Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
NOTICE OF APPEAL
INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION,
AND FORGED AND VOID judgments and orders
____________________________________________________________________________/
AND the Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantees that the Grantors are lawfully
seized of said riparian upland and adjoining riparian street land on the Gulf of
Mexico in fee simple; that the Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell
and convey said riparian Gulf-front upland and street land on said Gulf as legally
described in reference to said private 1912 Subdivision Plat; that the Grantors
hereby fully warrant the unimpeachable record title to said riparian accreted street and
up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico and pursuant to the Lee County, State of Florida, and
Federal Public Records have defended and will defend their marketable record title
against the lawful and unlawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and in particular,
against the prima facie unlawful and criminal claims of Lee County, the State of
Florida, and the United States of America, and their corrupt Agents, Officials of
record, and the Defendants in their private individual capacities of record such as,
e.g., Joel F. Dubina, Charlene E. Honeywell, Sheri Polster Chappell, Gerald B.
Tjoflat, John E. Steele, Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Tony West; and that said accreted
riparian street and up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico are free of any legitimate and valid
encumbrances and/or judgments, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,
2010; zoning, building code and other restrictions legitimately imposed by lawful
governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas, mineral, and or any other interests of
record, if any; and private riparian water-front easements of record, restrictions, if
any, and unimpeachable private implied street and alley easements of record as
conveyed in reference to said 1912 Plat.”
2
DEF. WILSON’S ADMISSION OF INCOMPETENCE & OBJECTIVE PARTIALITY
2. Doc. # 67, mailed on 08/19/2010, indisputably proved that Def. objectively partial and
Crooked Judge Thomas G. Wilson “had no familiarity with any of the facts.”
3. The Plaintiff Government corruption & crime victims object to Defendant Crooked
b. Fraudulent concealment of, e.g., Def. Officials’ extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice;
d. Extortion of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, and money under fraudulent pretenses.
4. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of and title holders to Lot 15A contest
a. Corruption;
3
b. Fraud, deception, and trickery;
d. Dishonesty;
e. Objective partiality;
f. Incompetence;
5. For criminal purposes of, e.g., case fixing, obstruction of justice, and extortion, Defendant
Here, the Money Judgment in the amount of $24.30, Mandate, and Opinion of the U.S. Court
of Appeals could be found at docket entry # 365, Case 2:2007-cv-00228. Here, the Federal
Courts had fraudulently pretended the purported “lack of jurisdiction” and thus not
reached the merits. Said Case is under appeal, and no “final judgment on the merits” could
Here, Def. Wilson extended the pattern and policy of organized judicial crime & corruption:
6. It is a hackneyed truism that “res judicata does not preclude a litigant from making a
direct attack upon the judgment before the court which renders it. 1B J. Moore, Federal
Practice, § 0.407, at 282 (2d ed. 1991). In other words, a party may introduce evidence,
normally extrinsic in nature, "with the direct and primary objective of modifying, setting
4
aside, canceling or vacating, or enjoining the enforcement of the judgment.” C. Wright &
A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure at § 4406 (citing Intermill v. Nash, 94 Utah 271,
7. Here, absolutely nothing barred Plaintiffs’ direct attack of, e.g., the facially void
judgments, fraud on the Courts since 2006, organized Government crime and
corruption, racketeering and fraud. Here, Def. Wilson deceived the Court:
“In view of prior dismissals, this complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.”
8. Here, the Plaintiff unimpeachable record title holders to riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A
directly attacked publicly recorded organized judicial crime and corruption in Florida
Courts.
a. Here, the original Federal Case, 2:2007-cv-00228, is under appeal and attack for, e.g.,
publicly recorded Government racketeering, retaliation, extortion, fraud, fraud on
the Courts, and deliberate deprivations, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242;
b. Here, the purported “factual findings” by Crooked Magistrate Wilson are under direct
attack, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and conclusively controverted by U.S., Florida, and Lee
County Public Records;
c. Government corruption and crimes did not, and could not have possibly, created
“finality” but voided record deception, trickery, and fraud on the Courts since 2006.
9. Here under fraudulent and facially false pretenses of “res judicata”, Defendant Corrupt
5
PLAINTIFF ATTACK DEF. WILSON’S FALSIFIED “factual findings”, DOC. # 67
a. Perversion of publicly recorded marketable title and ownership evidence, Ch. 712, F.S.;
“RES PERVERTA”
11. On the public record, Def. Wilson is confusing “res perverta” and “res judicata”. Just like
criminal Catholic Church Officials conspired to “create finality”, cover up, and conceal
organized Church crime and corruption, here Def. Wilson conspired to conceal rape of the
“With the federal defendants dismissed, and no federal claim having been alleged, the
court should not exercise …”, Doc. # 67, p. 9.
With the rapists dismissed, and rape having been proven, the victims bleeding.
the Church and court should now cover up, conceal, and continue their charade.
Here, Def. Wilson conspired with other Crooked Officials to pervert the law and “res
judicata”. Here as a matter of law, res judicata could not have possibly applied, because
6
f. The Crooked Judges perpetrated FRAUD ON THE COURT.
12. Here, neither the publicly recorded fraud on the Courts nor the Plaintiff record title
holders and tax payers, Lot 15A, will go away. Here, objectively partial and corrupt Def.
Wilson conspired to keep the Plaintiffs away from the Court for illegal purposes of
obstructing any opportunity of justice and meaningful court access. See 28 U.S.C. § 455.
13. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Wilson lacked any “authority” to “report and recommend”,
a. Government corruption;
c. Cover-up;
d. Coercion of the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution and defense of their perfect title;
e. Government malfeasance;
a. The falsified elements of purported “res judicata” could not have possibly been present;
b. The Plaintiff property tax payers were entitled to own Lot 15A, Cayo Costa;
c. Plaintiff record Lot owners had the fundamental rights to exclude Governments from
their riparian Lot 15A and redress their Government grievances, 1st, 14th 4th, 5th, 7th U.S.
Const. Amendments;
d. Def. Judges J. E. Steele and S. P. Chappell had violated their own Local Rule 4.02;
7
e. § 86.011 Jurisdiction of trial court had entitled the Plaintiffs to the following:
15. Here, Def. Wilson concealed and conspired to conceal the judicial Defendants’ alteration
of official records and documents for criminal and illegal purposes of racketeering and
extorting Lot 15A and Def. Wilkinson’s falsified fictitious “$5,000 attorney fees” without
any authority. Here in particular, Def, Steele and Chappell perpetrated fraud on the Court
when they removed BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA from the Lee County Circuit Court to
LOCAL RULE 4.02 REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURT [FLA. M.D.]
