Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

’JUDICIAL WHORE’
CHARLENE E. HONEYWELL
RAPED PLAINTIFFS AGAIN:
DOC. # 213, P. 5
2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC

“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).”

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

PUBLIC PROPERTY TAX RECORDS:

PLAINTIFFS PAID PROPERTY TAXES:

LAND PARCEL “12-44-20-01-00015.015A”

“LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
CAYO COSTA PB 3 PG 25 LOT 15A”

“PAID”
By
Jennifer Franklin Prescott,

Dr. Jorg Busse,

Record Unimpeachable Landowners

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
 Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
“The Constitution of the United States and rules of court
provide for the right of trial by jury.
The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh
Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of
the United States shall be preserved to the parties
inviolate. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 38.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2072, peremptory rules of court such
as Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 56 cannot be used to
deny petitioners fair access to the courts and circumvent the
United States Constitution.
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe
general rules of practice and procedure and rules of
evidence for cases in the United States district courts
(including proceedings before magistrates thereof) and
courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any
substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be
of no further force or effect after such rules have taken
effect. 28 U.S.C. § 2072.
The District Court's preemptory action of dismissing this
cause at a premature stage, equates to the denial of access
to the courts. It is beyond dispute that the right of access to
the courts is a fundamental right protected by the
Constitution. The Supreme Court has found several
constitutional bases for this right. See, e.g., Chambers v.
Baltimore & O.R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148, 28 S.Ct. 34, 35
(1907)(right of access is a privilege and immunity secured

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud
 Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
under article IV of the Constitution and the Fourteenth
Amendment); California Motor Transport Co. v.
Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510, 92 S.Ct. 609, 611
(1972). (right of access is one aspect of First Amendment
right to petition); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579,
94 S.Ct. 2963, 2986 (1974) (right of access is founded in the
Due Process Clause. A number of federal circuit courts have
likewise found the right of access to the courts to be
protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., Wilson v.
Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375, 1387 (5th Cir. 1979). Graham
v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 804 F.2d 953, 959
(6th Cir. 1986).”

“. . . Thus, it has been clear that a public official may be held

liable in damages when his actions are found to violate a
constitutional right and there is no qualified immunity,
see Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975); Procunier
v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 (1978). Today the Court
recognizes that this principle also applies to a local
government when implementation of its official policies or
established customs inflicts the constitutional injury. Monell
v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
707-708.”

“For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the material

allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted. See,
e.g., Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Machinery
& Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 174-175 (1965). And, the

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud
 Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
complaint is to be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff.
See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(f); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 45-46 (1957). Thus, even if respondent did not advance
claims based on the First Amendment, or on the Equal
Protection Clause, their complaint should not be dismissed if
any of those provisions could entitle him to
relief. Conley, supra, at 45-46. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478
U.S. 186, 202 (1986).”

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).

“The standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 12(b)(6)

- Failure to state a claim - is, the appeals court should affirm
the district courts dismissal "only if 'it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46; 78 S.Ct. 99, 102
(1957). Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 201 (1986),
see Due v. Tallahassee Theatres, Inc., 333 F.2d 630, 631
(5th Cir. 1964); Parr v. Great Lakes Express Co., 484 F.2d
767, 773 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. Howell, 318
F.2d 162, 166 (9th Cir. 1963); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1357, pp. 601-602 (1969).”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud
 Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

“A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint

alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's
allegations expansively. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596 (1972), and take them as true for
purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v.
Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081 (1972).
Moreover, it is a well settled principle of law that "the court
is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the
allegations provide for relief on any possible theory."
Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334
(8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714,
716 (8th Cir. 1974). Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186,
201 (1986).”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud
 Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
CORRUPTION EXPOSED:
See Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al.,
343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2009):
“I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
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.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
The complaint named the following defendants (herein collectively "the Appellees"): (1) the State of
Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; (2) the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks; (3) Lee County, Florida; (4) the Board of
Lee County Commissioners; (5) Jack N. Peterson, Lee County Attorneys [*3] Jack Peterson, Donna
Marie Collins, and David Owen; (6) Lee County property appraisers Kenneth M. Wilkinson and Sherri L.
Johnson; and (7) Cayo Costa State Park employees Reginald Norman, Harold Vielhauerin, Linda
Funchess, Reagan Russell, and Tom Beason.

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
Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
HONEYWELL’S EXTORTION:
FAKE “resolution”

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud
Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud
Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/

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
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
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
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
Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell

http://www.scribd.com/Judicial_Fraud
 Crooked Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
EXTORTION OF PROPERTY & FEES:
• 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”:

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