NOTICE OF APPEAL, RACKETEERING, JUDICIAL CRIMES, AND LAW SUIT

FRAUDULENT PRETENSES AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & FILINGS

1. Defendant Corrupt U.S. Judge John Edwin Steele fraudulently pretended, Doc. # 434:
“This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s Motion for Entry of
Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property (Doc. # 432) filed on May 21, 2010. No
response has been filed and the time to respond has expired. Upon review, the Court
desires a response from plaintiff.”
Here over and over again, Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott had
“filed”, e.g., multiple “responses”, court actions, appeals to directly attack, defend
against, and expose Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge John E. Steele’s publicly recorded:
a. Racketeering;
b. Extortion;
c. Obstruction of justice;
d. Deliberate deprivations;
e. Acceptance of bribes;
f. Fraud upon the State and Federal Courts;
g. Destruction and alteration of Court records;
h. Corruption.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEF. STEELE’S RECKLESS DECEPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
2. Def. Steele recklessly deceived the Court, because he disallowed the Plaintiffs to “respond”
and then fraudulently pretended that the Plaintiffs had purportedly not responded. However
as a matter of record, the Plaintiffs had published conclusive evidence of their filed
“responses” worldwide. Here, more than one Million readers had read the “responses”,
which Def. Crook Steele had destroyed, altered, and rejected, and caused others to
destroy, alter, and reject. See, e.g., Google and YouTube.
DEF. STEELE OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFFS’ COURT ACCESS – FRAUD ON COURT
3. As part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele fabricated and conspired to fabricate a
publicly recorded “card house of judicial shit”:
“In this regard, some of the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are
contradicted by the resolution which is attached to it. The copy of the Resolution
attached to the Third Amended Complaint establishes that it was signed, executed,
and duly recorded in the public records, and plaintiff will not be allowed to assert
otherwise.” See Doc. # 338, p. 12.
Here, no authentic genuine “resolution” was “attached to the Third Amended Complaint”,
Doc. ## 288, 282. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 44, there was a lack of any publicly recorded
“resolution”. No genuine resolution had ever legally existed; none had ever been legally
recorded.
Here by not allowing the Plaintiffs to assert otherwise, Def. Steele recklessly deprived the
Plaintiffs of any opportunity of justice. Here, Def. Criminal Steele perpetrated fraud on the
Court, covered up, and concealed Government crimes.
Just like other crime organizations, Steele relied on silencing his opponents, retaliation,
intimidation, and injury.
4. In “the Third Amended Complaint”, the Plaintiff(s) had “asserted” and conclusively proven,
e.g., the:
a. Prima facie illegality of the fictitious “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”;
b. Prima facie nullity of the fake “resolution”;
 c. Prima facie criminality of the falsified “resolution”.
5. Only a “court judgment” could have possibly transferred title to Government and/or Lee
County. Here on its face, the facially forged “resolution” was
a. Not any court judgment;
b. Not any muniment of title;
c. Not any genuine instrument:
d. Not any conveyance;
e. Not authentic.
RACKETEERING, EXTORTION, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
6. Therefore, any “resolution” – forged or genuine – would have been, and could have only
been, entirely irrelevant, immaterial to any involuntary title transfer, because only a court
judgment could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs of their private riparian street easement
and street land on the Gulf, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), against their will.
DEF. CROOK STEELE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO SILENCE THE PLAINTIFFS
7. Here in exchange for bribes, Def. Criminal Steele perverted supreme law and “disallowed“
the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and public record evidence without which any justice was
absolutely impossible.
8. The Plaintiff(s) do not submit to said Criminal on the bench just like they would not submit
to a Roman Catholic priest demanding to fuck the Plaintiff(s) in the ass. Here, the Plaintiffs
defended against organized Government crimes & sodomy and sued Defendant Racketeer J.
E. Steele in Federal Court.
9. Here on the record, Def. Crook Steele adopted the policies and custom of crime
