UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiffs,

versus Case # 2:10-cv-00390-JES-AEP

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL;

JOHN EDWIN STEELE; JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS; A. BRIAN ALBRITTON,

Defendants.

INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION
____________________________________________________________________________/

EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENJOIN DEF. DISTRICT CLERK KIM ARNETT FROM

OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, CONCEALING RECORD LACK OF WRIT OFEXECUTION

AND COERCING PLAINTIFFS TO REFRAIN FROM PROSECUTION

PUBLISHED RECORD CONCLUSIVE PUBLIC CORRUPTION & PERJURY PROOF

NOTICE OF FAKE “writ, lien” and FAKE “07/29/2009 judgment”, CH. 55, FLA. STAT.,

AND FACIALLY FORGED “judgment”, DOC. # 386-5

DEF. KIM ARNETT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE & CONCEALED FAUDULENT WRIT

1. Defendant U.S. District Court Clerk Kim Arnett is the custodian of the records of said U.S.

Court in Fort Myers, Florida.

2. Diligent search of designated records revealed no record or entry of a fraudulently pretended

“writ of execution” and “lien”, Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

3. Examination of Doc. # 425, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228 evidenced that it was null and void.

4. Here repeatedly, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse had demanded certification and/or

authentication of the lack of record(s) on the publicly recorded Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-

00228.

5. Fed.R.Civ.P. 44 states:

“(b) Lack of Record.

A written statement that a diligent search of designated records revealed no record or
entry of a specified tenor is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such
record or entry. For domestic records, the statement must be authenticated under Rule
44(a)(1). For foreign records, the statement must comply with (a)(2)(C)(ii).”

6. Fed.R.Civ.P. 44(a)(1) states:

“Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is

otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or
commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of
the United States:
(A) an official publication of the record; or
(B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's
deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate
must be made under seal:
(i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the
record is kept; or
(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or
political subdivision where the record is kept.”

7. Repeatedly, said Defendant Clerk Kim Arnett refused to certify and/or authenticate the record

absence of any “writ of execution” on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

8. Said Defendant Clerk Kim Arnett refused to certify and/or authenticate the record absence of

any “07/29/2010 judgment” on the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

2
9. Said Defendant Clerk Kim Arnett refused to certify and/or authenticate the record absence of

any “judgment” “received” by this Court on or around July 29, 2009, from any other Court

pursuant to the Docket of Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

10. Said Defendants’ refusals were witnessed in said Clerk’s Office by Defendant U.S. Marshall

Richard Jessup, District Court staff member and/or employee Donald Johnson and Jack Primm

on Wednesday, July 14, 2010.

11. Furthermore, Defendant Kim Arnett unlawfully refused to file Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal in

Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.

12. Said Defendant Arnett obstructed and conspired with Defendant Judge C. E. Honeywell to

obstruct Plaintiffs’ court access without any justification and authority.

13. As witnessed, said Defendant conceded and stated that she had agreed not to authenticate and

certify the evident lack of records at the direction of Defendant Judge Charlene E. Honeywell.

14. Said Def. Clerk Clerk Kim Arnett refused to make available the minutes and/or transcript of

the Hearing before Defendant corrupt Judge Honeywell in Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.

DEFENDANT COURT REPORTED JOY STANCEL

15. Def. Court Reporter Joy Stancel refused to make available the minutes and/or transcript of the

Hearing before Defendant corrupt Judge Honeywell in Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791.

EMERGENCY OF CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL RECORD PERJURY

16. 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”.

3
 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”

17. 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”

18. 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).

19. 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.

“$24.30” WAS FINAL AMOUNT [FRAUDULENTLY ALLOWED]

20. 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”

21. Here, Defendant Crooked Honeywell concealed and agreed to conceal that Defendants

Peterson and Wilkinson had concocted an “amount of $5,048.60”. Plaintiff Government

4
 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.).

FACIALLY FRAUDULENT “03/05/09 judgment” and “06/11/09 mandate”

25. 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

5
 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

26. 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

27. 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”

28. 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.

PLAINTIFF CORRUPTION VICTIMS SUED UNREPRESENTED DEF. HONEYWELL

29. 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.

6
30. 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.

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

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

32. 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”

33. 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”

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

7
 DEF. WILKINSON FORGED “judgment”, “DOC. # 386-5, Page 2 of 2”

37. 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.

38. 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).”

39. 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

40. 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
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

41. 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.

8
 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”.

42. 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 fundamental rights to own

property, exclude Government(s), redress their grievances of no due process and no equal

protection, and have a jury trial.

43. 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”

9
 IN THE PRIMA FACIE RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY REGULATION:

HOW FRIVOLOUS WAS THAT?

44. 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”.

