Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOTICE OF APPEAL
1. Hereby, the Plaintiffs appeal from “order denying 144”, “Doc. # 190, 06/11/2010”. Here,
Defendant corrupt Magistrate Sheri Polster Chappell was under absolute obligation to again
disqualify herself, because Chappell perpetrated unlawful and criminal acts outside the scope
of any “immunity” and/or “official capacity”. Here, the Plaintiffs had sued both Chappell and
Sheri Polster Chappell was under the same recusal obligations as Defendant recused Judge C.
2. Here, Defendant Crooked Judges Polster Chappell and Honeywell conspired with other
Defendants and Officials to extort real property and fees from the Plaintiff unimpeachable
record landowners “under color of, e.g.,” prima facie extortion and fraud scheme “O.R.
569/875”, fake “land parcels”, and a facially fraudulent and unlawful judgment. See, e.g.,
3. Said Defendants knew that constructive notice required any purported “instrument” to be
recorded “as prescribed by law.” The law in Florida never recognized facially
incomprehensible bogus “claim” “O.R. 569/875”. In particular, said U.S. Defendants knew,
concealed, and conspired to conceal that under Florida law a recorded “document” provides
no notice unless it can be located by title search. Otherwise, a buyer in good faith who has
2
conducted a diligent search would be charged with knowledge of documents no one can find.
Here, no person could have possibly found any instrument, resolution, legislative act, law,
muniment of title, and/or record of prima facie incomprehensible scam “O.R. 569/875”.
4. The Plaintiffs appealed from Defendant crooked U.S. District Judge Honeywell’s “order”,
Doc. # 210, “filed 06/22/10”. Here, said judicial Defendant evaded and obstructed mandatory
disqualification in this Case, because Honeywell had “disqualified herself” in related and/or
5. Defendant Polster Chappell knew that judicial Defendant Honeywell affirmed, Doc. # 213, p.
5, that the Plaintiff record owners of “Lot 15A”, riparian Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A,
“appeared for a “quasi-judicial proceeding”, because the Plaintiffs were the record owners
of “Lot 15A”. See public records on file admittedly affirming Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable
6. Here, the Plaintiffs “appeared for” said “proceeding”, because they were the affirmed record
owners of Lot 15A and entitled to appear. Therefore here, crooked Judge Honeywell’s
3
HONEYWELL’S 06/22/2010 DISQUALIFICATION / RECUSAL, 2:2010-cv-00390
7. On 06/22/10, Def. crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell “disqualified herself”. See
deprive the Plaintiff record landowners of their fundamental right to own their riparian Gulf-
reference to the 1912 “Cayo Costa” Subdivision Plat of Survey in Lee County Plat Book 3,
9. In particular, Honeywell knew that the Plaintiff unimpeachable record property owners had
paid real property taxes for said subject Parcel. See attached public records of Lee County
10. Here, Honeywell fraudulently concealed the dispositive evidence that the Plaintiffs were the
unimpeachable record “owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County,
Florida.” See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
“I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
4
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.”
11. In particular, Defendant corrupt Judge Honeywell fraudulently pretended on the public
“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). 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).”
a. The Plaintiffs were the unimpeachable record owners of said “Lot 15A”;
5
f. No “resolution” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiff record
property owners and record property tax payers of their riparian Gulf-front Lot
15A.
13. Here, Honeywell’s fraud, fraud on the Court, and corrupt & criminal acts were an
EMERGENCY. Here, the prima facie criminality, idiocy and irrationality of Honeywell’s
14. Here, Honeywell knew that her co-conspirator and fellow judicial Defendant Sheri Polster
Chappell had fraudulently made an order for the illegal Governmental seizure of said “Lot
15. Here, Defendant Government Officials could not possibly “seize” that which Honeywell
fraudulently pretended was “public land”. Here pursuant to the public record, as dispositively
affirmed by, e.g., said U.S. Court of Appeals and Defendants Lee County, the Plaintiffs held
exclusive record title to their “Lot 15A” and had paid any and all property taxes as
6
16. Here, Honeywell’s record stupidity alone disqualified her:
c. Why did Honeywell corruptly and idiotically contradict Defendants’, Lee County,
FL, record affirmation of Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded ownership of said “Lot 15A”:
7
8
9
10
FACIALLY DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIVE INCOMPETENCE
17. Here, no fit, intelligent, honest judge in Chappell’s and Honeywell’s shoes could have
possibly refused disqualification. In particular, no fit, intelligent, and honest judge in
Honeywell’s shoes could have recused herself in Case # 2:2010-cv-00390 and refused
mandatory recusal in this Case.