organizations such as, e.g., silencing opponents, retaliation, intimidation, racketeering,
extortion, and injury.
DEF. RACKETEER STEELE’S FACIALLY IDIOTIC & ILLEGAL “order”, DOC. # 434
10. No intelligent, rational, fit, and reasonable judge and/or person in Def. Crooked Judge
Steele’s shoes could have possibly allowed the fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, and the
facially fraudulent “public sale” motion, Doc. # 432.
11. Any enforcement of a non-existent “judgment” against Dr. Busse by “public sale” of said
adjoining riparian street land and private implied street easement on the Gulf of Mexico
would have been absolutely impossible, if the record title had been in the name of
“Government” and/or Lee County.
12. “Publicly selling” the very riparian street land and private Gulf-front street easement, PB
3 PG 25 (1912), which Lee County had fraudulently “claimed” to “own” [but never did and
could not possibly have owned as a matter of law] further exposed and conclusively proved
the prima facie idiotic and criminal mind of Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele.
Emboldened by absolute power and public corruption, Def. Steele continued his record
“Government shit flies-policy”, Doc. # 434.
IDIDOCY & IMPOSSIBILITY OF “public sale of real property”
13. One of the legal issues had been Plaintiff(s)’ unimpeachable record ownership of the
platted riparian street land and implied private street easement adjoining Plaintiffs’ upland on
the Gulf of Mexico, S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A (Lot 15A, Cayo Costa) as legally
described and perfectly conveyed to Plaintiff Dr. Busse and J. Franklin Prescott in reference
to the 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25. See Plaintiffs’ WARRANTY DEED, Lee County
INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, which expressly stated the extent of Plaintiff(s)’
conveyance; see PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th
Circuit Apr. 21, 2009).
FOR BRIBES, DEF. STEELE MADE A MOCKERY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
2
14. Here as a matter of law, “Public Sale of Real Property”, which Def. Steele had
fraudulently pretended to have been “claimed” by Lee County was absolutely impossible.
Here, Def. Steele made a fool of himself, because that which had been “claimed” by
Government could not be simultaneously “publicly sold”.
BRAZEN FABRICATIONS AND FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC RECORD
15. Here in his fraudulent “opinion and order”, Doc. # 338, Steele brazenly fabricated and
falsified “Government ownership” without any evidentiary support whatsoever. Def. Steele
knew that “those [fake] lots” had never been “owned by government”, which had been the
very issue for the Court’s review. Here, “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-20-01-
00001.0000” were prima facie fake “land parcels”, which Defendants Steele and Sheri
Polster Chappell could not find on the 1912 Cayo Costa Plat, PB 3 PG 25, because they had
been forged by Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson. See Transcript of November 2007
Hearing before Def. Crooked Judge Polster Chappell.
DEF. CRIMINAL STEELE IN CRIMINAL JUDICIAL ORGANIZATION
16. As a Criminal in this Crime Organization of record, Def. Steele extended the
racketeering and retaliation scheme.
“Third Amended Complaint states that defendants have taken over 200 acres
pursuant to the Resolution, far in excess of his 2.5 acres. The only assertion of
disparate treatment is for those lots owned by government, which plaintiff alleges
did not have their rights taken. However, a private owner such as plaintiff can not be
compared to a public owner such as a government unit. Therefore, no equal
protection claim is stated, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.” See
Doc. # 338, p. 13.
17. Here in essence, the scheme was:
“Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert” “those [fake] lots owned by Government”,
which nobody can find on the Cayo Costa Plat. Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert
the public record evidence of the non-existence and forgery of said fake “lots”.
Therefore, the case is dismissed and fixed in exchange for bribes.
18. By criminal means of fake “land parcels”, and a fake “resolution”, Defendant Governments
and Officials extorted, defrauded, deprived, and treated the Plaintiffs disparately, while
the Plaintiffs were never even allowed to assert the conclusive record evidence and truth.
Here, there was fraud on the Court, and any and all of Def. Steele’s “orders” were null and
void ab initio.
19. Pleading, e.g., fraud, conspiracy to defraud, deprivations, conspiracy to deprive, forgery
