Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Defendants.
INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION
____________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF FAKE “lien” and FAKE “07/29/2009 judgment”, CH. 55, FLA. STAT.,
conceal that Defendant JACK N. PETERSON had perjured himself, Doc. # 432-2, Case No.
2:2007-cv-00228:
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.
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.
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.
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).
2
6. Here, Defendant Crooked Honeywell concealed and agreed to conceal that Defendants
7. Under color of non-existent authority, Lee County, Florida, Defendants and Officials
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.
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.).
10. In its facially fraudulent “judgment” “issued as mandate June 11 2009”, said 11th Circuit
“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
adequately pleaded all their prima facie ripe federal claims, and demanded relief from said
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
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,
“fundamental” rights. See brazen bribery and public corruption on the record!
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.
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
16. Idiotically, the Court then reassigned the Case to Co-Defendant Crooked Judge John Edwin
17. Here, no notice of appearance was filed on behalf of said Defendant Corrupt Judge
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
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
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.
“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
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”:
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.
“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”.
“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
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.,
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.
fraud, extortion, corruption on the record did not, and could not, possibly have “incurred”
7
WILKINSON FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENTED “REGULATORY TAKING”
29. Therefore here, Defendant Wilkinson’s “assertion” of a “regulatory taking” was on its face
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
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
30. Therefore here admittedly, Defendant Wilkinson had never filed any “Rule 38 motion”, never
31. Plaintiff public corruption victims filed another updated Criminal Complaint in this matter
8
9
10
Def. Crooked Honeywell’s Real Estate Fraud:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26