(a) All cases removed to this Court from the courts of the State of Florida shall be docketed
and assigned, in accordance with Rule 1.03 of these rules, in the Division encompassing the
county of the State in which the case was pending.
(b) The party effecting removal shall file with the notice of removal a true and legible copy of
all process, pleadings, orders, and other papers or exhibits of every kind, including
depositions, then on file in the state court.
(c) When a case is removed to this Court with pending motions on which briefs or
legal memoranda have not been submitted, the moving party shall file and serve a
supporting brief within fourteen (14) days after the removal in accordance with Rule
3.01(a) of these rules, and the party or parties opposing the motion shall then comply
with Rule 3.01(b) of these rules.
8
TARNISHED REPUTATION AS JUDICIAL CRIMINAL(S) – COURT OF FAKES
16. Florida Middle District Judges, and including Def. Wilson, who cover up for other crooked
Def. Judges tarnished the reputation of this Court as a judicial crime and corruption
17. Here, Defendant Wilson concealed and conspired to conceal that the 11th Circuit destroyed
and discarded Plaintiff(s)’ records and official documents pursuant to its orders in violation
of the law.
18. Hereby, the Plaintiff record indisputable title holders, land owners, and tax payers, riparian
d. Def. Wilson’s concealment of Government extortion of Lot 15A & money ($5,048.60).
9
“STRIKING” THE PUBLIC RECORD EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO CONCEAL
19. “Striking” the publicly recorded Government scandal as “scandalous” has been for illegal
and criminal purposes of concealing the record extortion of money & Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A:
“In light of that circumstance, the allegations of fraud, bribery, and conspiracy
should be stricken as impertinent and scandalous.” Doc. # 67, p. 3.
In light of that circumstance, we shall agree that the patently clear proof of rape
should be concealed and covered up; otherwise the scandal will strike the Judges
and priests in our crime organization.
20. With intent to, and for criminal purposes of, case fixing and obstruction of justice,
“A dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief … will not do, since such a
dismissal typically warrants an opportunity to amend. Rather it is fitting [for the
criminal purposes of case-fixing and obstruction of justice] to consider dismissal
on the dispositive ground of res judicata…” See Doc. # 67, p. 4.
Here on the public record, Def. Wilson expressed his criminal intent to obstruct any
“opportunity” of justice and perpetrated fraud on the Court. Here with intent to
deliberately deprive and defraud, Wilson chose his “conclusion” independent of the
material facts and law, but with the criminal objective of case-fixing, obstructing justice,
21. Here, accepting Plaintiffs’ conclusively proven allegations within the four corners of their
Complaint as true would have necessarily resulted in just and speedy adjudication in favor
22. In particular, Defendant Wilson conspired with other Officials and Defendants to conceal,
e.g.:
10
a. Fake “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;
b. Fake “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
c. Fake “judgment”;
d. Fake “July 29, 2009, judgment”;
e. Fake un-recorded “$5,048.60 judgment”, Doc. ## 386, 432;
f. Fake “lien”;
g. Fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425;
h. Fake “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “Lee County Public Records”, Doc. # 338;
i. Non-existence of fictitious “08/22/2008” “Rule 38 Motion”, Doc. # 386.
See Case 2:2007-cv-00228; see Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912) on file.
23. Def. Wilson knew that he or any intelligent, fit, and honest person in Wilson’s shoes could
c. NOT find any “Lee County” title to forged “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;
d. NOT find any “Lee County” title to forged “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
24. Plain and short, the attached 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat of Survey
Here, Def. Wilson knew that as a matter of law the fraudulently pretended conveyance of
said fake “land parcels” in reference to said 1912 Plat had been legally and factually
impossible.
25. Florida law prohibits fraudulent fabrication of a fake interest in fictitious “land parcels”.
11
a. Ch. 95, Florida Statutes, ADVERSE POSSESSION;
b. Ch. 73, 74, Florida Statutes, EMINENT DOMAIN;
c. Ch. 712, F.S., self-enforcing FLORIDA MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT;
d. Article I, s. 10, Florida Constitution;
e. Article I, s. 2, Florida Constitution;
f. Article I, s. 9, Florida Constitution;
g. The recorded fraudulent violations of Florida Statutes and Constitution;
h. Def. K. M. Wilkinson’s publicly recorded fabrications and fraud on the Court.
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, 1st, 14th, 7th, 4th, 5th U.S. CONST. AMEND.
"[n]o person shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of law . . . ."
Here, the Plaintiffs had the fundamental equal rights to own their Lot 15A, Cayo Costa,
and exclude Defendant Governments from their riparian Gulf-front street and uplands, PB 3
PG 25, U.S. Constitutional Amendments. The Plaintiff record real property tax payers, Lot
15A, and title holders were entitled to defend their perfected unencumbered marketable
deprivations, and obstruction of justice under fraudulent pretenses and color of office.
27. Defendants’ facially frivolous allegations of said sham “land parcels” were
a. Legally incomprehensible;
c. For criminal purposes of, e.g., racketeering, retaliation, extortion, and fraud;
12
d. Controverted by the Lee County Real Property Grantor/Grantee Index.
e. Prohibited under
“The property may have been taken over by Lee County in some way.” Id., p.
29. Any “involuntary alienation” of property in Florida is strictly and necessarily a judicial
function and must follow due judicial process, Chapters 73, 74, 95, Fla. Stat. Here, no judge
had ever ordered any “title transfer”, Lot 15A, against the Plaintiffs’ will. Here, no eminent
30. On the public record, Doc. # 67, Defendant Wilson asserted his “guessing” game and judicial
charade:
“Upon reading of the complaint, I have no concrete idea what happened.” Id., p. 3.
“Other defendants had something to do with the record of title to the property.” Id., p. 2.
Here, Def. Government idiot T. G. Wilson “played so dumb” that he confused, e.g.:
a. Causes of action;
c. Parties;
13
d. Actions.
31. Here, the Plaintiff record owners and holders of indisputable Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, can
only live in further fear of injury from, e.g., said publicly recorded judicial
a. Corruption;
b. Idiocy;
c. Ignorance;
d. Irrationality;
e. Recklessness.