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

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

UPDATED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

46. 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 directing the Clerk of Court to certify and authenticate the

record lack of any “writ of execution” and “lien” on the Docket for Case No. 2:2007-cv-

00228;

10
2. An EMERGENCY Order directing the Clerk of Court to certify and authenticate the

record lack of any “judgment” “received” by this Court on or around July 29, 2010, on the

Docket for Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;

3. An EMERGENCY Order directing the Clerk of Court to certify and authenticate the

record lack of any “judgment” [which “could have become a lien”] by this Court on or around

July 29, 2010, on the Docket for Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;

4. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining Defendant Clerk Kim Arnett from conspiring with

Defendant Richard Jessup to conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality of fake “writ”, Doc.

# 425, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;

5. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining Defendant Clerk Kim Arnett from conspiring with

Defendant C. E. Honeywell to conceal the prima facie nullity and illegality of fake “writ”,

Doc. # 425, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228;

6. An EMERGENCY Order enjoining Defendant Clerk Kim Arnett from conspiring with

Defendant Court Reporter Joy Stancel to conceal the minutes of the hearing before Def. C. E.

Honeywell, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791;

7. 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.;

8. 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;

11
9. 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].

10. 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);

11. 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 No.

2:09-cv-00791 at the dirty hands of Def. judicial whore Honeywell for said well-proven

reasons;

12. 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;

13. 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;

14. 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;

15. 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);

12
16. 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;

17. 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;

18. 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

13
14
15
16
 The World of Jimmy Star Publications Inc.
1940 E Sunrise Blvd
Fort Lauderdale FL 33304

+1 954.828.9979 Call Center

worldofjimmystar@yahoo.com
www.wojspubs.com

CONTACT: Jimmy Star, +1 954.828.9979, worldofjimmystar@yahoo.com

For Immediate Release

Re: Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) v. Gil Eriksen
Properties LLC; Case No. 06-004169 (21)

THERE’S A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN - GRAND JURY

INVESTIGATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA CORRUPTION
UNDERWAY
Pompano Beach, FL, May 18, 2010 – A long history of untold corruption in
South Florida is starting to be exposed. The illegal taking of private property by
the Pompano Beach Community Redevelopment Agency under the guise of
'eminent domain' while not actually having the right of eminent domain to seize
property, and the complicity of Broward County as a whole in the land grab scam
that has irreparably damaged countless citizens and businesses for the nefarious
profit of the rich and powerful is but one of the abuses of public office being
revealed.
There is a 'new sheriff in town' by way of an anti-corruption grand jury that
has been convened to investigate South Florida's public officials. Governor Crist
requested the Florida Supreme Court empanel the 12-month 19th Grand Jury on
Public Corruption as in recent months FBI investigations have exposed an entire
wave of criminality in the highest seats of South Florida government. Judge Victor
Tobin is presiding over the grand jury and jurors have been chosen from multiple
South Florida districts. Victims of corrupt officials are pleased at the prospect of a
real investigation into the good ole boy (and girl) networks tied to big business and
racketeering that have taken over government at the expense of the people.
Recently a hand-appointed member of the Advisory Board to the Pompano
Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, Vincente Thrower, was arrested for
bribery and unlawful compensation for misusing his position and making deals
with developers and money lenders. Thrower's appointment to that advisory board
was made by current Commissioner and CRA member, Woodrow Poitier, who
himself has also faced FBI investigation in his past position as chairman of the
city's public housing agency who 'misused' one million dollars in federal funding
meant for low-income housing programs. The Pompano Beach City Attorney

1 of 2
Gordon Linn knew of Thrower's extra-curricular 'consulting' work as he is
reported by The South Florida Times to have issued an opinion on it in 2006.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The current and five year long case of the
Pompano Beach CRA v Gil Eriksen Properties LLC whereby a multi-million
dollar restored historical property was taken without the authority of eminent
domain by a phantom agency, without due process in the Broward Courts, and
with ongoing intimidation of the respondent and efforts to obstruct justice is a
glaring example of the misuse of public office and obliteration of the US
Constitution and Florida state law.
Land grab racketeering has been committed by the Pompano Beach
Community Redevelopment Agency in Broward County Florida for a decade, and
victims want justice. The City of Pompano Beach was not authorized by Broward
County to create the Community Redevelopment Agency, nor pass the City's
power of eminent domain to the agency, or any agency for that matter, and yet the
CRA took private property from citizens unchecked. The Broward Courts didn't
stop it, nor did the Broward County Commission, but the tide may be turning on
corrupt officials in South Florida.

To view the 19th Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption Website visit:
http://myfloridalegal.com/19thstatewidegrandjury

For more information and resources on the Pompano Beach CRA Land Grab
Scheme visit:
http://www.wojspubs.com
###

2 of 2
17
 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”:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33