Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 50 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION

DR. JORG BUSSE; JENNIFER FRANKLIN

PRESCOTT,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 2:10-CV-89-FtM-36TGW

JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER

CHAPPEL; ROGER ALEGJO; KENNETH M.
WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD
BARD TJOFLAT; RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT
JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA;
RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST;
LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD;
LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.;
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,

Defendants.
/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motions, filed on June 4, 2010 (Dkt. 18),

July 2, 2010 (Dkt. 32, 33), and July 9, 2010 (Dkt. 41-46). In these Motions, Plaintiffs request recusal

of the District Judge (Dkt. 33, 41-46) and an order vacating previous orders issued in 2:07-CV-228

and 2:09-CV-791 (Dkt.18, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46).

I. RECUSAL

Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a),“[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States

shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Any doubt must be resolved in favor of recusal. Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed. Appx. 231, 233 (11th

Cir. Jan. 8, 2008)(citing Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001)). When considering
 Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 50 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 4

recusal, the potential conflict must be considered as it applies to the entire case. Murray, 253 F.3d

at 1310-11. “The test under § 455(a) ‘is whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully

informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain significant

doubt about the judge’s impartiality.’” Johnson v. Wilbur, No. 09-10078, 2010 WL 1610328, at *4

(11th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010)(quoting Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir.

1988)).

A judge is equally obligated to preside over a case when there is no legitimate reason to

recuse as he is to recuse when the law and facts require it. U.S. v. Malmsberry, 222 F. Supp. 2d

1345, 1349 (M.D. Fla. 2002)(citing U.S. v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994)). Section 28

U.S.C.A. § 455(b) outlines certain situations in which partiality is presumed, and recusal is required.1

After reviewing the explicitly enumerated conflicts of interest in which recusal is mandatory under

Section 455(b), if the court does not find that any apply, the judge is obligated to continue to preside

over the case. See Lawal v. Winners Int’l Rests Co. Ops., Inc., No. 1:04-CV-0913-WSD, 2006 WL

1
“[A judge] shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has
a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as
a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning
it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as
counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning
the merits of the particular case in controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary,
or his spouse or minor child residing in his household , has a financial interest in the subject matter
in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree
of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (I) Is a party to the proceeding, or
an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known
by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.A. §
455(b).

-2-
 Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 50 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 4

898180, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 6, 2006)(holding that a trial judge has as much obligation not to recuse

herself when there is no reason to do so as she does to recuse herself when the converse is true).

Based on a review of Plaintiffs’ Motions requesting recusal, the Court does not find that its

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Therefore, recusal is unnecessary.

II. ORDERS FROM PREVIOUS CASES

A. 2:07-CV-228

On February 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Sheri 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).

Because Case No. 2:07-CV-228 was assigned to Judge John Steele, this Court does not have

the authority to grant relief from the writ of execution. Furthermore, this request has been previously

denied in a related matter, Case No. 2:09-CV-791, Dkt. 64, 68. Again, the request is denied.

B. 2:09-CV-791

A party may move for relief from a final judgment or order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The

permitted reasons for such relief include: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been

reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that

justifies relief.” Id.

-3-
 Case 2:10-cv-00089-CEH-TGW Document 50 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 4

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a proper basis for vacating

any order issued in 2:09-CV-791. Plaintiffs filed several appeals of various orders with which they

did not agree. The Eleventh Circuit has dismissed some of the appeals for want of prosecution

because Plaintiffs failed to pay the required filing fees (2:09-CV-791, Dkt. 242). Other appeals are

pending before the appellate court. As such, the matter is closed, except for the issue of sanctions.

The Court also notes that Plaintiffs’ Motions (Dkt. 18, 32, 33, 41 - 46) appear to request

injunctive relief. However, the Motions do not comply with Rule 4.06, Local Rules of the Middle

District of Florida, or Rule 65, Fed. R. Civ. P. which govern preliminary injunctions. To the extent

that Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, the Motions will be denied.

Despite the Court’s warnings, Plaintiffs continue to engage in vexatious conduct. See Dkt.

37, 39. Plaintiffs repeatedly disregard the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida regarding

emergency motions. See M.D. FLA . L. R. 3.01(e). Furthermore, Plaintiffs file repetitious motions

that have been denied in this and previous cases. Plaintiffs have given the Court more than enough

grounds to impose sanctions for their misconduct. See In re Red Carpet Corp. of Panama City

Beach, 902 F.2d 883, 889 (11th Cir. 1990).