32. In their independent action for relief from, e.g., extrinsic fraud, fraud on the Court,
racketeering, retaliation, extortion, obstruction of justice, the Plaintiff record owners of Lot
15A attacked the prima facie nullity, illegality, and criminality of judicial determinations
regarding the record ownership of private “land” fraudulently “claimed as public land” under
facially false and deceptive pretenses of fake “law” and/or ”resolution”, scam “O.R.
569/875”. See U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A. et al., 1:10-cv-321-JL, U.S. District Court,
33. Here, Def. Wilson concealed the most elementary legal principle that any involuntary
alienation could not have possibly been a legislative function, and that the fraudulent “land-
WILSON KNEW THAT WILKINSON ADMITTEDLY DID NOT file Rule 38 motion
14
34. Here admittedly, Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Crooked Lee County Property
Appraiser, had filed a “Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 27-4”.
Here, Defendant Crooked Magistrate Wilson knew, fraudulently concealed, and conspired
with other Government Agents to conceal that Def. Wilkinson did not file a “Rule 38” or
DEFENDANT WILKINSON FILED “RULE 27-4 motion [frivolous motion]”, DOC. # 386
35. In the record absence of a “rule 38 motion”, the Defendant U.S. Appellate Court Judges,
11th Circuit, conspired with other Defendant Officials to fake and “grant” a non-existent
“rule 38 motion”, which they knew Defendant Wilkinson had admittedly not filed.
36. In the record absence of any “rule 38 motion” (“frivolous appeal”), Defendant Wilson
conspired to
15
b. Pervert LOCAL RULE 4.18;
37. Here, Def. Wilson knew Def. Lee County Property Appraiser’s claim of fictitious
“$5,000.00 for attorney’s fees” to be facially fraudulent and deceptive. Here, there was
trickery and extortion, because by his own assertions, Def. Wilkinson had not filed a “rule 38
38. Def. Wilson knew that Plaintiff(s)’ Third Amended Complaint, Doc. # 282, 288, had been
d. Was fully supported by the indisputable and conclusive public record evidence on file.
39. In the record absence of any “rule 38 motion” (“frivolous appeal”), Defendant Wilson knew
and concealed that Def. Lee County Property Appraiser Wilkinson had
c. Never been holder of any money judgment other than for $24.30, Case 2:2007-cv-00228,
under appeal:
16
DEF. WILSON CONCEALED EXTORTION, COERCION, AND THREATS
40. Defendant Wilson knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant Marshal Richard Jessup
had threatened the Plaintiffs in Naples, Florida, and coerced them to refrain from
prosecution of the Defendant Officials. Therefore, Def. Jessup was of course not entitled to
immunity.
41. Here, Defendants Jessup and Wilson conspired to conceal perjury and the falsification of a
non-existent “July 29, 2009, judgment”, Doc. # 432-2, 05/21/2010, Case 2:2007-cv-00228:
42. Here, Def. Wilson brazenly perverted the indisputable facts and law. Here, there were
a. NO frivolity;
c. NO “$5,048.60 judgment”;
d. NO “rule 38 motion”;
e. NO “frivolous appeal”;
f. NO “lien”;
17
43. Here, Def. Wilson brazenly perverted the indisputable public record, Doc. # 365:
44. Here, Def. Wilson perverted the indisputable facts and law and brazenly concealed that
a. The “writ of execution” was falsified, Doc. # 425, and had expired;
b. The “writ”, Doc. # 425, was a prima facie fraud and extortion scheme;
c. NOT based on any authentic lien or judgment under Ch. 55, Fla. Stat.;
45. Here, there was a pattern and policy of organized Government crime and corruption.
Here year after year, judge after judge, in layer after layer of Government deception, new
claims arose in this organized crime scheme and judicial corruption machine. Here, Def.
Wilson is merely the latest “edition” and/or “perpetrator” of unchecked judicial crime.
18
DEF. WILSON’S INCOMPREHENSIBLE UNSUPPORTED NONSENSE, DOC. # 67
46. Def. Wilson’s “report and recommendation”, Doc. # 67, is rambling incomprehensible
nonsense without any factual support. Here, Florida law did not recognize
49. Fake colorless “land claim” in violation of Ch. 95; 73, 74, Fla. Stat.;
51. Rule 69, Fed.R.Civ.P., did not apply or “govern” to any “extent”:
Here, “the procedure on execution” did not “accord with the procedure of the state [Florida]
52. Here, the recorded final money judgment and mandate was for $24.30, and the federal
statute governed as to the extent it applied: Here, Rule 69 did not apply at all, and the Clerk
was never authorized to issue the fraudulent and forged “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425.
53. Here, Defendant Crooked Officials Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Jack N. Peterson, Sheri Polster
Chappell, John Edwin Steele, and Drew Heathcoat (D.C. Clerk) idiotically conspired to
pervert Rule 69 for criminal purposes of, e.g., racketeering, retaliation, extortion, fraud,
fraud on the Court, and obstruction of justice, and falsified an unauthorized “writ of
19
LACK OF exemplified copy OF FACIALLY FORGED “foreign judgment”
55. Here, the facially forged and falsified foreign “July 2009 judgment” was
a. Never validated;
b. Never authenticated;
c. Never certified.
Here, the purported judgment creditor, Dr. Jorg Busse [and Jennifer Franklin Prescott], filed
lawsuits and appeals on the fake foreign judgment and attacked the prima facie
fraud, extortion, and racketeering scheme. See, e.g., U.S.A. Ex. Rel., et al. v. U.S.A., et al.
56. Here, Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been entitled to begin any collection efforts and
57. Def. Wilkinson conspired with Jack N. Peterson, Esq., and other Defendants and Officials to
perpetrate record fraud on the Courts and falsify a “writ of execution””, e.g., Doc. ## 386,
59. Here, no case number existed for the clerk of court to, e.g.,
20
b. schedule any depositions to review a purported debtor's assets.
“(1) If, within 30 days after the date the foreign judgment is recorded, the judgment
debtor files an action contesting the jurisdiction of the court which entered the
foreign judgment or the validity of the foreign judgment and records a lis pendens
directed toward the foreign judgment, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign
judgment and the judgment lien upon the filing of the action by the judgment debtor.
(2) If the judgment debtor shows the circuit or county court any ground upon
which enforcement of a judgment of any circuit or county court of this state would be
stayed, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate
period, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which is
required in this state.”