HONEYWELL’S CASE FIXING ON THE RECORD, DOC. # 213
18. Here prior to 06/22/2010, Honeywell had premeditated Case fixing by criminal means of
fraudulently pretending that Plaintiffs’ “Lot 15A” was “public land”, Doc. # 213, p. 5.
“Adverse rulings are not grounds for recusal.” See 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 210, p. 3.
ownership was not an “adverse ruling”, but prima facie trickery, deception, and fraud on the
court. Here, intelligent and rational “analysis” was impossible, because Honeywell deceived
the Court about the record ownership of Lot 15A and fabricated that Plaintiffs’ land had been
“claimed as public land”. Here, no “legal description” of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A had ever even
appeared in fake “resolution 569/875”, and no “resolution” could have possibly involuntarily
transferred any title to Lee County as affirmed by the public record. See Prescott, et al., v.
State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009). Here, the
and required Honeywell’s recusal. Here, Honeywell acted capriciously so that she could
unlawfully fix Plaintiffs’ Case on 06/22/2010. See Doc. 213. Here, Honeywell “frivolously”
11
12
BRAZEN CORRUPTION & CONCEALMENT ON THE RECORD
20. Here, Defendant Honeywell brazenly concealed the above record of Plaintiffs “state court
21. Here Honeywell knew that judicial co-Defendants and co-Conspirators John Edwin Steele
and Sheri Polster Chappell had removed said state court proceeding from State to Federal
22. In her record pattern and policy of CORRUPTION, Honeywell again rambled
“incomprehensibly” and never got to the well-proven legal issues complained about such as,
23. Honeywell was in contempt of the law and obstructed justice & application of the law.
CRIME SCHEMES. Personally, Defendant Honeywell employed, e.g., the “frivolity” and
13
• Fake “transaction(s)” such as, e.g., “O.R. 569/875”;
• Fake “land” “parcels”;
• Fake “frivolity” “defenses”;
• Fake “vexatiousness” “claims” and “contentions” unwarranted under existing law;
• Fake “legal descriptions” such as, e.g.:
Here, Honeywell concealed that the prima facie fake “claims”, contentions, and “defenses”
on the record had no possible legal basis and were “frivolous” and unlawful.
25. Here, Honeywell had “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding”. See Doc. # 210, p. 2. Here, Honeywell personally discussed with other Judges,
Government Officials, and Defendants the “disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding”, and how to fix Plaintiffs’ Cases and conceal record CORRUPTION evidence.
26. Here, Honeywell is most likely to be a material witness in the Government CORRUPTION
27. The Plaintiffs have been publishing the conclusive record evidence of public CORRUPTION
and fraudulent concealment worldwide at multiple social publication and news sites, as well
14
CONCLUSIVE & UNCONTROVERTED PROOF OF CORRUPTION ON FILE
28. By presenting to this Court pleadings, written motions, and other papers, the Plaintiffs had
certified that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances, Def. Honeywell criminally concealed and conspired to
29. “Frivolity” and “vexatiousness” were not any “defense” and not warranted under existing
law. Here, crooked Honeywell presented “sanctionability” and “frivolity” for unlawful
purposes such as to harass the Plaintiffs, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase
30. No competent, honest, and intelligent judge in Polster Chappell’s and Honeywell’s shoes
could have possibly concocted that the proof of Government CORRUPTION and fake “land
31. No intelligent, fit, and professional judge in Chappell’s & Honeywell’s shoes could have
possibly perverted Florida’s Eminent Domain, Adverse Possession, and Record Marketable
Title Act the way Honeywell did. Here, Honeywell’s dishonesty, incompetence, and threats
on the record have been terrorizing and punishing. The Plaintiffs feared for their fundamental
rights and have been suing Honeywell, PRESCOTT v. HONEYWELL, Case # 2:2010-cv-
00390-36-DNF.