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions (Dkt. 18, 32, 33, 41-46) are

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED at Ft. Myers, Florida, on July 14, 2010.

COPIES TO:
COUNSEL OF RECORD AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES

-4-
F.B.I. PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINT
AGAINST CROOKED CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL
CORRUPT U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

CERTIFIED DELIVERY
Federal Bureau of Investigation
5525 West Gray Street
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: (813) 253-1000

DEFENDANT CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL

RECORD LACK OF IMMUNITY - PERPETRATION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS
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 and official capacity. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts
on record were outside any immunity and official capacity.
FELONIES OUTSIDE ANY “official” CAPACITY
2. Defendant Corrupt Honeywell had knowledge of the actual commission of felonies and
concealed them. Here even though Def. Honeywell had knowledge of, e.g., judicial Co-
Defendant Chappell’s, Steele’s, Pizzo’s, and Lazzara’s obstruction of justice and
fraudulent concealment of facially forged “land parcels”, a falsified “writ of execution”,
falsified “$5,048.60 judgment”, Corrupt Honeywell did not make the same known to some
judge or person in authority, but covered up for said Offenders in exchange for bribes, 18
U.S.C. §§ 3, 4.
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
3. Defendant Crook Honeywell knew that Defendant principal Offenders Steele, Chappell,
Pizzo, and Lazzara had committed record offenses and assisted said Offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§
3, 4. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 50, assistance with facially fraudulent
“writ of execution”; see Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. ## 213, 236, assistance with record
forgeries.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS UNDER COLOR OF FAKE “writ” AND “resolution”
4. Defendant Government Whore deliberately deprived the Plaintiffs, e.g., under color of a
fake “writ of execution” and “resolution 569/875”, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242.
RECORD RETALIATION UNDER COLOR OF WRIT OF EXECUTION & SANCTIONS
5. With the intent to retaliate, Corrupt Honeywell knowingly took actions harmful to the
Plaintiff public corruption victims, which included interference with Plaintiffs’ livelihood
and record land ownership, because the Plaintiff landowners had provided truthful
information relating to the commission of Federal offenses to law enforcement, 18 U.S.C. §§
1513.
6. Knowingly, Honeywell extorted Plaintiffs’ property and/or threatened to do so, with
corrupt intent to retaliate against the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs had blown the whistle
on public corruption; in particular, because the Plaintiffs had produced records and testimony
conclusively evidencing Government corruption and fraud, and information about the
commission of Federal offenses by Government Officials. Here, Plaintiff Government crime
 and corruption victims had the right to be reasonably protected from the Government
Offenders and Judges of record, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
RECORD POLICY, CUSTOM, AND CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
7. Customarily, and over and over again, Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from
prosecuting and producing crime evidence. Idiotic lies and threats of “sanctions” have played
a central role in Honeywell’s record crimes and concealment. Just like Jews and
Government opponents in Nazi Germany, the Plaintiff Government crime victims are
running from the anarchy, extortion, and coercion in Honeywell’s court of perversions
where un-recorded and non-existent judgments can be perverted into a “lien on property”.
MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, CONCEALMENT, AND COVER UP
8. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Government Whore Honeywell obstructed, delayed, and
prevented the communication of judicial and Government corruption information relating to
the commission of felonies by, e.g., U.S. Agents J. E. Steele, S. Polster Chappell, M. A.
Pizzo, R. A. Lazzara, and Def. record Forger of “land parcels” K. M. Wilkinson, and
Crooked Attorney Jack N. Peterson, § 838.022 (1)(c), Fla. Stat.
DELIBERATE DERPRIVATIONS AND PERVERSIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
9. U.S. Defendant Honeywell recklessly perverted express Florida and Federal Constitutional
guarantees of, e.g., the rights to due process, equal protection of the law, to own property,
exclude Governments from private property, redress Government grievances, prosecute by
jury trial, be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, oppression, falsification of
records, unlawful seizure of private property under fraudulent pretenses such as, e.g.:
a. Idiotically and brazenly, Def. Whore Honeywell manufactured and conspired with other
Government Officials to pervert express Constitutional guarantees and concoct that
property rights are not fundamental rights;
b. Def. Honeywell concocted and conspired to concoct that Plaintiffs could not assert their
perfected “state claims” against U.S. Agents in U.S. Courts;
c. Def. Honeywell fabricated and conspired to fabricate that Defendant Forger of “land
parcels” Wilkinson had filed a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”. Here, Defendant
Honeywell falsified and caused others to falsify dockets, docket entries, and official
records. See § 838.022 (1)(a), Fla. Stat.;
d. Def. Predator Honeywell concealed, covered up, and/or altered official records and
documents, § 838.022 (1)(b), Fla. Stat.;
e. With corrupt intent to obtain illegal benefits for Lee County Officials and to harm the
Plaintiff record landowners & corruption victims, Def. Honeywell maliciously fabricated
and conspired to fabricate a “regulation” by nameless, un-named, and non-existent
“legislators”. See § 838.022 (1), Fla. Stat.
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS & FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOC. 213
10. On or around 07/16/2010, Defendant Whore Honeywell prevented and conspired with other
Officials such as, e.g., Defendant Clerks Drew Heathcoat and Diane Nipper the filing of
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal from Order, Doc. # 213 …, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, and the
communication of information relating to the commission of felonies in the U.S. District
Court, Fort Myers, Florida.
11. Recklessly, Honeywell’s illegal and felonious acts deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights as
stated in Doc. # 214, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.
“RULE 38/WRIT OF EXECUTION”-FRAUD-SCHEME, CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT

