UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, Plaintiffs, versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-CEH-TGW JOHN EDWIN STEELE; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL; ROGER ALEJO; KENNETH M. WILKINSON; JACK N. PETERSON; GERALD BARD TJOFLAT; RICHARD JESSUP; CIRCUIT JUDGE BIRCH; CIRCUIT JUDGE DUBINA; RICHARD ALLAN LAZZARA; CHARLIE CRIST; LEE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.; JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,

FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION, AND FORGED AND VOID judgments and orders

____________________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FACIALLY FRAUDULENT “report”, DOC. # 67,

ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME & CORRUPTION, RACKETEERING,

RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FRAUD, DEPRIVATIONS AT THE

HANDS OF BUNGLING GOVERNMENT CROOK & IDIOT THOMAS G. WILSON

PUBLIC NOTICE OF “REAPPOINTMENT COMMENTS”, DEF. T. G. WILSON

NOTICE OF FALSIFICATIONS OF “claim”, PRIMA FACIE SCAM “O.R. 569/875”,

AND FORGED foreign “$5,048.60” “money judgment” AFTER APPEAL CLOSURE,

CH. 712; 95; 73, 74; 55; §§ 695.26, 695.09, 689.01, 55.10, 55.509, FLORIDA STATUTES,

FLORIDA ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FRAUDULENT “report and recommendation” [DOC. # 67]

1. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of and holders of indisputable

unencumbered title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, hereby

2

appeal from the publicly recorded prima facie Government racketeering and extortion of

“$5,048.60” and falsified “$5,000.00 attorney’s fees” and their accreted riparian Gulf-front

Lot 15A [by criminal means of Doc. # 67] as perfectly conveyed and legally described,

Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded WARRANTY DEED, INSTR 4450927, Collier County

Public Records, INSTR 2010000171344, Lee County Public Records, 2 pages:

“… Lot 15A, private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, as recorded and legally described in Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912), Public Records of Lee County, Florida, U.S.A. Property I.D./S.T.R.A.P.: 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

[“A” for “Accreted”; see PB 1, PP. 48, 51, 52] TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments, appurtenances, publicly recorded natural accretions and riparian rights thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. GRANTORS further warrant the within described riparian accreted Gulf-front property is not presently homestead property and that the Grantors’ legal address is: Post Office Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. 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.”

3

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.”

“… I had no familiarity with any of the facts.” Doc. # 67, p. 2.

Here in particular, Def. Wilson had “no familiarity with”, e.g.:

a. Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912); b. Lee County INSTRUMENT 2010000171344; WARRANTY DEED; c. Collier County Public Record, INSTRUMENT 4450927; WARRANTY DEED; d. APPEAL from Case 2:2007-cv-00228; e. 2006 STATE Court Case, BUSSE v. STATE OF FLORIDA; f. The falsified “July 29, 2009, judgment”; g. The falsified “lien”; h. The forged “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, 2:2007-cv-00228; i. U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A. et al.; j. The unsubstantiated and falsified “$5,000 attorney’s fees” for extortion purposes; k. The fabricated “rule 38 motion”, Fed.R.App.P., which Defendant Appellee K. M.

Wilkinson had admittedly NOT filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit.

OBJECTIONS TO FACIALLY FRAUDULENT “report and recommendation”, DOC. # 67

3. The Plaintiff Government corruption & crime victims object to Defendant Crooked

Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson’s premeditated

a. Cover-up of Government Officials’ crimes and corruption on the public record;

b. Fraudulent concealment of, e.g., Def. Officials’ extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice;

c. Extension of Government corruption, fraud, retaliation, and deliberate deprivations;

d. Extortion of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, and money under fraudulent pretenses.

See Doc. # 67, mailed on 08/19/2010; Case 2:2010-cv-00089-CEH-TGW.

PLAINTIFFS CONTEST MAGISTRATE WILSON’S CORRUPTION, DOC. # 67

4. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of and title holders to Lot 15A contest

Defendant Magistrate Thomas G. Wilson’s publicly recorded and well-proven:

a. Corruption;

4

b. Fraud, deception, and trickery;

c. Fraud on the Court;

d. Dishonesty;

e. Objective partiality;

f. Incompetence;

g. Perversion of the law and public record evidence.

