. Court,

Defendant Corrupt Judges John E. Steele and Sheri Polster Chappell fraudulently concealed

Plaintiffs’ State Court action after said judicial Defendants themselves had removed

Plaintiffs’ legal action from State to Federal Court. See Case No. 2:2008-cv-00899 (BUSSE

v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Lee County Circuit Court; Def. Judge: Gerald, Lynn, Jr.).

FACIALLY FRAUDULENT “03/05/09 judgment” and “06/11/09 mandate”

10. In its facially fraudulent “judgment” “issued as mandate June 11 2009”, said 11th Circuit

fraudulently pretended and fabricated on the record, Doc. ## 365; 386:

“III. Since Busse’s takings claim was not ripe because he had not pursued available state
remedies and he failed to adequately plead his other federal claims …” Id.

3
Here as a matter of fact and record, Busse and Prescott “had pursued available state

remedies” in Lee County Circuit Court [removed to this Court: 2:2008-cv-00899],

adequately pleaded all their prima facie ripe federal claims, and demanded relief from said

facially fraudulent and corrupt Government determinations.

EMERGENCY OF DEFENDANTS’ CONCEALMENT OF REMOVED STATE ACTION

11. Here, Judges concealed and conspired to conceal Busse’s pursuit in State Court and

Defendant Crooked Judge Steele’s and Chappell’s removal from State to Federal Court. See

2006-CA-003185; Def. Judge Gerald, Lynn, Jr.; 2:2008-cv-00899 [removed].

EMERGENCY OF RECORD BRIBERY AND CASE FIXING

12. Here insanely, and in exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Judicial Crooks Steele and

Chappell fraudulently and criminally pretended that Plaintiffs’ rights to own their real

property and exclude Government from their riparian Gulf-front street and up lands,

S.T.R.A.P # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), were purportedly not

“fundamental” rights. See brazen bribery and public corruption on the record!

DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO FABRICATE “RIPENESS REQUIREMENTS”

13. Furthermore here, Defendant “judicial whore” Honeywell knew and concealed that in

exchange for bribes, Defendants Steele and Chappell had conspired with other Defendants to

fabricate “ripeness requirements” under color of fake “resolution 569/875”. See Doc. # 338;

Fixed Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. See Doc. ## 213; 236; Fixed Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.

PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION VICTIMS SUED UNREPRESENTED DEF. HONEYWELL

14. Here, the Plaintiff unimpeachable record landowners and public corruption victims sued

Defendant “judicial whore” C. E. Honeywell in her private individual capacity, because her

4
purported orders were outside any immunity and scope of official acts. See Docket 2:2010-

cv-00390.

15. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell had admitted to having been served and

disqualified herself. See Doc. # 3; 06/22/2010; Case No. 2:2010-cv-00390.

16. Idiotically, the Court then reassigned the Case to Co-Defendant Crooked Judge John Edwin

Steele. See Doc. # 4, 06/22/2010.

17. Here, no notice of appearance was filed on behalf of said Defendant Corrupt Judge

Honeywell. See Docket, Case No. 2:2010-cv-00390; “07/14/2009, 19:43:47”.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AGREED TO CONCEAL FORGED “LAND PARCELS”

18. Judges, Defendants, and Officials knew and fraudulently concealed that said facially forged

“parcels” had never existed nor been legally described, conveyed, and platted. See 1912 Plat

of Survey of private undedicated “Cayo Costa” Subdivision, Lee County PB 3 PG 25.

FRAUDULENT PRETENSES OF “07/29’2009 judgment”

19. Defendant crooked Officials Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Jack N. Peterson fraudulently

pretended:

“11. A certified copy of the [07/29/09] judgment has been recorded in the Public
Records of Lee County, Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384 and serves as a
lien against the property.” See Doc. # 386, p. 3, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

Here, the non-existent judgment did not serve as any lien. See Ch. 55, Fla. Stat.

20. Here, the Clerk of this U.S. District Court and custodian of said Court’s records could not

authenticate the fraudulently pretended “07/29/2009 judgment”, because said Clerk never

received any “07/29/2009 judgment”. Here, the Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, was

devoid of any “07/29/09 judgment”. See authenticated Docket on file.

21. Here, Def. U.S. Judges, Government Officials, and the other Defendants knew and agreed to

conceal that this Court had no “power” whatsoever to enforce a non-existent judgment.