2
12. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs may be taxed against the appellant, if a judgment is
affirmed. Defendant Whore Honeywell knew and concealed that the “costs allowed” and/or
taxed were “$24.30”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. ## 365, p. 15; 386-3, p. 15. Def.
Honeywell concealed that no costs were ever allowed under purported “Rule 38”.
“FRIVOLOUS APPEAL”-FRAUD & EXTORTION-SCHEME
13. “FRAP 38, Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs” provides that
“if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately
filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award
just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
14. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that pursuant to
11th Cir. R. 38-1, Time for Filing Motions, Motions for damages and costs pursuant to FRAP
38 must be filed no later than the filing of appellee’s brief. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had
tendered and/or filed his prima facie fraudulent brief on or around 08/08/2008. See Appellate
Case No. 2008-13170-BB, certified Docket sheet. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson never
filed any “Rule 38 motion” before 08/08/2008.
15. Admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion. Rule 38 only provided
for damages and costs. Here, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any such motion and
perpetrated fraud on the Court. See certified Docket. Defendant Government Whore
Honeywell concealed said “Rule 38 motion”-fraud-scheme and conspiracy to extort.
CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL ILLEGALITY & CRIMINALITY OF FAKE “WRIT”
16. 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-cv-00089,
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).”
17. Defendant crooked Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal that
Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P.
18. 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.”
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.”

3
22. 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.
23. 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.”
24. 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
25. 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, Doc. # 213:
“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.”
26. 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”. 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.
27. 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.
28. “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
DISPARATE DENIAL OF COURT ACCESS RIGHTS
29. Recklessly, Defendant Honeywell again obstructed Plaintiffs’ court access on 06/23/10, Doc.
# 213, p. 21:
“With its discretionary authority, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.”
OBSTRUCTION OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES OF “misconduct”

4
30. On 07/07/10, Defendant Honeywell again fabricated “misconduct” and/or “loss” of
“electronic filing privileges” in response to Plaintiffs’ “specific” demand for “equal court
access and privileges for filing purposes.” See Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, 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
31. 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
32. 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.”
33. 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
34. Defendant Honeywell conspired with other Federal Defendants to conceal Federal
jurisdiction and obstruct Plaintiffs’ meaningful court access.
35. 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.
36. 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.”
37. 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.

5
 DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS OF COURT ACCESS UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
38. 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
39. 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.”
40. 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”
41. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed Plaintiffs’ State action, Case No. 2006-CA-
003185 (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.”
42. 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.
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.
43. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed Plaintiffs’ fundamental entitlement to sue
Defendant U.S. Agents in Federal Court for any and all claims.
06/23/2010 SLANDER OF RECORD REAL PROPERTY TITLE, DOC. # 213
44. On or around 06/23/2010, Defendant Honeywell unintelligently slandered Plaintiffs’ record
marketable title to riparian Lot 15A, “Cayo Costa”, 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”
45. 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