Here, Defendant “land parcel” Forger and Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County
a. a falsified foreign or out-of-Florida “July 29, 2009 judgment”, Doc. ## 386, 432;
c. a falsified “writ of execution” illegally issued by the Clerk of U.S. District Court.
a. had no jurisdiction;
c. had no authority to issue the falsified writ of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:07-cv-00228.
Here, the Defendant Clerk of U.S. District Court had no authority to enforce the facially
forged and falsified out-of-Florida judgment and/or “July 29, 2009 judgment”. Here, said
U.S. Clerk could not have possibly enforced the fake out-of-Florida foreign judgment
21
62. § 55.507, F.S., Lien; when effective, states:
“A foreign judgment does not operate as a lien until 30 days after the mailing of
notice by the clerk…”
Here, the Clerk had never “mailed” any “notice” of the facially forged judgment, and the
a. No judgment holder;
b. No judgment creditor;
Here, Plaintiff(s) had contested the “validity of the [facially forged] foreign judgment” and
filed an action directed toward the prima facie fraudulent foreign judgment. Here, the Court
shall stay enforcement of the fake foreign judgment and the facially forged judgment lien,
64. Florida law governs the question of whether the proper procedures were followed on
“It is clear from Rule 69 that Florida law governs the question of whether the proper
procedures were followed on execution, there being no federal statute applicable to
the contrary. Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's &
Warehousemen's Union, 128 F. Supp. 697 (D.C. Hawaii 1955). *fn2"
22
unsatisfied amount of the judgment or judgment lien, including accrued costs and
interest, and stating that the execution is valid and outstanding, and thereupon the
judgment holder or judgment lien holder is entitled to these proceedings
supplementary to execution. Fla. Stat. § 56.29(1).”
In Continental Cigar Corp. v. Edelman & Co., Inc., 397 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA
1981), the Third District Court of Appeal rejected earlier court
decisions*fn3 requiring two jurisdictional prerequisites for post-judgment
proceedings supplementary: (1) a returned and unsatisfied writ of execution and (2)
an affidavit averring that the writ is valid and unsatisfied…”
“Florida has since enacted the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,
Florida Statutes Section 55.501-55.509, which places a dual responsibility on the
Clerk of Court and on the judgment creditor to give notice of the recordation of the
judgment to the debtor. Fla. Stat. Section 55.505.” Id., * fn 3.
Here, Defendant Forger Wilkinson had never incurred actual and necessary attorney’s fees.
Here, Def. Wilkinson could have never possibly incurred any attorney’s fees, because the
U.S. Court of Appeals had lost jurisdiction, and “frivolity” had never been any issue in the
closed appeal. See 11th Circuit “Opinion”, Doc. # 365, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.
65. On 07/27/2010, the Case was reassigned to Defendant Crooked Judge James S. Moody, Jr.,
after the
23
66. On the day of his re-assignment, 07/27/2010, Defendant Crooked Judge James S. Moody
fixed and conspired to fix Plaintiffs’ Case in exchange for Defendants’ bribes:
67. Here within hours, Defendant Moody fixed and conspired to fix Plaintiff record public
corruption victims’ Case and fraudulently and falsely pretended to have reviewed
b. “eleven actions”;
68. Here, no fit, honest, intelligent, and reasonable judge or person in Defendant Moody’s shoes
could have possibly reviewed said alleged hundreds/thousands of “filings”, “eleven actions”
… and Plaintiffs’ highly meritorious and conclusively proven allegations within hours.
24
69. Here another bungling Government idiot, Def. Judge Moody, copied and pasted
“repetitive” and “incomprehensible” judicial trash, Doc. # 22, which on its very face was,
e.g.:
c. irrational; unintelligent;
Here, Def. Crook Moody “impacted the resources” of the Court(s) and further tarnished its
70. In particular, Def. Crooked Judge Moody concealed and conspired to conceal that as a
matter of law, execution proceedings and/or enforcement of a facially forged lien and “writ
of execution” in the record absence of any “July 29 judgment”, Doc. ## 425, 432, 386, Case
2:2007-cv-00228, were impossible if there would have [hypothetically] been any “claim as
public land”.
71. Here, the Clerk of U.S. District Court conspired with Defendant Crooked U.S. Judges to
issue a writ of execution, Doc. # 425, while the Court, its Crooked Judges, and Def. Corrupt
Judge Moody idiotically and falsely pretended a Lot 15A “claim as public land”.
72. If [hypothetically] there had been involuntary alienation of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A against
Plaintiffs’ will in a court of law, and a record judgment, as a matter of law there could not
25
a. any forced sale of purportedly involuntarily alienated Lot 15A;
d. any execution.
73. Here in action after action, organized Criminal Judge after Judge, extended the publicly
recorded premeditated pattern and policy of, e.g., fraud, corruption, extortion, fraud on the
DEF. MOODY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE & RELIEF FROM VOID orders & judgments
74. Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may relieve a
party from an order or final judgment that is void. A judgment is “void” under Rule 60(b)(4)
if it was rendered without jurisdiction of the subject matter or the parties or in a manner
75. This corrupt Court’s latest “order”, Doc. # 22, “in this case is not so much” an order “as it is
569/875”.
76. The law did not recognize the facially incomprehensible and absurd “claim as public
land”, Doc. # 22. See Ch. 73, 74, EMINENT DOMAIN; 95, ADVERSE POSSESSION, 712,
26
77. Here, the public perception of “judicial fraud and corruption” by Defendant Dishonorable
Officials Charlene Edwards Honeywell and Def. Dishonorable John Edwin Steele were the
shoes.
78. Here, no reasonable and intelligent person in Def. Moody’s shoes could have possibly
determined that the fake “resolution/legislative act” and “$5,000 sanctions” Government
scams were not prima facie extortion and fraud schemes in violation of Florida Statutes,
Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, Florida’s
self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act. Here as a matter of law, Chapter 712, Florida
Statutes, governed supremely and superseded the facially falsified and forged
“resolution”, scam “O.R. 569/875”. Here, Defendants Lee County, FL, had no authority to
80. Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapters 73, 74, EMINENT DOMAIN,
and 95, ADVERSE POSSESSION. Here as a matter of law, said Statutory Chapters governed
“O.R. 569/875”. Here, the Government Defendants and Officials had no authority to pervert
Florida law.
27
EXPRESS FLORIDA STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS, CH. 73, 74, 95, FLA. STAT.
