UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiffs,

versus Case # 2:10-cv-00390-FtM-30-AEP

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL;

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

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 “order”, DOC. # 22,

ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME & CORRUPTION, RACKETEERING,
RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FRAUD, DEPRIVATIONS

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 “order” [DOC. # 22] & RACKETEERING

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
appeal from the publicly recorded prima facie Government racketeering and extortion of
“$5,048.60” and/or “$5,000.00” and their accreted riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A [by criminal
means of Doc. # 22] 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.”

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM CORRUPT JUDGE MOODY’S ORDER, DOC. # 22

2. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, S-T-R-A-P 12-
44-20-01-00015.015A, hereby appeal from the publicly recorded prima facie organized
Government crime, corruption, racketeering, extortion, retaliation, obstruction of
justice, fraud, fraud on the Court, deliberate deprivations, et al., “Doc. # 22, filed
07/27/2010”, by Defendant U.S. Judge and Racketeer James S. Moody, Jr.

2
DEF. MOODY’S FRAUDULENT AND IDIOTIC PRETENSES OF “claim as public land”
3. Under fraudulent pretenses of a facially idiotic and incomprehensible “claim as
public land” and fictitious “$5,000 sanctions”, Doc. # 22, Defendant Racketeer Moody
conspired to extort Lot 15A and money from the Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners
of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.
COVER-UP OF RECORD CRIMINALITY & ILLEGALITY OF “execution”, DOC. # 22
4. Here, no domesticated foreign judgment existed. Therefore, Defendant Forger and
Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson could not sequester, levy on, or seize control of, any assets
of Dr. Jorg Busse. Here in exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge James S. Moody,
Jr., covered up, concealed, and conspired to cover up and conceal the Government crimes,
corruption, and racketeering.
PERVERSION OF RULE 69 & FABRICATION OF “writ of execution”
5. 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.”
6. 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.
7. Here, Defendant Crooked Officials Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Jack N. Peterson, Sheri
Polster Chappell, John Edwin Steele, and Drew Heathcoat 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.
LACK OF exemplified copy OF FACIALLY FORGED “foreign judgment”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Here, Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been entitled to begin any collection
efforts and “execute” on Dr. Busse’s assets.

3
11. 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.
12. Def. “land parcel” Forger Wilkinson did
a. Not record any authentic judgment;
b. Not domesticate any genuine foreign judgment;
c. Not file a case.
13. Here, no case number existed for the clerk of court to, e.g.,
a. issue a writ of execution, and
b. schedule any depositions to review a purported debtor's assets.

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF FACIALLY FORGED foreign judgment

14. § 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.
15. 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”
16. § 55.507, F.S., Lien; when effective, states:

4
 “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
17. 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
18. 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
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…”

5
 “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

19. 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

20. 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:

21. 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”.

6
MANDATORY RECUSAL OF OBJECTIVELY PARTIAL & CORRUPT J. S. MOODY
22. 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
23. 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, 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”

24. 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”.
25. 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”.
26. 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:
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

27. 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
28. 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.

7
 DEF. MOODY’S RECORD “TIRADE” AGAINST PUBLIC CORRUPTION VICTIMS
29. 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
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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
33. § 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”
34. 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.
EXPRESS FLORIDA STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS, CH. 73, 74, 95, FLA. STAT.
35. 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.

8
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 55, § 55.10, F.S., FLORIDA FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT
36. 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”
37. 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.
38. [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.
39. 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
40. Here, Dr. Busse had contested, e.g., the fake “lien”, fake “writ of execution”,
fraud, fraud on the Courts, extortion, and racketeering.
41. Here, nothing could have possibly become a “lien” on any real property of Dr.
Jorg Busse.
42. 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”
43. 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.
44. § 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

45. Here, there were
a. No witnesses;
b. No notary;
c. No acknowledgment;

9
 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
46. § 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 …”
47. 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
48. 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”

49. § 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

50. 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;

10
 c. Unencumbered;
d. Perfected;
e. Marketable;
f. Exclusive;
g. Protected under express Florida Constitutional Guarantees;
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
51. 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
52. “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;
53. Here, absolute power produced absolute judicial & Government corruption
and the publicly recorded perpetration of fraud upon the Courts.
54. The procedural and substantive rules prohibited Defendant Moody from fixing
the Case based upon the perversion of conclusive public record evidence.
CONSPIRACY TO RACKETEER, EXTORT, RETALIATE, AND DEFRAUD
55. 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

11
 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”

56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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”
60. § 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
of such person and the post-office address of each such person is legibly printed,
typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument;

12
 (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.
61. 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

62. Defendant Moody fraudulently asserted and pretended, Doc. # 22, p. 2:
“Plaintiff Busse was sanctioned $5,000 but refused to pay.”
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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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.