DECEPTIVE DEF. JUDICIAL IDIOT & RACKETEER THOMAS G. WILSON

5. For criminal purposes of, e.g., case fixing, obstruction of justice, and extortion, Defendant

Thomas G. Wilson materially misrepresented:

“Obviously, the prior decisions were by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

See Doc. # 67, p. 5.

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

have possibly existed.

Here, Def. Wilson extended the pattern and policy of organized judicial crime & corruption:

“…such a dismissal constitutes a final judgment on the merits.” Id., p. 5.

DEF. CROOKED JUDGE WILSON’S FABLE & FABRICATION OF “res judicata”

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

5

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,

75 P.2d 157 (1938)).

PATTERN OF DECEPTION, TRICKERY, AND CASE FIXING FOR BRIBES

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.”

See Doc. # 67, p. 4.

DIRECT ATTACK OF BRAZEN FRAUD ON THE COURTS SINCE 2006

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.

COVER-UP, CONCEALMENT & CORRUPTION UNDER PRETENSES OF res judicata

9. Here under fraudulent and facially false pretenses of “res judicata”, Defendant Corrupt

Judge Thomas G. Wilson:

a. Covered up Crimes by Corrupt Officials and Defendants;

b. Concealed Organized Government Crime & Corruption;

c. Conspired with other Government Crooks to conceal and cover up.

6

PLAINTIFF ATTACK DEF. WILSON’S FALSIFIED “factual findings”, DOC. # 67

10. The Plaintiffs hereby attack Defendant T. G. Wilson’s

a. Perversion of publicly recorded marketable title and ownership evidence, Ch. 712, F.S.;

b. Perversion of prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875” into an “instrument” of trickery;

c. Perversion and falsification of record real property tax payment evidence;

d. Alteration of official records and documents for criminal purposes of racketeering.

“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

law under fraudulent pretenses of “res judicata” and color of office.

“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

a. The causes of action and claims for relief were DIFFERENT; b. The causes of action could NOT have possibly arisen in the past; c. The parties were DIFFERENT; d. The U.S. Courts had DENIED jurisdiction, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, under APPEAL; e. Pending APPEAL, there was of course NO “final judgment on the merits” and the issues

of the prima facie criminality and nullity of, e.g.: Fake “land parcels”; Fake “lot” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” Fake “block” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”; Fake “park”; see PB 3 PG 25 (1912); Falsified “plat”; Fabricated “rule 38 motion”; Falsified “$5,000 attorney’s fees”; Fictitious “July 29, 2009, judgment”.

7

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.

RECORD LACK OF “authority”, LOCAL RULE 6, 6.02

13. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge Wilson lacked any “authority” to “report and recommend”,

e.g. (Doc. # 67):

a. Government corruption;

b. Organized Government crime;

c. Cover-up;

d. Coercion of the Plaintiffs to refrain from prosecution and defense of their perfect title;

e. Government malfeasance;

f. Perversion of the law;

g. Fabrication of “factual findings”.

CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL FLORIDA LAW, LITIGATION, AND CORRUPTION

14. Here, Def. T. G. Wilson concealed and conspired to conceal that

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;

8

e. § 86.011 Jurisdiction of trial court had entitled the Plaintiffs to the following:

86.011, Fla. Stat., Jurisdiction of trial court. The circuit and county courts have jurisdiction within their respective jurisdictional amounts to declare rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or procedure is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is demanded. The court’s declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect and such declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment. The court may render declaratory judgments on the existence, or nonexistence: (1) Of any immunity, power, privilege, or right; or (2) Of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege, or right does or may depend, whether such immunity, power, privilege, or right now exists or will arise in the future. Any person seeking a declaratory judgment may also demand additional, alternative, coercive, subsequent, or supplemental relief in the same action.

DEF. WILSON CONCEALED JUDICIAL PERVERSION OF LOCAL RULE 4.02

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

Federal Court, 2:2008-cv-00899, in violation of LOCAL RULE 4.02, Florida M.D.:

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.

9

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

organization which faked, e.g.:

a. FALSIFIED “law”, scam ”O.R. 569/875”; b. FALSIFIED “legislative act”, scam ”O.R. 569/875”; c. FALSIFIED “resolution”, scam ”O.R. 569/875”; d. FALSIFIED ”land parcels”; e. FALSIFIED “rule 38 motion”; f. FALSIFIED “frivolous appeal”; g. FALSIFIED “$5,000 attorney’s fees”; h. FALSIFIED “$5,048.60 bill of costs”; i. FALSIFIED ”O.R. 569/875”; “July 29, 2009, judgment”.