32. Here, Honeywell had “personal knowledge” that Defendants’ fraudulent denials of Plaintiffs’
factual contentions were not warranted on the record evidence and not reasonably based on
15
33. Objectively CORRUPT and partial Defendant Judge Chappell’s & Honeywell’s fraudulent
perversions of Plaintiffs’ well-proven factual contentions were not warranted on the record
evidence and not reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(b).
34. Pursuant to the public record evidence, Honeywell’s belief and policy were CORRUPTION
and terror, and the Plaintiffs object to the CORRUPTION and CRIMES on the record.
35. Here Honeywell concealed the prima facie criminality and nullity of, e.g., forged “land”
ownership claims and fake “defenses” in the record absence of any Government title
evidence.
36. The record conclusively proved Honeywell’s intimidating contempt of the law, and in
particular of, e.g., Chapters 712; 73, 74; 95, Florida Statutes; and Florida and Federal
Constitutions.
37. Idiotically and corruptly, Honeywell fraudulently pretended “ripeness requirements” for,
e.g., claims of record 4th, 1st, 14th, and 7th U.S. Const. Amendment violations, fraud, and
38. Here, Plaintiffs could directly assert, and rightfully asserted, their claims for relief from, e.g.,
Government CORRUPTION and fraud in Federal Court. Honeywell knew that no ripeness
39. Here, the Plaintiffs rightfully defended against Honeywell’s NAZI-style terror and
16
upon the Court and legally “incomprehensible” bogus contentions of “frivolity” and “public
land”.
40. Here, the Plaintiffs had pleaded, e.g., fraud and fraudulent concealment in both State and
41. Here, Honeywell fraudulently concealed that the Plaintiffs paid property taxes and held
perfected marketable title to said “Lot 15A”. Here, Honeywell’s “order”, Doc. # 213,
constituted prima facie premeditated and deliberate deprivations under color of office and
authority. Here, Honeywell had no authority to pervert the public record and obstruct justice.
See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr.
21, 2009).
42. Here, Honeywell knew that the Lee County Attorney had categorically ruled out any
17
18
HONEYWELL’S COVER-UP FOR FELLOW JUDICIAL GANG MEMBERS
43. Here like a brainless parrot, Honeywell merely repeated the null and void orders by the
named judicial Defendants. Because the Plaintiffs had demanded relief from said null and
void orders by judicial Defendants such as, e.g., Steele, Polster Chappell, Pizzo, Lazzara,
which were based on facially fraudulent and legally impossible “Government ownership”
“claims”, Honeywell was obligated to review de novo and use a brain. However here,
Honeywell never reviewed anything, but repeated the same old judicial trash on the record
and continued to pervert the public record just like said fellow judicial Defendants had. Here,
by her own admission more than one hundred (100) pages of Plaintiffs’ Complaint had never
1. An Order recusing Defendant corrupt Judge Sheri Polster Chappell under 28 U.S.C. § 455
2. An Order compelling Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why she did
not fraudulently conceal Plaintiffs’ record ownership of said Lot 15A, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-
3. An Order compelling Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why she did
not fraudulently conceal Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership of said Lot 15A, Parcel
19
4. An Order compelling Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why she did
not maliciously pervert the dispositive affirmation of Plaintiffs’ record ownership by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed.
5. An Order compelling Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why she did
not capriciously conceal Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership of said Lot 15A, Parcel
# 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, which the Defendants Lee County had asserted before the 11th
6. An Order compelling Defendant Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why the grounds for “her
disqualification”, Doc. # 3, Case 2:2010-cv-00390, did not absolutely demand her recusal in
this Case;
7. An Order compelling Defendant Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why her “rulings” were not
NULL AND VOID and procured through the criminal scheme of false “frivolity” and
“vexatiousness” pretenses and the concealment of said fake “legal descriptions”, fake “land”
because they disrespected the law, disrupted the proceedings in favor of the Defendants,
perverted the facts of record, and could not possibly be trusted to be impartial and fair, 28
20
Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
HONEYWELL’S EXTORTION:
FAKE “resolution”
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