5
DEF. WILKINSON FORGED “judgment”, “DOC. # 386-5, Page 2 of 2”

22. Defendant Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson had forged, e.g., “land parcels”, and

maps. Here, Defendant Wilkinson perpetrated fraud on the Court and facially forged a

“judgment”. See Doc. # 386-5, Page 2 of 2. The smaller font size of the page number “2” did

not match font size 14 of the text. The facially forged “judgment” was not, and could not

possibly have been, a true copy. See Exhibit below. The facially forged and pasted

“judgment” copy did not comply with § 55.10, Fla. Stat. E.g., said fake did not contain any

address.

23. In Doc. # 432, p. 3 of 7, Defendant Wilkinson had asserted:

“On February 2, 2010, the Clerk of this Court issued a Writ of Execution (D.E. 425).”

24. Here, said Clerk knew that no such “judgment” had ever been received from the Circuit Clerk

and that no “07/29/2010 judgment” appeared on the Docket, Case # 2:2007-cv-00228.

HONEYWELL CONCEALED THAT FAKE WRIT WAS VOID & NEVER WITNESSED

25. Here, “Doc. # 425 Filed 02/02/10” materially misrepresented in the record absence of any

identifiable “judge”:

“… you cause to be made and levied as well a certain debt of:


$Five thousand Forty-Eight AND Sixty Cents
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, before the Judge
of the said Court by the consideration of the same Judge lately recovered against the
said, Jorg Busse …
Witness the Honorable [United States Judge] ____ [blank] “

Here on its face, the fraudulent “writ of execution” did not identify any “judge” and was

null and void. In particular, “Witness the Honorable ___ “ was blank. See Doc. # 425.

DEF. WILKINSON EXTORTED MONEY AND PROPERTY

26. Defendant Wilkinson extorted fees and property by fraudulently pretending:

“4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Eleventh
Circuit Rule 27-4, requesting an order awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,000,

6
double costs and such other relief as the Court deemed appropriate for defendant
Appellant’s frivolous appeal.” See Doc. # 432, p. 2.

Here, Def. Wilkinson again deceived the Court, because Jorg Busse had been the Plaintiff

[and not the “defendant”] and Wilkinson had admittedly never filed any “Rule 38 motion”.

27. Fed.R.App.P. 27-4 states:

“Repy to Response. Any reply to a response must be filed within 7 days after service
of the response. A reply must not present matters that do not relate to the response.”

Here, Def. Wilkinson’s pleading(s) and brief had been without legal merit and could not be

supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing

law, or the establishment of new law. In addition, Def. Wilkinson’s pleadings contained

assertions of material facts that were patently clearly false and unsupported by the record,

“O.R. 569/875” In particular, prima facie sham “claim” “O.R. 569/875” was not any

“regulation”, “legislative act”, resolution, or “law” and as a matter of law, could not have

possibly divested the Plaintiffs of their property against Plaintiffs’ expressly stated will. Here,

the Plaintiffs had defended their unimpeachable record title against any condemnation and

refused to exchange their perfected title just because corrupt Government Officials, e.g.,

threatened, harassed, defrauded, and deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs of their

fundamental rights to own property, exclude Government(s), redress their grievances of no

due process and no equal protection, and have a jury trial.

28. Here, no accounting whatsoever, and none was ever provided as required, could have

possibly explained and/or justified the fraudulent amount of “$5,048.60” under the Rules.

Here, presenting or opposing Plaintiff(s) conclusive record evidence of Def. Wilkinson’s

fraud, extortion, corruption on the record did not, and could not, possibly have “incurred”

“5,048.60” according to the Rule.

7
WILKINSON FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENTED “REGULATORY TAKING”

IN THE PRIMA FACIE RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY REGULATION:

HOW FRIVOLOUS WAS THAT?

29. Therefore here, Defendant Wilkinson’s “assertion” of a “regulatory taking” was on its face

frivolous, deceptive, and fraudulent. Furthermore, Defendant Wilkinson presented his

pleadings and brief for the improper and illegal purposes of, e.g., extorting fees and property

from the Plaintiff public corruption victims, coercing the Plaintiffs to refrain from further

prosecution, fraudulently concealing forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”

and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, extending and conspiring to extend extortion and fraud

scheme “O.R. 569/875”, obstructing justice and just speedy adjudication of Plaintiffs’

claims for relief, harassing the Plaintiffs, and causing unnecessary delay and needless

increase in the cost of litigation since 2006 in State and Federal Courts over one single piece

of trash paper: facially null and void “O.R. 569/875”.

30. Therefore here admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, never

alleged a “frivolous appeal”, and never demanded any Rule 38 relief.

UPDATED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

31. Plaintiff public corruption victims filed another updated Criminal Complaint in this matter

with State and Federal law enforcement …

8
9
10
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”:

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26