DEF. WILSON CONCEALED DESTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS

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.

DIRECT ATTACK OF REAPPOINTMENT

PUBLIC NOTICE OF “REAPPOINTMENT COMMENTS”

18. Hereby, the Plaintiff record indisputable title holders, land owners, and tax payers, riparian

Lot 15A, directly attack:

a. Def. Wilson’s fraudulent “report and recommendation”, Doc. # 67, 2:10-cv-00089;

b. Def. Wilson’s reappointment as Magistrate Judge;

c. Def. Wilson’s publicly recorded case-fixing;

d. Def. Wilson’s concealment of Government extortion of Lot 15A & money ($5,048.60).

See Local Rule 6, 6.02, 28 U.S.C. § 636.

10

“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.

DEF. WILSON’S CRIMINAL CASE-FIXING IN FAVOR OF DEF. OFFICIALS

20. With intent to, and for criminal purposes of, case fixing and obstruction of justice,

Defendant Wilson “reported and recommended”, Doc. # 67:

“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,

and injuring the Plaintiffs.

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

of the Plaintiff record owners.

DEF. CROOKED JUDGE WILSON CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL FAKE “land parcels”

22. In particular, Defendant Wilson conspired with other Officials and Defendants to conceal,

e.g.:

11

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.

DEF. WILSON CONCEALED LACK OF RECORD OF FALSIFIED “land parcels”

23. Def. Wilson knew that he or any intelligent, fit, and honest person in Wilson’s shoes could

a. NOT find facially forged “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;\

b. NOT find facially forged “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;

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”;

DEF. CROOKED JUDGE WILSON PERVERTED THE 1912 PLAT, PB 3, PG 25

24. Plain and short, the attached 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat of Survey

a. Was devoid of falsified “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;

b. Was devoid of falsified “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;

c. Was devoid of the falsified “Lee County” park.

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.

WILSON CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CRIME, DOC. # 67

25. Florida law prohibits fraudulent fabrication of a fake interest in fictitious “land parcels”.

Here, Plaintiff(s) had demanded judicial notice of, e.g.:

12

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.

DEF. CROOK WILSON CONCEALED DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS,

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, 1st, 14th, 7th, 4th, 5th U.S. CONST. AMEND.

26. Article I, s. 9, Fla. Const., states that

"[n]o person shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of law . . . ."

Art. I, s. 2, Fla. Const. states that

"[a]ll natural persons are equal before the law . . . ."

Art. I, s. 10, Fla. Const., states that

"No . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."

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

record title against Defendant Officials’ racketeering, extortion, retaliation, deliberate

deprivations, and obstruction of justice under fraudulent pretenses and color of office.

EXTENSION OF RECORD EXTORTION, FRAUD, DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS

27. Defendants’ facially frivolous allegations of said sham “land parcels” were

a. Legally incomprehensible;

b. NOT any valid defense or genuine claim;

c. For criminal purposes of, e.g., racketeering, retaliation, extortion, and fraud;

13

d. Controverted by the Lee County Real Property Grantor/Grantee Index.

e. Prohibited under

DEF. WILSON’S IDIOTIC, ARBITRARY, AND CAPRICIOUS “report”, DOC. # 67

28. Like a bungling Government idiot, Def. Wilson rambled incomprehensibly:

“The property may have been taken over by Lee County in some way.” Id., p.

Florida law does not recognize “take over” by Government.

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

domain or adverse possession judgment or document had ever existed.

AMBIGUOUS AND VAGUE JUDICIAL TRASH, DOC. # 67, P. 2:

“GUESSING” GOVERNMENT CROOK THOMAS G. WILSON

30. On the public record, Doc. # 67, Defendant Wilson asserted his “guessing” game and judicial

charade:

“I guess something was appealed …” Id., p. 2.

PLAYING DUMB & DUMBER: DEFENDANT IDIOT THOMAS G. WILSON

“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 is all that I could get out of it.” Id.

Here, Def. Government idiot T. G. Wilson “played so dumb” that he confused, e.g.:

a. Causes of action;

b. Claims for relief;

c. Parties;

14

d. Actions.