81. Here, Florida Statutes, law, and Constitution expressly prohibited any and all involuntary
alienation. See, e.g., Ch. 73, 74, EMINENT DOMAIN; Ch. 95, ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Any involuntary alienation would have strictly and necessarily been a judicial function.
Here, it was elementary that no “legislative act” could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs
of their Lot 15A against their will. Here, the public record, Doc. # 22, established Defendant
Moody as a bungling Government idiot and crook, who disrespected and perverted the law
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 55, § 55.10, F.S., FLORIDA FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT
a. No Florida judgment;
c. No “July 29 judgment”;
d. No domesticated judgment;
f. No curative affidavit.
Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter 55, § 55.10, Florida Statutes,
83. Here, Dr. Busse had challenged the prima facie falsification and forgery of a fake foreign
“$5,048.60” judgment in the publicly recorded absence of any jurisdiction by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after June 2009 and closure of Case 2008-13170-BB.
28
84. [Hypothetically,] had there been any foreign judgment, the judgment holder would have
been required to present a certified copy of the judgment, execute an affidavit concerning
the identity of the judgment holder and judgment debtor and pay the filing fee charged by the
85. Here, the clerk of court never served the purported judgment debtor, Dr. Jorg Busse, with any
86. Here, Dr. Busse had contested, e.g., the fake “lien”, fake “writ of execution”, fraud, fraud
87. Here, nothing could have possibly become a “lien” on any real property of Dr. Jorg Busse.
88. Here, no Florida Court had ever issued any writ of execution.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 695, PRIMA FACIE SCAM & SHAM “claim O.R. 569/875”
89. Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter 695, § 695.26, Florida Statutes,
Requirements for Recording instruments affecting real property, and § 695.09, F.S., Identity
of grantor. Here, Defendants Lee County, FL, had no authority to pervert Florida law.
Here, prima facie scam and sham “claim” “O.R. 569/875” could not have possibly “affected
real property”, because it was null and void and violated the Florida Constitution Statutes.
29
a. No witnesses;
b. No notary;
c. No acknowledgment;
d. No grantor;
e. No grant;
f. No conveyance;
Here, there were known racketeering, retaliation, extortion, and fraud schemes on the
record. Record scam and sham “claim” “O.R. 569/875” was an extortion and racketeering
scheme by organized Government Criminals who covered up, concealed, and conspired.
“No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain
interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be
created, made, granted, transferred or released in any other manner than by
instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the
party creating, making, granting, conveying, transferring or releasing such estate,
interest, or term of more than 1 year, or by the party’s lawfully authorized agent,
unless by will and testament, or other testamentary appointment, duly made according
to law …”
93. Here, prima facie scam and fake “resolution 569/875” could not have possibly
Here, the judicial and Government Defendants covered up, concealed, and conspired to
30
94. Here, Def. Moody’s “order”, Doc. # 22, was “patently frivolous, baseless, vexatious, and
harassing”. No intelligent, fit, and honest judge or person in Defendant J. S. Moody’s shoes
a. Lot 15A “claim as public land” in violation of, e.g., Chapters 712, 73, 74, 95 Fla.
Statutes;
b. “resolution”;
d. any transfer of title to Lee County from Plaintiffs to Lee County against Plaintiffs’ will;
“Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and
ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”
96. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded title to and ownership of accreted riparian Lot 15A,
Cayo Costa Subdivision, as legally described in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey in Lee
b. Unimpeachable;
c. Unencumbered;
d. Perfected;
e. Marketable;
f. Exclusive;
31
h. Protected by the fundamental right to own property;
See Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act; Ch. 712, Florida Statutes. See
Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, on file.
97. Defendant U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., is part of a Government crime and corruption
organization in Florida, U.S.A. “For approximately four years”, the publicly recorded
policy and pattern have been cover-up, fraudulent concealment, obstruction of justice,
racketeering, fraud, fraud on the Court, and extortion of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, and
money.
98. “For approximately four years”, Defendant U.S. Judges and Government Officials have
“showered courts in the Middle District of Florida with hundreds” of prima facie corrupted
fraudulent orders and communications for criminal and illegal purposes of racketeering
and extortion of Lot 15A and money under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g.:
a. Fake “resolution”;
99. Here, absolute power produced absolute judicial & Government corruption and the
100. The procedural and substantive rules prohibited Defendant Moody from fixing the Case
32
CONSPIRACY TO RACKETEER, EXTORT, RETALIATE, AND DEFRAUD
101. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., conspired with other Officials,
Defendants, and Government gang members to racketeer, retaliate, obstruct justice, and
extort money and Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, from the Plaintiff indisputable record land owners.
“At the heart of each case, Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of Lot 15A in the
Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida. Plaintiffs attempt to challenge a
resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County,
Florida, where Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land.”
Here, Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., knew, fraudulently concealed,
a. The Plaintiffs had conclusively proven and alleged that they are the record owners of
b. The public record had conclusively evidenced that indisputably, the Plaintiffs are the
unimpeachable record owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee
County, Florida;
d. Lot 15A could not have possibly been “claimed as public land” under any law;
e. The prima facie fake “claim as public land” was incomprehensible and unrecognized;
f. The Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their perfected record title and prosecute;
h. The facially forged colorless “claim” lacked any authentic legal description;
i. The colorless facially forged “claim” lacked any legislative signature and name(s).
33
102. Here in particular, Def. Crooked Judge Moody knew, fraudulently concealed, and
conspired to conceal that Ch. 95, Florida Statutes, would have absolutely required
Defendants Lee County, FL to pay real property taxes prior to any [hypothetical] judicial
adjudication of any colorless adverse possession “claim” by Defendants Lee County, FL.
