8/9/2019 Motion and Criminal Complaint http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/motion-and-criminal-complaint 1/97 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-JES-SPCJOHN 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. INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION, AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION ____________________________________________________________________________/ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLERK’S EXPIRED-writ -FRAUD-SCHEME, FRAUD ON THE COURT, AND JUDICIAL FALSIFICATIONS OF “claim”, PRIMA FACIE SCAM “O.R. 569/875” & FORGED foreign “$5,048.60” “money judgment ” AFTER APPEAL CLOSURE AND AFTER LOSS OF appellate jurisdiction in June 2009, CH. 712; 95; 73, 74; 55; §§ 695.26, 695.09, 689.01, 55.10, 55.509, FLORIDA STATUTES, FLORIDA ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT; AND MEMORANDUM NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FACIALLY FRAUDULENT “order ”, DOC. # 22, ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME & CORRUPTION, RACKETEERING, RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FRAUD, DEPRIVATIONS AT THE HANDS OF BUNGLING GOVERNMENT CROOK & IDIOT JAMES S. MOODY, JR., RELATED Case # 2:10-cv-00390-FtM-30-AEP [ADOPTION BY REFERENCE] FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EXPIRATION OF ANY AND ALL “writ ”
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DR. JORG BUSSE, JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, Plaintiffs,
versus Case # 2:10-CV-0089-FtM-JES-SPC
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 VALUEADJUSTMENT BOARD; LORI L. RUTLAND; EXECUTIVE TITLE CO.;JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
Defendants.
INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION ____________________________________________________________________________/
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLERK’S EXPIRED-writ -FRAUD-SCHEME,
FRAUD ON THE COURT, AND JUDICIAL FALSIFICATIONS OF “claim”,
The undersigned Clerk of Court acknowledges on this 24th
day of August, 2010, receipt from Dr.
Jorg Busse, Plaintiff, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, purported judgment debtor, of $30.00, comprisedof $24.30 face amount of the June 2009 final mandate/judgment; and $5.70 miscellaneous costs.
Pursuant to section 55.141, Florida Statutes, said sum is again paid to satisfy the judgment for
“copies” under Fed.R.App.P. 39, Doc. # 365, and to discharge that certain final judgment and
mandate in the amount of $24.30 procured through fraud in favor of Defendant Kenneth M.
Wilkinson (fictitious judgment holder ), whose last known address is Lee County Property
Appraiser Thompson ST, Fort Myers, FL 33901. Here, Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.
Wilkinson did not file any authentic affidavit as required; did not file any lis pendens; and did
not record said final mandate and $24.30 money judgment in the Public Records of Lee County.
Here, neither the $24.30 nor any other judgment or debt became any lien on any property. Here
in particular, no judgment ever became any lien on Plaintiff’s property, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.
The only Florida judgment was the $24.30 judgment, which was procured through fraud and
fraud on the Court.
Upon the execution of this satisfaction, said $24.30 judgment is satisfied and discharged.
No address for the purported judgment holder was provided under section 55.10(1), Florida
Statutes. Dr. Jorg Busse certifies that a copy of this Notice of Satisfaction and Discharge has
been sent to Defendant “land parcel” Forger [facially forged Lee County parcel “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0”] Kenneth M. Wilkinson, purported holder of said $24.30 judgment at Lee County
Property Appraiser’s Office, Thompson ST, Fort Myers, FL 33901 by certified U.S.P.S. mail
with return receipt requested.
Hereby, Dr. Jorg Busse applies that the Clerk of Court shall pay over to the purported judgment
holder , Defendant “ judgment and land parcel ” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson the full amount of
the payment received, less the clerk’s fees for issuing execution on such judgment, if any has
been issued.
Clerk of Court, Fort Myers, Florida, August 25th day of 2010
“$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 recordedand 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 lawfullyseized 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 selland 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 Grantorshereby fully warrant the unimpeachable record title to said riparian accreted street andup-lands on the Gulf of Mexico and pursuant to the Lee County, State of Florida, andFederal Public Records have defended and will defend their marketable record titleagainst 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 accretedriparian street and up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico are free of any legitimate and validencumbrances and/or judgments, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,2010; zoning, building code and other restrictions legitimately imposed by lawfulgovernmental 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
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.
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 directsotherwise. The procedure on execution — and in proceedings supplementary to andin aid of judgment or execution — must accord with the procedure of the state wherethe court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.”
10. Here, Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been entitled to begin any collection efforts and
“execute” on Dr. Busse’s assets.