13
 COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
66. § 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
67. 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;
c. Facially incomprehensible and baseless;
d. Arbitrary, capricious, and malicious;
e. Idiotic and irrational.

RECORD TAX PAYMENTS WERE CAPABLE OF ACCURATE DETERMINATION

68. 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
69. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, was capable of
accurate and ready determination and indisputable.
70. 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.
71. As a matter of law, Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., had extinguished any and all “claims”
against Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.
72. 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.
73. 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
74. Here as a matter of law:
a. No “resolution” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their
Lot 15A;

14
 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

75. 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.

76. 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”;
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.

77. 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.

15
 MANDATORY RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION, 28 U.S.C. § 455
78. 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.
79. 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 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

80. 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.

81. 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.
82. § 38.10, Fla. Stat., states:

16
 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
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 …
83. 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
84. 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 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.
85. 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.

17
 CANON(S) 3E(1), 3E(1)(f), FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
86. 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)].
87. 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.
88. 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.
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS – WELL-GROUNDED FEARS
89. 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.
90. 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

18
 partial and bribed Judge James S. Moody, Jr., who fraudulently concealed said fabrications
of, e.g.:
a. Fake “judgment”;

b. Fake “writ of execution”;

c. Facially forged “land parcels”;

d. Fake park.

RECORD FACIALLY FORGED judgment AND FAKE “lien”

91. 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.
92. 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”
93. 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
94. 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
95. 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.”

19
 “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

96. 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.
97. Here, Defendant Crooked Judge 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
98. Here in exchange for bribes, Defendant Crooked Judge Honeywell obstructed
justice, retaliated, and deliberately deprived 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
99. Here, Defendant Honeywell fraudulently concealed and conspired to conceal
that, e.g.:
e. 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;
f. 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);
g. No legislator or lawmaker, whatsoever, had any authority to usurp judicial
authority to make a judicial order transferring title against Plaintiffs’ will;
h. No judge had ever made any order or judgment involuntarily alienating Lot 15A;
i. “The Board of Commissioners of Lee County, Florida,” never adopted any
“resolution 569/875” in December 1969;
j. No name of any commissioner appeared on prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875”;
k. Scam “O.R. 569/875” was not any law, resolution, or legislative act and
unauthorized;
l. “Involuntary-alienation-by-fake-resolution” was a racketeering & extortion
scheme;
m. The prima facie sham “land claim” lacked any color and was legally
incomprehensible;
n. Lot 15A was never “claimed as public land”; see Tax Records & Grantor-Grantee
Index;
o. Prima facie extortion and fraud scheme “O.R. 569/875” was not any “claim”;
p. The law did not recognize facially incomprehensible “resolution 569/875”;

20
 q. The legal description of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, did not appear in the sham
“resolution”;
r. No valid authentic legal description appeared in the facially forged “resolution”;
s. Falsified “resolution 569/875" had never legally existed;
t. Scam “O.R. 569/875” did not, and could not have possibly, complied with Ch. 11,
Fla. Stat., Legislative Organization, Procedures, and Staffing;
u. Said facially forged “resolution” was not any writing, instrument, or muniment of
title;
v. The fake “resolution” was not any conveyance, instrument, or eminent domain
document;
w. 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;
x. Def. Honeywell obstructed justice under color of authority & scam “O.R.
569/875”;
y. Def. Honeywell obstructed justice under color of a fake writ of execution, Doc.
# 425;
z. Def. Lee County Commissioners had no authority to sign any “claim” of
uncertain and legally un-described lands;
aa. Lot 15A was never subject to any enforcement of any money judgment against Dr.
Busse;
bb. The fake writ of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, violated Florida’s
Judgment Lien Law; see Ch. 55, Fla. Stat.;
cc. Defendant Appellee Kenneth M. Wilkinson was not any judgment creditor;
dd. Def. K. M. Wilkinson never incurred any actual and necessary attorney’s fees;
see business records on file;
ee. Dr. Jorg Busse was not any judgment debtor;
ff. Lot 15A was exempt real property and owned by the entireties;
gg. Litigation has been pending and no final judgment existed.
100. …

21