103. Here, the Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title had paid property taxes, Lot 15A, since
1912 and since the date of the publicly recorded Federal Land Patent root title. See Lee
104. Here more than thirty (30) years had passed since the recordation of the Cayo Costa
U.S. Land Patent root title, the statute of limitations had expired, and any and all claims had
105. Here, Defendant Crook and Racketeer J. S. Moody extended the Government pattern
and policy of, e.g., public corruption, racketeering, retaliation, extortion, fraud on the
Courts, and deliberate deprivations under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., a legally and
“sanctions”, “judgment” in the record absence of any authority and jurisdiction. Here,
Defendant Crook Moody had no authority to break Florida law on the record and perpetrate
106. § 695.26, Requirements for recording instruments affecting real property, provides:
(1) No instrument by which the title to real property or any interest therein is
conveyed, assigned, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of shall be recorded by
the clerk of the circuit court unless:
(a) The name of each person who executed such instrument is legibly printed,
typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument immediately beneath the signature
34
of such person and the post-office address of each such person is legibly printed,
typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument;
(b) The name and post-office address of the natural person who prepared the
instrument or under whose supervision it was prepared are legibly printed,
typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument;
(c) The name of each witness to the instrument is legibly printed, typewritten, or
stamped upon such instrument immediately beneath the signature of such witness;
(d) The name of any notary public or other officer authorized to take
acknowledgments or proofs whose signature appears upon the instrument is
legibly printed, typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument immediately
beneath the signature of such notary public or other officer authorized to take
acknowledgment or proofs;
(e) A 3-inch by 3-inch space at the top right-hand corner on the first page and a 1-
inch by 3-inch space at the top right-hand corner on each subsequent page are
reserved for use by the clerk of the court; and
(f) In any instrument other than a mortgage conveying or purporting to convey
any interest in real property, the name and post-office address of each
grantee in such instrument are legibly printed, typewritten, or stamped upon
such instrument.
History. s. 1, ch. 90-183; ss. 8, 22, ch. 94-348; s. 773, ch. 97-102.
107. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judge Moody knew, concealed, and conspired to fraudulently
conceal that
d. Any and all “claims” had been extinguished and barred, Ch. 712, 95, Fla. Stat.
35
Here, Defendant Racketeer Moody knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never incurred actual and necessary attorney’s fees in the
facially falsified amount of “$5,000”. In June 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit had lost “jurisdiction”. Here, Def. Moody conspired with Def. Wilkinson and other
Officials to falsify a fake “July 29 judgment” and alter the official records.
109. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the final money judgment in the amount of “$24.30” for
110. Here just like a bungling Government crook and idiot, Defendant Moody covered up,
concealed the truth, and obstructed justice for publicly recorded criminal purposes of
111. Here, Def. Moody knew that frivolity had never been any issue, whatsoever, as publicly
recorded and conclusively evidenced by the Opinion, Judgment, and Mandate in said Case.
“A court shall take judicial notice of any matter in § 90.202 when a party requests it..”
Here for years, the Plaintiff exclusive indisputable record owners of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa,
PB 3, PG 25 (1912) had requested the Federal Courts to take judicial notice of the matter
and issue of their record unencumbered and perfected ownership and title, 12-44-20-01-
00015.015A.
113. Here on its face, Defendant Crooked Judge Moody’s sham “order”, Doc. # 22, was
36
c. Facially incomprehensible and baseless;
114. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded satisfactory real property tax payments, Lot 15A,
were capable of accurate and ready determination and indisputable. Said indisputable
115. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate
116. Here as a matter of law, Plaintiffs’ record title and tax payments had conclusively
controverted:
c. Any and all absurd, unrecognized, and frivolous “claim(s) as public land”;
AS A MATTER OF LAW, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS HAD BEEN BARRED, CH. 712, F.S.
117. As a matter of law, Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., had extinguished any and all “claims” against
118. In “1969”, the fabricated date of the fictitious “resolution”, the statute of limitations
for any and all “claims” had expired. Here, more than thirty (30) years had passed since the
root title to Lot 15A, which had barred any and all “claims”. Period.
37
119. Here, Lee County, FL, had never “claimed” anything, and no authentic record of any
“claim” had ever legally existed or had ever been legally recorded.
a. No “resolution” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their Lot 15A;
b. No “law” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their Lot 15A;
d. Plaintiffs were the indisputable record owners, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa;
f. Plaintiffs’ said record ownership was capable of accurate and ready determination;
g. Plaintiffs’ said record title, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate & ready determination;
(a) In General.
(1) Money Judgment; Applicable Procedure.
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs
otherwise. The procedure on execution — and in proceedings supplementary to and
in aid of judgment or execution — must accord with the procedure of the state where
the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.
(2) Obtaining Discovery.
In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or a successor in interest
whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any person — including
the judgment debtor — as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state
where the court is located.
a. The paid $24.30 money judgment and final mandate, Doc. # 365, Case 2:2007-cv-
38
b. The facially fraudulent procedure on the falsified execution did not “accord with the
c. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction in June 2009;
e. Defendant Jack N. Peterson, Esq., perjured himself; see facially fraudulent “Affidavit”;
f. No genuine July 2009 judgment could have possibly existed in said Case;
g. The fictitious “July 29, judgment” could not be found in the public records.
123. Here, the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of the fake “5,048.60
judgment”, Doc. ## 386, 432, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, fake “legislative act”,
fake “resolution 569/875” were capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to
124. Recusal and disqualification of objectively partial and corrupt Defendant J. S. Moody
were absolutely mandatory, 28 U.S.C. § 455. Def. Moody fraudulently concealed and
conspired to conceal the prima criminality, illegality, and nullity of a falsified $5,048.60
judgment, fake lien, and fraudulent execution and enforcement for criminal purposes of,
(a) Grounds. Any party may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the action on
the grounds provided by statute.
(b) Contents. A motion to disqualify shall allege the facts relied on to show the
grounds for disqualification and shall be verified by the party.
(c) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time after
discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.
(d) Determination. The judge against whom the motion is directed shall determine
only the legal sufficiency of the motion. The judge shall not pass on the truth of the
39
facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of
disqualification and proceed no further in the action.
(e) Judge's Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits a judge's authority to enter an order of
disqualification on the judge's own initiative.
Committee Note: The rule is intended to unify the procedure for disqualification.
(b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge
assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
127. Section 38.10 gives parties the right to move to disqualify a judge when the party fears
that “he or she will not receive a fair trial . . . on account of the prejudice of the judge of that
court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party.” Fla. Stat. § 38.10. Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.330 specifies that a motion to disqualify must show that “the party
fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described
40
designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of
judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.
Here, Plaintiffs have been “stating fear that they have not and will not receive a fair trial in
the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the Judge(s) of that court
[James S. Moody, Jr.; Thomas G. Wilson; Charlene Edwards Honeywell; John E. Steele;
Sheri Polster Chappell; Richard A. Lazzara] against the applicants. Here, objectively biased
and bribed Judge Moody “shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated
in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of
129. If the judge denies a motion to disqualify brought under § 38.10 the movant has the right
to appeal. Lynch v. State, ___ So. 2d ___, Nos. SC06-2233, SC07-1246, 2008 WL 4809783,
at *26 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2008). As the Florida Supreme Court recently held: “A motion to
e.g., Defendant objectively partial Judges Moody, Steele, Chappell, Wilson, and Honeywell
are citing 28 U.S.C. § 455, § 38.10 and Rule 2.330, as well as Canon 3E(1).