UNCONTROVERTED WARRANTY DEED & PLAT OF SURVEY, PB 3 PG 25 (1912)

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.

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A. et al.

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,

District of New Hampshire.

RECORD “legislative-involuntary-alienation”-EXTORTION & FRAUD SCHEME

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-

transfer-by-resolution-scam” was a hoax and extortion scheme…

DEF. WILSON CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL FAKED “frivolous appeal” motion:

WILSON KNEW THAT WILKINSON ADMITTEDLY DID NOT file Rule 38 motion

15

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

“frivolous appeal” motion:

DEFENDANT WILKINSON FILED “RULE 27-4 motion [frivolous motion]”, DOC. # 386

See Doc. # 386, 11/30/2009, p. 2, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.

DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO “grant” FAKE “rule 38 motion”

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.

See Doc. # 386-4, 11/30/2009, p. 1 of 2, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.

CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY “July 29, 2009, judgment”

36. In the record absence of any “rule 38 motion” (“frivolous appeal”), Defendant Wilson

conspired to

a. Pervert Fed. R. Appellate Proc. 38;

16

b. Pervert LOCAL RULE 4.18;

c. Pervert Fed. R. Civ. P. 54;

d. Fraudulently pretend a “frivolous appeal”;

e. Falsify a fictitious “July 29, 2009, judgment”;

f. Materially misrepresent “frivolity” for extortion & racketeering purposes.

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

motion”, but a “RULE 27-4 MOTION”.

CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY “$5,048.60 judgment”

38. Def. Wilson knew that Plaintiff(s)’ Third Amended Complaint, Doc. # 282, 288, had been

a. Devoid of any “frivolity”, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;

b. Had been “screened” and found to be devoid of any “frivolity”;

c. Could not have possibly been “frivolous”;

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

a. Never incurred any actual and necessary “$5,000 attorney’s fees”;

b. Never complied with LOCAL RULE 4.18;

c. Never been holder of any money judgment other than for $24.30, Case 2:2007-cv-00228,

under appeal:

RULE 4.18 APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS OR ATTORNEY'S FEES (a) In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, all claims for costs or attorney's fees preserved by appropriate pleading or pretrial stipulation shall be asserted by separate motion or petition filed not later than fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment.

17

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.

DEF. WILSON CONCEALED DEF. JACK NEIL PETERSON’S PERJURY

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:

DEF. WILSON’S BRAZEN PERVERSION OF FACTS & SUPREME LAW

42. Here, Def. Wilson brazenly perverted the indisputable facts and law. Here, there were

a. NO frivolity;

b. NO “frivolous appeal motion”;

c. NO “$5,048.60 judgment”;

d. NO “rule 38 motion”;

e. NO “frivolous appeal”;

f. NO “lien”;

g. NO “bill of costs”, fake “$5,048.60 attorney’s fees”.

18

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.;

d. The fake “writ” was never legally served;

e. Had a false address:

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.

19

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

47. Facially incomprehensible “O.R. 569/875”;

48. Said fake “land parcels”;

49. Fake colorless “land claim” in violation of Ch. 95; 73, 74, Fla. Stat.;

50. Fake non-domesticated “judgment”.

PATTERN & POLICY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT

PERVERSION OF RULE 69 & FABRICATION OF “writ of execution”

51. Rule 69, Fed.R.Civ.P., did not apply or “govern” to any “extent”:

“(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.”

Here, “the procedure on execution” did not “accord with the procedure of the state [Florida]

where the court is located.”

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

execution”, Doc. ## 425, 386, 432, 424, 338.

20

LACK OF exemplified copy OF FACIALLY FORGED “foreign judgment”

54. Florida's statutory law required that

a. An exemplified out-of-state and/or foreign judgment first be recorded in the county in which the purported debtor resides and/or has any property;

b. An attached certificate be signed three times, twice by the clerk of the issuing court, and once by the presiding judge.

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

criminality, illegality, and nullity of Defendant Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson’s

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

“execute” on Dr. Busse’s assets.

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,

432, 424, 425.

58. Def. “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson did

a. Not record any authentic judgment;

b. Not domesticate any genuine foreign judgment;

c. Not file a case.