of “land parcels”, and extortion were remedies available in Florida and Federal Courts. See
Doc. ## 288, 282, “Third Amended Complaint”.
20. Just like a bungling Government idiot, Defendant Steele concealed and conspired with
other Officials to conceal that, e.g.:
a. Plaintiff(s)’ perfect record title to their adjoining street land never transferred to Lee
County, FL;
b. Plaintiff(s)’ unimpeachable record title could not have possibly transferred under any
existing law or modification thereof, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11;
c. Lee County’s sham “claims” were facially fraudulent and frivolous “claims” for
criminal and illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, extortion of money
($5,048.60) and land, and illegal “sale of real property”, Doc. # 434;
d. Lee County never “claimed” and could not have possibly claimed Plaintiff(s)’ street land
under any law;
e. The law did not recognize Lee County’s racketeering & extortion scheme “O.R.
569/875”.
3
 See Chapters 73, 74 (Eminent Domain); 95 (Adverse Possession); 712 (Florida’s self-
enforcing Marketable Record Title Act), Fla. Stat.; Florida’s express Const. Guarantees of
fundamental rights to own real property and exclude Government without, e.g.,
retaliation, extortion, racketeering, oppression, bribery, and public corruption.
21. Because Def. Steele is part of a criminal organization, Def. Steele retaliated and silenced
the Plaintiff(s) in said idiotic, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious manner of public record. In
particular, Steele shut up the Plaintiffs by calling them names such as, e.g., “vexatious”.
22. Only if Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record title to said riparian street land and private riparian
street easement had never transferred from the Plaintiffs to Lee County and/or Government,
could there possibly be any “public sale” of said private riparian street easement and land
“on the Gulf of Mexico”. See PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 343 Fed. Appx. 395,
396-97 (11th Circuit Apr. 21, 2009). Here for bribes, and under color of authority, sanctions
and punishment, Def. Steele retaliated and called the Plaintiffs names such as, e.g.,
“vexatious”.
23. Because pursuant to their publicly recorded Warranty Deed, the Plaintiff(s) were the
exclusive record owners and title holders of said street land and private street easement on
the Gulf of Mexico, PB 3 PG 25 (1912), Lee County’s facially criminal and illegal “claims”
of a “regulation”, “resolution”, “O.R. 569/875”, fake “land parcels”, et al. had been a prima
facie extortion and racketeering scheme. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ex Rel. et
al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
DEF. JOHN E. STEELE’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND COVER-UP
24. Under publicly recorded fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “frivolity”, “vexatiousness”,
“sanctionability”, “lack of jurisdiction”, “ripeness requirements”, et al., Def. Steele covered
up and fraudulently concealed the recorded Government pattern and policy of, e.g.:
a. Racketeering;
b. Extorting “under color of” a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment”;
c. Extorting “under color of” a non-existent “$5,048.60 judgment”;
d. Extorting & defrauding “under color of” fake “land parcels” which could not be found;
e. Extorting & defrauding “under color of” prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”;
f. Perverting a final “$24.30” money judgment & mandate into a fake “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 425.
DEF. STEELE CONCEALED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL MOTION,
DOC. # 432
25. Def. Steele fraudulently concealed the prima facie criminality and illegality of Doc. #
432: Here, no genuine “$5,048.60” and/or $5,000.00 money mandate” had ever existed,
because, e.g.:
a. The 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction on 06/11/2009;
b. The only and final mandate was in the amount of “$24.30”, Doc. # 365;
c. Def. Appellee Wilkinson had never filed any Rule 38 motion;
d. The $24.30 money judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Fed.R.App.P., had become final on
June 15, 2009, Doc. # 365;
e. No Bill of Costs for “$5,000.00” and/or “$5,048.60” had ever existed or could have
possibly existed. See FED.R.CIV.P. 54; 28 U.S.C. 1921-1928; FRAP 39: LOCAL RULE
4.18:
“LOCAL RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES
(a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees
preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate
motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of