130. The Florida Supreme Court has also held, in effect, that § 38.10 and the Canons require
the same thing. See Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983). In Livingston the
court cited the Canon’s requirement that a judge disqualify himself when his “impartiality
might reasonably be questioned” and concluded that it was “totally consistent” with Florida
case law applying § 38.10. Id. Both require disqualification when a party can show “a well
grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge.” Id. (quoting State
41
ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 179 So. 695, 697-98 (Fla. 1938)); see also Berry v. Berry, 765 So.
2d 855, 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (quoting Canon 3E(1) when describing the standard for
granting a motion under § 38.10). Here of course, this Court was bound to follow Florida
appellate court decisions interpreting that state’s law. The final arbiter of state law is the
state Supreme Court, which is another way of saying that Florida law is what the Florida
131. Here in particular, Def. Moody concocted and conspired to concoct a “resolution
569/875”, “claim” of Lot 15A, “law”, “legislative act” for criminal and illegal purposes of,
e.g., racketeering, retaliation, and extortion of Plaintiffs’ land and money. Here, Def.
Moody perpetrated fraud upon the Court(s), and the Plaintiffs could not possibly get a fair,
just, and speedy trial because of Def. Moody’s publicly recorded lies, corruption, bribery,
132. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a Code of Judicial Conduct to govern the
actions of state court judges and candidates for judicial office. Canon 3E(1) states, e.g.:
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances
where …
Those provisions address situations in which a judge must disqualify himself because his
statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to” a particular party,
42
133. Here in exchange for bribes, Def. Moody had made facially idiotic public statements
that committed Moody to the fabrication of a fake “resolution 569/875” and illegal benefits
for the Defendants at Plaintiffs’ expense and injury. Here, Moody fraudulently concealed
and conspired with other Def. Government Crooks to conceal the particular issues of, e.g.,
fake “park”, a fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, 2:2007-cv-00228, a fake “$5,048.60
judgment”. Here, Plaintiffs lived in fear of being kicked down the Courthouse stairs and not
receiving a fair trial at the dirty hands of bribed and crooked Judge Moody.
134. Canon 3E(1), backed by the threat of a disciplinary proceeding, requires a judge to
disqualify himself if his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Fla. Stat. § 38.10,
supplemented by Rule 2.330, allows a party to have a judge disqualified for the same reason.
Canon 3E(1)(f), which the Florida Supreme Court adopted in January 2006, covers areas in
Code of Judicial Conduct, 918 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2006). In addition to the Florida Supreme
Court, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (Ethics Committee) and the Judicial
Qualifications Commission (JQC) have roles in administering the Code. The Florida
Supreme Court established the Ethics Committee “to render written advisory opinions to
inquiring judges concerning the propriety of contemplated judicial and non-judicial conduct.”
Petition of Comm. on Standards of Conduct for Judges, 327 So. 2d 5, 5 (Fla. 1976). Here,
Def. Judge Moody’s fabrications and perversions of the law were reckless and for criminal
purposes. Canon 3E is enforced by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which has the
43
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS – WELL-GROUNDED FEARS
135. Here under 28 U.S.C. § 455, Plaintiffs have been specifically alleging the above facts
and reasons upon which the movants rely as the grounds for Defendant Judge Moody’s
disqualification/recusal. Here, Defendant Moody has been silencing and shutting up the
Plaintiffs without any authority and for criminal purposes of cover up and concealment of
organized Government crimes. See, e.g., Def. Moody’s and Honeywell’s facially
136. Here, the Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victims had well grounded
fears that they will not receive a fair trial at the hands of Defendant objectively partial and
bribed Judge James S. Moody, Jr., who fraudulently concealed said fabrications of, e.g.:
a. Fake “judgment”;
b. Fake “lien”;
e. Fake park.
a. No “July 2009 judgment”, because the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction in June 2009;
b. No “judgment”, whatsoever, because the 11th Circuit had closed the Case in June 2009;
c. No “judgment”, because “frivolity” had never been any issue until the Case was closed;
d. No “lien”, because a non-existent judgment could not have matured into a “lien”;
e. No “lien”, because the lienholder's address did not appear on the forged judgment.
44
138. Here, there was no judgment. A [hypothetical] judgment does not mature into a lien
where the lienholder's address does not appear on the judgment. § 55.10(1), Fla. Stat.
Consequently here, no lien could have possibly attached to Plaintiffs’ real property and/or
Lot 15A as a result of the unlawful recordation of a fictitious and facially forged judgment.
See Tomalo v. Kingsley Displays, Inc., 862 So. 2d 899, 900-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing
Hott Interiors, Inc. v. Fostock, 721 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)); Dyer v. Beverly
& Tittle, P.A., 777 So. 2d 1055, 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Decubellis v. Ritchotte, 730 So.
139. In Florida, a lien is not any conveyance of the legal title or of the right of possession, §
697.02, F.S. The [hypothetical] execution of any [hypothetical] lien would not destroy any
of the unities. Therefore, the joint tenancy and the right of survivorship could not have
140. Any involuntary alienation would have been strictly a judicial function. No legislator
ever had (or could have possibly had) any authority to divest the Plaintiffs’ of their record
141. Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21,
“I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee
County, Florida.”
45
“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.”
142. Here, the Plaintiff record owners and title holders had paid real property taxes, Lot
15A, Cayo Costa, and were entitled to defend against, e.g., publicly recorded Government
deprivations, and bribery. See Lee County Tax Collector’s public records, riparian Lot
143. Here, Defendant Crooked Judges Moody and Honeywell had no authority to
payments, rights to own and exclude Government from Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, under color of
facially forged “resolution 569/875” and by prima facie criminal and illegal means of a
144. Here in exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judges Moody Honeywell obstructed
justice, retaliated, and deliberately deprived [and conspired to] the Plaintiff record title
holders and owners of their fundamental rights to redress Governmental grievances and
extortion, due process and equal protection violations, 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th U.S.
Constitutional Amendments.
145. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judges Moody and Honeywell fraudulently concealed and
46
a. The Plaintiffs are the unimpeachable record “owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa
subdivision of Lee County, Florida”, pursuant to, e.g., Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., Florida’s self-
enforcing Marketable Record Title Act;
b. No “claim” or “resolution”, whatsoever, could have possibly involuntarily divested the
Plaintiffs of their perfected marketable record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG
25 (1912);
c. No legislator or lawmaker, whatsoever, had any authority to usurp judicial authority to
make a judicial order transferring title against Plaintiffs’ will;
d. No judge had ever made any order or judgment involuntarily alienating Lot 15A;
e. “The Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida,” never adopted any “resolution
569/875” in December 1969;
f. No name of any commissioner appeared on prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”;
g. Scam “O.R. 569/875” was not any law, resolution, or legislative act and unauthorized;
h. “Involuntary-alienation-by-fake-resolution” was a racketeering & extortion scheme;
i. The prima facie sham “land claim” lacked any color and was legally incomprehensible;
j. Lot 15A was never “claimed as public land”; see Tax Records & Grantor-Grantee Index;
k. Prima facie extortion and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875” was not any “claim”;
l. The law did not recognize facially incomprehensible “resolution 569/875”;
m. The legal description of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, did not appear in the sham “resolution”;
n. No valid authentic legal description appeared in the facially forged “resolution”;
o. Falsified “resolution 569/875" had never legally existed;
p. Scam “O.R. 569/875” did not, and could not have possibly, complied with Ch. 11, Fla.
Stat., Legislative Organization, Procedures, and Staffing;
q. Said facially forged “resolution” was not any writing, instrument, or muniment of title;
r. The fake “resolution” was not any conveyance, instrument, or eminent domain document;
s. The prima facie unauthorized “global pre-filing injunction” was an organized
Governmental crime scheme for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g., extortion and
racketeering;
t. Def. Honeywell obstructed justice under color of authority & scam “O.R. 569/875”;
u. Def. Honeywell obstructed justice under color of a fake writ of execution, Doc. # 425;
v. Def. Lee County Commissioners had no authority to sign any “claim” of uncertain and
legally un-described lands;
w. Lot 15A was never subject to any enforcement of any money judgment against Dr. Busse;
x. The fake writ of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, violated Florida’s
Judgment Lien Law; see Ch. 55, Fla. Stat.;
y. Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson was not any judgment creditor;
z. Def. K. M. Wilkinson never incurred any actual and necessary attorney’s fees; see
business records on file;
aa. Dr. Jorg Busse was not any judgment debtor;
bb. Lot 15A was exempt real property and owned by the entireties;
cc. Litigation has been pending and no final judgment existed.
47
APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009
146. An appeal becomes final on the date the mandate is issued. Here, the judgment entered
147. Since the clerk had responsibilities for entering a judgment, Fed.R.App.P. 36, and for
taxation of costs, Fed.R.App.P. 39(d), the duty to issue the mandate contemplated by Rule 41
148. 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). The District Court received and filed the Appellate Court’s June 11, 2009 mandate on
JUN 15 2009 when the Appeal, No. 2008-13170-BB, became final. Thereafter, the 11th
Circuit had no jurisdiction as a matter of law. Here, there have been publicly recorded
149. Jurisdiction followed the mandate. “The effect of the mandate is to bring the
proceedings in a case on appeal in our Court to a close and to remove it from the jurisdiction
of this Court, returning it to the forum whence it came.” It was the date on which the $24.30
mandate was received and filed, Jun 15, 2009, which determined when the district court
150. Issuance of the $24.30 mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Court’s receipt and
mandate could NOT possibly “simply” "issue", because it should have been issued, or
because the panel may have intended it to issue, or because the statute commands it to issue.
48
ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF LIS PENDENS, U.S. LAWSUIT, CIVIL RICO…
151. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt by reference their attached Federal action in this published
Government Racketeering and Corruption Notice, USA, Ex Rel et al. v. USA et al.
152. Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson retaliated on or around August 20, 2008, Doc. # 386-2:
“In order to discourage the Appellant from engaging in the same practices …”
153. Wilkinson coerced Plaintiff Appellant to refrain from rightful prosecution for prima facie
154. Just like Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson had falsified fake “land parcels”, and a fake
“real property transaction”, “O.R. 569/875”, Defendant Forger Wilkinson falsified a fake
“judgment”; “July 29, 2009 in Docket 08-13170-BB against Appellant JORG BUSSE in the
amount of $5,048.60.” See, e.g., INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County
Circuit Court.
155. Here, Defendant Racketeer Wilkinson could not have possibly held that which had never
existed. Here, said $24.30 money judgment had been the final mandate, and the facially
null and void “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, was a prima facie racketeering and
extortions scheme just like the fake “regulation”, fake “legislative act” and/or “O.R.
569/875” that had never legally existed and never been legally recorded.
156. Plaintiff Dr. Jorg Busse attached a copy and Exhibits of prima facie racketeering-
extortion-fraud schemes, Documents ## 338, 386, 432, 434, and 435, 2:2007-cv-00228 and
49
FRAUDULENT ATTACHMENT OF FICTITIOUS DEBT TO CAYO COSTA LAND
157. The publicly recorded and facially fraudulent attachment of a fake judgment and/or
debt to Plaintiff(s)’s Lee County property was a criminal and illegal scheme.
158. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse was never served and could not have possibly been served [with]
any “writ of execution”. No evidence of any service existed on the record. Doc. ## 425, 429,
430, 2:2007-cv-00228, were facially fraudulent and for criminal and illegal purposes of,
property seizure in brazen violation of, e.g., the 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional
159. Under color of a prima facie falsified “writ of execution”, Doc. ## 425, 435, 434 and in
the publicly recorded absence of any debt, and after Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the final
mandate of $24.30 for “copies” (under FRAP 39) to Def. Wilkinson, the Def. U.S. Marshal
and Defendants Richard Jessup and Ryan Barry recklessly extended, e.g., the extortion,
racketeering, and organized crimes of public record in order to retaliate against Dr. Busse,
extort fees and said real property without any authority and for organized and conspiratorial
criminal purposes. Here, said Officials coerced the Plaintiff(s) to refrain from rightful
prosecution and obstructed justice. Here, any and all Marshal(s), Sheriff(s), and/or law
enforcement Officials were under the absolute obligation to NOT enforce and/or suspend
any proceedings on the illegal execution of the facially fraudulent and forged “writ”, Doc.
50