6
 No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before Judge John Steele and
Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell.”
46. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed the record lack of any “writ of execution”
mandated “July 2009 judgment”, and of any ‘Rule 38 motion” by Def. “land parcel” Forger
Wilkinson. See Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228; see Case Docket as certified on 07/16/2010 by
Def. Clerk D. Nipper.
47. 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, had
ruled out any possibility of a “writ of execution”.
48. Because of her irrational contradictions on record, Defendant Honeywell’s “orders” were
facially arbitrary, capricious, incomprehensible, and idiotic:
49. 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”.
50. 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.
51. 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. For bribes, Def. Whore Honeywell conspired to extort Plaintiffs’ property under
fraudulent pretenses of a non-existent “Rule 38 motion”, fake “judgment”, and fake “writ”.
TRESPASS ONTO PRIMA FACIE PRIVATE “CAYO COSTA” SUBDIVISION
52. Defendant Honeywell’s unlawful and criminal acts of record, reckless orders, Case ##
2:2009-cv-00791; and 2:2010-cv-00089, slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or
fabrications of a non-existent mandated “judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” proximately
caused unlawful and criminal trespass onto Plaintiffs’ private street and up lands on the Gulf
of Mexico in the private undedicated residential “Cayo Costa” Subdivision.
53. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently concealed that the public had no Subdivision
access, because as a matter of law, the public had no right to use any of the prima facie
private street and alley easements as legally conveyed in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey
in PB 3 PG 25.
ILLEGAL FIRES AND ARSON
54. Defendant Honeywell’s reckless orders, Case ## 2:2009-cv-00791, and 2:2010-cv-00089,
slander of title, fraudulent pretenses and/or fabrications of a non-existent mandated
“judgment”, “writ of execution”, “lien” have been inducing the public to start unlawful fires
and perpetrate arson on private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision property, PB 3 PG 25 (1912).
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP FOR GOVERNMENT CROOKS
55. Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal the record crimes and
illegal acts of, e.g., U.S. Defendants John E. Steele, Sheri Polster Chappell, Richard A.
Lazzara, Mark Allan Pizzo, and to cover up for said Government Crooks.
RECORD THREATS AND FABRICATIONS OF “VIOLATION OF ORDER”
56. On or around 07/14/20, Defendant Honeywell again threatened, intimidated, and coerced
the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecuting Defendant Honeywell, 2:10-cv-00089, Doc. # 49, p.
2:
“…Plaintiff Busse has directly violated an order of this Court.”
57. Defendant Government Whore Honeywell has been a named party Defendant, because she,
e.g., accepted Defendants’ bribes, fixed Plaintiff’s Cases under false pretenses of a
“regulation”, fabricated a “writ of execution”, perverted the Florida and Federal

7
 Constitutional guarantees of the most fundamental rights to own property and exclude
Governments, redress Government grievances, be free of Government corruption,
oppression, unlawful seizure of property, et al. The Plaintiff corruption victims sued Def.
Honeywell in her individual private capacity outside any immunity, because Def.
Honeywell maliciously extended, e.g., record Government extortion, corruption, and crimes
and unlawful acts. See, e.g., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, Doc. # 213, 236; Case No. 2:2010-
cv-00089, Doc. ## 48, 49, 50.
58. Under color of office, Defendant Honeywell falsified and/or caused other persons to falsify
official record and documents. See § 838.022, Fla. Stat.
RECORD EXTORTION OF FEES AND PROPERTY
59. 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”
60. 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
61. 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
62. 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”
63. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that the “amount of $24.30” was not outstanding.
64. 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”
65. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.
Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF RECORD COERCION
66. 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
67. On the record, Defendant Honeywell coerced the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution under
color of authority and office.
68. Without any authority or justification, Defendant Honeywell threatened, intimidated,
harassed, and “punished” the Plaintiffs on the record, including the obstruction of court
access.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF NON-EXISTENT “LAND PARCELS”
69. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that Defendant Forger K. M. Wilkinson had
unlawfully and criminally forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-
01-00001.0000”. Defendant Honeywell knew and fraudulently 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.

8
70. Defendant Honeywell knew and concealed that said non-existent and forged “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.
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
71. In exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell concealed said evident record
forgeries and covered up for Defendant K. M. Wilkinson.
72. Defendant Honeywell accepted Defendants’ bribes and enforced the culture and policy of
corruption in her office even though Honeywell knew that the prima facie fake “writ of
execution”, “lien”, “judgment”, and “land parcels” had never existed and could not have
possibly existed.
DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS & FRAUD ON THE COURT
73. With wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to, e.g.
a. Be free of Government corruption, extortion, coercion, and threats;
b. Be free of unlawful seizure;
c. Redress Government grievances without coercion, extortion, and threats;
d. Have meaningful and free court access;
e. Have due process and equal protection of the law;
f. Own property;
g. Exclude Defendant Governments from Plaintiffs’ record property.
Defendant Honeywell perpetrated fraud on the Court and deliberately deprived the
Plaintiffs of their express fundamental rights under the Federal and Florida Constitutions.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16