4
 judgment. The pendency of an appeal from the judgment shall not postpone the filing
of a timely application pursuant to this rule.”

STEELE FABRICATED A “writ of execution”, DOC. # 425

26. In the recorded presence of a final “$24.30” money judgment issued as mandate on
06/11/2009 for costs of Appellees’ copies, Doc. # 365, and in the record absence of any
“$5,048.60 judgment”, Def. Steele knew and fraudulently concealed that the fake “writ of
execution”, Doc. # 425, had been falsified and was null and void. On its very face, no U.S.
judge and no witness had appeared on the falsified “writ”, Doc. # 425.
CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP AND CONCEAL GOVERNMENT CRIMES
27. Def. Steele conspired with other Government Officials and Defendants to cover up and
fraudulently conceal the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of, e.g.:
a. Fake “$5,048.60 judgment”;
b. Fake “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
c. Fake “land claim” “O.R. 569/875”;
d. Fake “resolution”, fake “resolution 569/875”;
e. Fake “regulation”, fake “land use regulation”;
f. Fake “regulatory taking” in the recorded absence of any “regulation”;
g. Fake “inverse condemnation” while Plaintiffs objected to and defended against any
involuntary title transfer to Lee County;
h. Fake “eminent domain” claims in the record absence of any condemnation proceedings.
28. Here, Government and judicial racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice & court
access, bribery, public corruption, fraud, and deliberate deprivations did not, and could
not possibly, involuntarily divest the Plaintiff(s) of their record title to riparian Parcel “12-44-
20-01-00015.015A” on the Gulf of Mexico.
§ 55.10 REQUIRED A JUDGMENT - NO LIEN ON PROPERTY
29. Under Florida law, a non-existent judgment did not become, and could not have possibly
become a lien on real property. Here, section 55.10 could not have possibly applied to a
non-existent “mandate”. Here, the final mandate of $24.30” for “copies”, Doc. # 365, had
been paid. See Affidavits on file. Furthermore here, Defendant Steele fraudulently
concealed that
“A judgment, order, or decree does not become a lien on real property unless the
address of the person who has a lien as a result of such judgment, order, or decree is
contained in the judgment, order, or decree …” See Ch. 55, Florida Statutes.
Here, judicial Defendants knew and fraudulently concealed that there could not have
possibly been any lien on real property and/or on Plaintiffs’ property.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BRIBERY, AND RACKETEERING
30. In exchange for bribes, Defendant Racketeer John E. Steele silenced the Plaintiffs and kept
them away from the Court:
a. Disallowed the Plaintiffs to assert the truth and conclusive public record evidence;
b. Removed Plaintiffs’ State action to Federal Court;
c. Removed and destroyed Plaintiffs’ State Court records;
d. Unlawfully sanctioned and punished the Plaintiffs;
e. Arbitrarily & capriciously denied the Plaintiffs equal electronic court access;
f. Illegally enjoined the Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings;
g. Rejected Plaintiffs’ pleadings;
h. Caused the Def. Clerk to alter and destroy Court records and crime evidence;
i. Retaliated against the Plaintiffs;
j. Caused the Def. U.S. Marshal to threaten, intimidate, and harass the Plaintiffs.
5
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE & PERPETRATE FRAUD ON THE COURTS
31. Defendant John Edwin Steele conspired with, e.g., Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge Charlene
E. Honeywell and other Officials to shut up the Plaintiffs by criminal and illegal means of,
e.g.:
a. Enjoining Plaintiffs from filing their pleadings [“Pre-filing injunction”];
b. Destroying Plaintiffs’ pleadings
c. Rejecting Plaintiffs’ pleadings;
d. Falsifying a “regulation”;
e. Fabricating “law”;
f. Concocting a fictitious involuntary title transfer to Lee County absent any court
judgment.
FINAL 06/11/2009 MANDATE
32. The 11th Circuit decided Case 2008-13170-BB by opinion entered on “03/05/2009”. On
06/11/2009, the Defendant Clerk of said Appellate Court filed the mandate, which consisted
of a copy of the opinion and a judgment that had been drafted and signed by a Clerk of said
Court, and directions as to costs in the amount of $24.30. See Fed.R.App.P. 41.
33. The Clerk of the Court signed her name on a copy of the judgment, which was stamped
"ISSUED AS MANDATE 06/11/2009" and CLOSED SAID CASE on 06/11/2009.