59. Here, no case number existed for the clerk of court to, e.g.,

a. issue a writ of execution, and

21

b. schedule any depositions to review a purported debtor's assets.

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF FACIALLY FORGED foreign judgment

60. § 55.509, Florida Statutes, Stay of enforcement of foreign judgment, provides:

“(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

Appraiser’s Office, had fraudulently pretended

a. a falsified foreign or out-of-Florida “July 29, 2009 judgment”, Doc. ## 386, 432;

b. unauthorized recordation of a fake “July judgment” in Lee County Circuit Court;

c. a falsified “writ of execution” illegally issued by the Clerk of U.S. District Court.

61. Here, the U.S. District Court, Middle Division of Florida:

a. had no jurisdiction;

b. had no authority to enforce the fake foreign judgment;

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

“recorded” by the Clerk of Florida or Lee County Circuit Court.

NON-OPERATIVE “lien” AND FAKE “foreign judgment”

22

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

fake foreign judgment could not have possibly “operated as a lien”.

PUBLICLY RECORDED FRAUD ON THE COURTS

63. Here, Defendant [Appellee] Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson was

a. No judgment holder;

b. No judgment creditor;

c. Not entitled to enforce anything;

d. Not entitled to enforce a fake foreign judgment “recorded” in State Court by

unauthorized means of Doc. # 425, U.S. Case 2:2007-cv-00228;

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,

§ 55.509, Florida Statutes.

DEFENDANT J. S. MOODY CONCEALED THAT FLORIDA LAW GOVERNED

64. Florida law governs the question of whether the proper procedures were followed on

execution, Sephus v. Gozelski, 670 F.Supp. 1552, 1554 (S.D.Fla.1987):

“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"

“Section 56.29(1), Florida Statues,*fn2 provides that: When any person or entity holds an unsatisfied judgment or judgment lien obtained under chapter 55, the judgment holder or judgment lien holder may file an affidavit so stating, identifying, if applicable, the issuing court, the case number, and the

23

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).” “A judicial sale differs from an execution sale in that it is conducted pursuant to directions of the court and federal statutes, whereas an execution sale is by mere praecipe of the judgment creditor. United States v. Branch Coal Corp., 390 F.2d 7 (3d Cir. 1968).” Id., * fn 2. 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.

RECORD RECUSALS OF FOUR (4) JUDGES

65. On 07/27/2010, the Case was reassigned to Defendant Crooked Judge James S. Moody, Jr.,

after the

a. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge John E. Steele (07/22/2010);

b. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Charlene E. Honeywell (06/22/2010);

c. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Sheri Polster Chappell (06/30/2010);

d. Recusal of Judge Douglas N. Frazier (06/28/2010).

DEF. JAMES S. MOODY’S 07/27/2010 PRE-MEDITATED CASE FIXING & BRIBERY

24

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

a. “four years” of “proceedings”;

b. “eleven actions”;

c. “hundreds, if not thousands, of filings”;

d. “appeals, up to 20 in one case alone”;

e. falsified “adoption” of a fake “1969” “resolution”.

MANDATORY RECUSAL OF OBJECTIVELY PARTIAL & CORRUPT J. S. MOODY

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.

PRIMA FACIE ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND MALICIOUS JUDICIAL TRASH

25

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.:

a. “patently frivolous”; “baseless”;

b. absurd; idiotic; “abusive”;

c. irrational; unintelligent;

d. corrupted and “vexatious”;

e. arbitrary, capricious, and malicious;

f. premeditated and reckless.

Here, Def. Crook Moody “impacted the resources” of the Court(s) and further tarnished its

publicly recorded reputation of organized crime and corruption, 28 U.S.C. § 455.

RECORD INSANITY & IMPOSSIBILITY OF execution of lien on “claimed land”

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

have possibly been:

26

a. any forced sale of purportedly involuntarily alienated Lot 15A;

b. any genuine “writ of execution”;

c. any lis pendens;

d. any execution.

PATTERN & POLICY OF ORGANIZED CRIME & CORRUPTION ON RECORD

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

Court, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540.

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

inconsistent with due process of law.

DEF. MOODY’S RECORD “TIRADE” AGAINST PUBLIC CORRUPTION VICTIMS

75. This corrupt Court’s latest “order”, Doc. # 22, “in this case is not so much” an order “as it is

a free-flowing, stream-of-consciousness tirade against” Plaintiff whistle-blowers and

victims of Government corruption and racketeering under fraudulent pretenses of the

publicly recorded “involuntary-alienation-by-fake-legislative-act-extortion scheme”, “O.R.