6
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 288 Filed 01/11/08 Page 11 of 11
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT,

Plaintiffs,

versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPC

JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO;

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.

NOTICE OF APPEAL & JUDICIAL CRIMES

____________________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM “order”, “DOC. # 48, 7/14/10”

NOTICE OF RECORD THREATS, EXTORTION, AND CRIMES

BY DEFENDANT “JUDICIAL WHORE” CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL

NOTICE OF FAKE “lien”, FAKE “07/29/2009 judgment”, CH. 55, FLA. STAT.,
FACIALLY FORGED “judgment”, AND FAKE “writ of execution”, DOC. ## 386-5, 425

PUBLISHED RECORD CONCLUSIVE PUBLIC CORRUPTION & PERJURY PROOF

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FRAUDULENT “ORDER”, “DOC. # 48 FILED 07/14/10”

1. Defendant “judicial whore” C. E. Honeywell fraudulently concealed record absence of “writ

of execution”, record fake “land parcels” such as, e.g., “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”, and

facially forged “resolution 569/875” [see Doc. ## 288, 282; Case No. 2:07-cv-00228, Lee

County PB 3 PG 25 (1912)]:
 “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
No. 2:07-CV-228-FtM-29SPC. That case was before [Defendant] Judge John Steele
and [Defendant] Magistrate Judge Sheri Chappell. See Doc. # 48.

2. Here in exchange for Defendants’ bribes, Defendant Honeywell concealed and agreed to

conceal the stringent requirements of § 55.10, Florida Statutes, and non-existence of any

“lien”. Here in particular, Def. Honeywell knew that admittedly Defendant K. M. Wilkinson

had never even filed a Rule 38 motion, Fed.R.App.P. 38, and that Appellate Case No. 08-

13170-BB had been CLOSED on 06/11/2009. Here, Honeywell’s facially fraudulent

“order”, Doc. # 48, further proved Defendant Honeywell’s prima facie pattern and policy of

corruption, extortion, bribery, and case fixing outside any official capacity.

DEF. HONEYWELL’S FALSE PRETENSES AND FABRICATION OF “LIEN”

3. Here in particular, Honeywell knew, concealed, and conspired to conceal with other Judges

and Defendants that a facially non-existent “judgment” could NOT have possibly “become a

lien on real property”. See § 55.10, Fla. Stat.

4. Here Def. Honeywell knew that fake “resolution 569/875” and Def. Wilkinson’s forged

“land parcels” had never existed, and that no valid writ of execution was ever executed

and/or “witnessed” by any identifiable “judge”. Here, no “judgment” existed on the Docket,

Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228. See “Document 425 Filed 02/02/10”; see Doc. ## 288, 282.

DEF. CROOKED JUDGE HONEYWELL CONSPIRED TO EXTORT

5. Here, Defendant extortionist Honeywell conspired with other Judges, Officials, and

Defendants to extort Plaintiff corruption victims’ and whistleblowers’ property and fees

“under color of”, e.g., a facially forged “resolution 569/875”, fake “land parcels”, a non-

existent “07/29/09 judgment” and a fake “writ of execution”. See Doc. ## 425, 288, 282, 386,

365, 432; Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

2
 EMERGENCY OF CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL RECORD PERJURY

6. 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”

7. 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”

8. 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).

9. 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.

3
 “$24.30” WAS FINAL AMOUNT [FRAUDULENTLY ALLOWED]

10. 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”

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

4
 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”

15. 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.

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

16. 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

17. 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”

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

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

5
 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

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

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

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

cv-00390.

20. 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.

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

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

22. 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”

23. 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”

24. 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.

6
25. 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.

26. 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.

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

27. 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.

28. 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).”

29. 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

30. 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

7
 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

31. 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,
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”.

32. 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

8
 fundamental rights to own property, exclude Government(s), redress their grievances of no

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

33. 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.

WILKINSON FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENTED “REGULATORY TAKING”

IN THE PRIMA FACIE RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY REGULATION:

HOW FRIVOLOUS WAS THAT?

34. 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”.

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

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

9
 UPDATED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS

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

with State and Federal law enforcement.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand

1. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell’s record

EXTORTION and CORRUPTION under color of authority and prima facie scam “O.R.

569/875”, said fake “lien”, fake “07/29/09 judgment”, and fake “writ of execution”, § 55.10,

Ch. 55, 56, Fla. Stat.

2. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining said record judicial EXTORTION and

CORRUPTION under color of non-existent “O.R. 569/875”, “resolution 569/875”, and

fraudulent “regulatory taking” pretenses, because as a matter of law, no “law” or

“resolution”, whatsoever, could have possibly alienated Plaintiffs’ record property against

their will;

3. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining said record EXTORTION and CORRUPTION and

embarrassingly idiotic Governmental and judicial hoax of a “lien” and “public land claim”

[see, e.g., Doc. ## 213; 214; 212, Case No. 2:09-cv-00791; and Case No. 2:07-cv-00228,

Doc. ## 288, 282, 425, 386, 365].

4. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining Def. objectively partial/crooked Judge Honeywell, and

Defendants Jack N. Peterson, and Kenneth M. Wilkinson from perverting the record &

concealing Plaintiffs’ record ownership of Lot 15A, PB 3, PG 25 (1912);

5. An EMERGENCY order relieving the Plaintiffs from the fraudulent judgment, orders, and

proceedings of record such as, e.g., Doc. ## 48, 49; and Doc. ## 210, 212, 213, 214, Case

10
 No. 2:09-cv-00791 at the dirty hands of Def. judicial whore Honeywell for said well-proven

reasons;

6. An EMERGENCY order relieving the Plaintiffs from the fraudulent concealment of their

State action, 2006-CA-003185, Lee County Circuit Court, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA;

7. An Order compelling Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell to SHOW CAUSE why she did

not fabricate a “lien” and did not fraudulently conceal Plaintiffs’ record ownership of said

Lot 15A, Parcel # 12-44-20-01-00015.015A as evidenced in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and

pleadings;

8. 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

# 12-44-20-01-00015.015A as affirmed by the public record;

9. 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.

Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009);

10. 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

Circuit U.S. Appellate Court, Appeal # 08-13170, BUSSE v. LEE COUNTY;

11. 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”

“parcels”, and fake “Government ownership” “claims” and contentions;

11
12. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant crooked Judge Honeywell, because she

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 U.S.C. § 455; 28

U.S.C. § 144.

/S/JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT

Governmental Corruption & Fraud Victim, Plaintiff, pro se
P.O. BOX 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480; T: 561-400-3295
____________________________________
/S/JORG BUSSE, M.D., M.M., M.B.A., C.P.M.
Judicial Corruption & Crime Victim; Plaintiff, pro se
State Cert. Res. Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Mortgage Broker, Appraisal Instructor;
JRBU@aol.com

12
13
14
 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”:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31