569/875”.

PRIMA FACIE INCOMPREHENSIBILITY OF IDIOTIC “order” and “claim”, DOC. # 22

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,

FLORIDA’S MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT, Florida Statutes.

27

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

inescapable and indisputable conclusions of any reasonable person in Defendant Moody’s

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,

Constitution, and law.

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ PUBLICLY RECORDED PERFECTED TITLE

79. § 90.201 (1), Fla. Stat., states:

Matters which must be judicially noticed. A court shall take judicial notice of: (1) Decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law and resolutions of the Florida Legislature and the Congress of the United States.

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

pervert Florida law.

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OF involuntary alienation by “resolution”

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

supremely and superseded the facially falsified and forged “adoption”-“resolution”-scam

“O.R. 569/875”. Here, the Government Defendants and Officials had no authority to pervert

Florida law.

28

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

for criminal and illegal purposes of cover-up and fraudulent concealment.

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 55, § 55.10, F.S., FLORIDA FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT

82. Here in violation of § 55.10, Florida Statutes, there were

a. No Florida judgment;

b. No U.S. District Court judgment;

c. No “July 29 judgment”;

d. No domesticated judgment;

e. No “simultaneous” valid affidavit, § 55.10, F.S.;

f. No curative affidavit.

Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter 55, § 55.10, Florida Statutes,

and Florida’s Foreign Judgment Act.

PRIMA FACIE RECORD FALSIFICATION & FORGERY OF FAKE “judgment”

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.

29

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

court wherein the judgment is filed.

85. Here, the clerk of court never served the purported judgment debtor, Dr. Jorg Busse, with any

notice. Here, no lien had ever legally existed.

CONTESTED “lien”, “writ of execution” FRAUD, EXTORTION, RACKETEERING

86. Here, Dr. Busse had contested, e.g., the fake “lien”, fake “writ of execution”, fraud, fraud

on the Courts, extortion, and racketeering.

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.

90. § 695.09, F.S., Identity of grantor, states:

“No acknowledgment or proof shall be taken, except as set forth in s. 695.03(3), by any officer within or without the United States unless the officer knows, or has satisfactory proof, that the person making the acknowledgment is the individual described in, and who executed, such instrument or that the person offering to make proof is one of the subscribing witnesses to such instrument.” PUBLICLY RECORDED RACKETEERING & EXTORTION SCHEMES

91. Here, there were

30

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.

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 689.01, FLA. STAT., AND U.S. JUDICIAL CRIMES

92. § 689.01, How Real Estate Conveyed, Florida Statutes, provides:

“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

a. “created” any interest;

b. “transferred” any interest;

c. “conveyed” any interest.

Here, the judicial and Government Defendants covered up, concealed, and conspired to

conceal publicly recorded Government crimes, racketeering, extortion, and fraud.

DEF. MOODY VEXATIOUSLY FIXED THE CASE IN EXCHANGE FOR BRIBES

31

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

could have possibly determined any

a. Lot 15A “claim as public land” in violation of, e.g., Chapters 712, 73, 74, 95 Fla.

Statutes;

b. “resolution”;

c. “adoption” of any resolution;

d. any transfer of title to Lee County from Plaintiffs to Lee County against Plaintiffs’ will;

e. any transfer of title by any legislative act, resolution, or law, whatsoever.

PRIMA FACIE CRIMINALITY OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE “claim as public land”

95. § 90.202 (12), Fla. Stat., states:

“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.”

ACCURATE & READY DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD OWNERSHIP

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

County Plat Book 3, Page 25 was

a. Indisputable; Ch. 712, F.S.;

b. Unimpeachable;

c. Unencumbered;

d. Perfected;

e. Marketable;

f. Exclusive;

g. Protected under express Florida Constitutional Guarantees;

32

h. Protected by the fundamental right to own property;

i. Protected by the fundamental right to exclude government from one’s 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.

PUBLICLY RECORDED ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME AND CORRUPTION

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.

GOVERNMENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT, FLA.R.CIV.P. 1.540

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”;

b. Fake “land parcels” see, e.g., “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”; “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;

c. Fake “5,048.60 judgment”, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;

d. Fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;

99. Here, absolute power produced absolute judicial & Government corruption and the

publicly recorded perpetration of fraud upon the Courts.

100. The procedural and substantive rules prohibited Defendant Moody from fixing the Case

based upon the perversion of conclusive public record evidence.

33

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.

DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD TITLE

“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.”

See Doc. # 22, p. 1.

Here, Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., knew, fraudulently concealed,

and conspired with other Officials and Criminals to conceal that

a. The Plaintiffs had conclusively proven and alleged that they are the record owners of

Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida;

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;

c. Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, was never “claimed as public land”;

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;

g. Plaintiffs were entitled to redress their well-proven recorded Government grievances;

h. The facially forged colorless “claim” lacked any authentic legal description;

i. The colorless facially forged “claim” lacked any legislative signature and name(s).

DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED NULLITY OF SHAM “claim”

34

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

County Grantor/Grantee Property Index.

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

been barred and extinguished., Ch. 712, Florida Statutes.

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

factually impossible and falsified “claim”, “resolution 569/875”, “legislative act”,

“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

Government crimes under color of office.

DECEPTION, TRICKERY, FRAUD; LACK OF RECORD OF ANY “claim”

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

35

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

a. No “claim” had ever legally existed;

b. No “claim” had ever been legally recorded;

c. No “claim” could have possibly ever legally existed;

d. Any and all “claims” had been extinguished and barred, Ch. 712, 95, Fla. Stat.

DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED EXTORTION, RACKETEERING

108. Defendant Moody fraudulently asserted and pretended, Doc. # 22, p. 2:

“Plaintiff Busse was sanctioned $5,000 but refused to pay.”

36

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

“copies” issued as mandate in June 2009, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.

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

extortion and racketeering.

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.

COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

112. § 90.203, Florida Statutes, COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, provides:

“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.

DEFENDANT CROOKED JUDGE MOODY’S SHAM “order”, DOC. # 22

113. Here on its face, Defendant Crooked Judge Moody’s sham “order”, Doc. # 22, was

a. Controverted by Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded indisputable title to Lot 15A;

b. Controverted by Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded property tax payments;

37

c. Facially incomprehensible and baseless;

d. Arbitrary, capricious, and malicious;

e. Idiotic and irrational.

RECORD TAX PAYMENTS WERE CAPABLE OF ACCURATE DETERMINATION

114. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded satisfactory real property tax payments, Lot 15A,

were capable of accurate and ready determination and indisputable. Said indisputable

record tax payments had controverted any “claim”.

PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD DEED WAS CAPABLE OF READY DETERMINATION

115. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate

and ready determination and indisputable.

116. Here as a matter of law, Plaintiffs’ record title and tax payments had conclusively

controverted:

a. Any and all barred “claims”, Ch. 712, Florida Statutes;

b. Sham “claim” “O.R. 569/875”;

c. Any and all absurd, unrecognized, and frivolous “claim(s) as public land”;

d. Any and all non-existent “title transfer” to Lee County, FL;

e. Any involuntary alienation; Chapters 73; 74, 95, Florida Statutes.

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

Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.

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.

38

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.

FALSIFIED “claim”, “O.R. 569/875” WAS LEGALLY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE

120. Here as a matter of law:

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;

c. Any involuntarily alienation would have necessarily been a judicial function;

d. Plaintiffs were the indisputable record owners, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa;

e. Plaintiffs were the unimpeachable title holders, Lot 15A;

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;

h. Defendant Moody fabricated and conspired to falsify an incomprehensible “claim”.

PERVERSION OF RULE 69 FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING

121. Rule 69, Fed.R.Civ.P. states:

(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.

122. Here, Def. Moody conspired to conceal that

a. The paid $24.30 money judgment and final mandate, Doc. # 365, Case 2:2007-cv-

00228 could not be “enforced by a writ of execution”;

39

b. The facially fraudulent procedure on the falsified execution did not “accord with the

procedure of the State”.

c. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction in June 2009;

d. Defendant Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson falsified and fraudulently

pretended a “July 29, judgment”;

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

sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.

MANDATORY RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION, 28 U.S.C. § 455

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,

e.g., racketeering, retaliation, and extortion.

125. Furthermore, RULE 1.432 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE states:

(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

40

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.

RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES

126. Said Rule states:

(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. (c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall: (1) be in writing; (2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the

grounds for disqualification; (3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate

affidavit;”

SECTION 38.10, FLA. STAT.

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

prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330.

128. § 38.10, Fla. Stat., states:

38.10 Disqualification of judge for prejudice; application; affidavits; etc.--Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be

41

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

causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.”

PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO APPEAL: FRAUDULENT lien, execution; EXTORTION …

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

disqualify is governed substantively by section 38.10, Florida Statutes, and procedurally by

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330. Here, Plaintiffs’ pleadings to disqualify,

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).

RECUSAL: MOODY’S ORGANIZED CRIMES & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

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

42

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

Supreme Court says it is.

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,

racketeering, partiality, and incompetence.

CANON(S) 3E(1), 3E(1)(f), FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

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

“impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including when he has “made a public

statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to” a particular party,

issue, or controversy. Canon 3E(1) [general disqualification provision in Canon 3E(1)],

3E(1)(f) [“commits clause” at Canon 3E(1)(f)].

43

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.,

facially forged “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0” and “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”, a

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

which a judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See In re Amendment to

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

authority to bring disciplinary charges against a judge.

44

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

fraudulent “orders”, gag, pre-filing injunction.

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”;

c. Fake “writ of execution”;

d. Facially forged “land parcels”;

e. Fake park.

RECORD FACIALLY FORGED judgment AND FAKE “lien”

137. Here, there were

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.

45

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.

2d 723, 725-26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

DEF. WILKINSON HAD NO “lien”, NO “judgment”, AND NO RIGHT TO “execute”

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

possibly been destroyed.

PUBLICLY RECORDED “resolution”-RACKETEERING & EXTORTION SCHEME

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

title against Plaintiffs’ will. See Separation-of-Powers-Doctrine and Florida’s express

Constitutional Protections; 14th, 4th U.S. Const. Amendments.

PRESCOTT v. STATE OF FLORIDA PROVED ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME

141. Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21,

2009) had stated:

“I. BACKGROUND A. Current Action The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee County, Florida.”

46

“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.”

CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL “pre-filing injunction”, DOC. # 245

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

racketeering, wire fraud, extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, deliberate

deprivations, and bribery. See Lee County Tax Collector’s public records, riparian Lot

15A, Cayo Costa.

143. Here, Defendant Crooked Judges Moody and Honeywell had no authority to

fraudulently conceal Plaintiffs’ unimpeachable record ownership, real property tax

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

“global pre-filing injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case 2:2009-cv-00791.

BRIBERY & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

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

defend against unlawful Government seizures of Plaintiffs’ private property, racketeering,

extortion, due process and equal protection violations, 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th U.S.

Constitutional Amendments.

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL

145. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judges Moody and Honeywell fraudulently concealed and

conspired to conceal that, e.g.:

47

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.

48

APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009

146. An appeal becomes final on the date the mandate is issued. Here, the judgment entered

March 5, 2009 was issued as mandate Jun 11 2009.

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

was the responsibility of the clerk.

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

racketeering and extortion by Government Agents.

NO 11th CIRCUIT JURISDICTION AFTER JUN 15, 2009

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

reacquired jurisdiction for further proceedings.

150. Issuance of the $24.30 mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Court’s receipt and

filing on June 15, 2009 was an event of considerable institutional significance. A

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.

See F.R.App.P. 27, 41.

49

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.

DEF. WILKINSON’S RACKETEERING, RETALIATION, AND COERCION

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

criminal and illegal purposes of concealing crimes and covering up.

PUBLICLY RECORDED CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL FALSIFICATIONS

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.

RACKETEERING-EXTORTION-FRAUD SCHEMES, DOC ## 432, 434, 435

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

adopted them by reference in this NOTICE OF APPEAL and EMERGENCY MOTIONS.

50

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.

NO service OF ANY “writ of execution” UPON DR. JORG BUSSE

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,

e.g., racketeering, extortion, retaliation, obstruction of justice, and unconstitutional

property seizure in brazen violation of, e.g., the 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional

Amendments, and Chapters 55, and 56, Florida Statutes.

MANDATORY SUSPENSION OF ANY ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

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.

## 425, which had never been served upon Dr. Busse.