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 judgmentdebtor 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 pendensdirected 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 uponwhich enforcement of a judgment of any circuit or county court of this state would bestayed, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which isrequired 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;
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 obtainedunder chapter 55, the judgment holder or judgment lien holder may file an affidavitso stating, identifying, if applicable, the issuing court, the case number , and theunsatisfied amount of the judgment or judgment lien, including accrued costs andinterest, and stating that the execution is valid and outstanding , and thereupon the judgment holder or judgment lien holder is entitled to these proceedingssupplementary to execution. Fla. Stat. § 56.29(1).”
“A judicial sale differs from an execution sale in that it is conducted pursuant todirections 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 (3dCir. 1968).” Id., * fn 2.
In Continental Cigar Corp. v. Edelman & Co., Inc., 397 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA1981), the Third District Court of Appeal rejected earlier courtdecisions*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.
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), byany officer within or without the United States unless the officer knows, or hassatisfactory 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 ;
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 byinstrument 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.”
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 theCayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida. Plaintiffs attempt to challenge aresolution 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
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 directsotherwise. The procedure on execution — and in proceedings supplementary to andin aid of judgment or execution — must accord with the procedure of the state wherethe 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 interestwhose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any person — includingthe judgment debtor — as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the statewhere 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. Thefacially 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 ”,
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 onthe grounds provided by statute.
(b) Contents. A motion to disqualify shall allege the facts relied on to show thegrounds 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 determineonly the legal sufficiency of the motion. The judge shall not pass on the truth of thefacts 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 judgeassigned 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 thegrounds for disqualification;
(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separateaffidavit;”
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:
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
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
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’simpartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instanceswhere …
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.
98. 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, 14
th, 4
th, 7
th U.S.
Constitutional Amendments.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL
99. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judges Moody and Honeywell fraudulently concealed and
conspired to conceal that, e.g.:
a. The Plaintiffs are the unimpeachable record “owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costasubdivision 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 thePlaintiffs of their perfected marketable record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG25 (1912);
c. No legislator or lawmaker , whatsoever, had any authority to usurp judicial authority tomake 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 andracketeering;
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 andlegally 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.
APPEAL BECAME FINAL ON JUN 15, 2009
100. 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.
101. 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 .
102. 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 (11 th 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
103. 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
116. Def. Honeywell deceived this Court, Doc. # 213, p. 18:
“In this case, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants conspired to deprive them of their alleged property rights in Lot 15A. Plaintiffs repeatedly state that various judicialofficers accepted bribes to deprive them of this alleged property interest. However,these statements are merely conclusory, and Plaintiffs provide no factual basis tosupport a conspiracy among Defendants.”
Here, e.g., the idiotic Court orders, opinions, 1912 Plat of Survey of the private undedicated
residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, PB 3, PG 25, the WARRANTY DEEDS, surveys, title
abstracts, and binding precedent on file were an indisputable “ factual basis” to support
said well proven allegations. Here, Def. Honeywell’s and Def. Chappell’s orders in this and
the related Cases were conclusive record evidence of organized judicial crime, because they
evidenced the brazen perversion of the law and public record evidence.
CASE 2:2007-CV-00228: ORGANIZED CRIME
117. Upon receipt of 443 pages on 08/03/2010, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, the Clerk of this Court
119. In Case, 2:2009-cv-00791, hundreds of pages of Plaintiffs Complaint, Doc. # 1, had
disappeared. See Doc. # 213, p. 3, fn 3:
“Plaintiffs’ Complaint, that was transferred from the West Palm Beach Division of
the Southern District of Florida, contains 103 pages. However, the last two pages of the Complaint are numbered 179 and 180. Pages 101-178 are not included in theinstant Complaint. The Court has confirmed, through inquiry of the Clerk of theSouthern District of Florida, that Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed without pages 101 -
178 and without any exhibits.”
POLICY OF DESTRUCTION, ALTERATION, AND FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS
120. Here, this Court exhibited its pattern and policy of crimes & corruption; see, e.g.:
a. Altering and falsifying official records and documents;
b. Falsifying a fake “resolution 569/875”;
c. Falsifying judgments;
d. Falsifying mandates;
e. Falsifying a “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;
f. Falsifying a “legislative act ”;
g. Falsifying a “land claim”;
h. Falsifying an idiotic and incomprehensible “ public land claim” of Lot 15A in the
presence of a controverting WARRANTY DEED;
i. Destroying public records for, e.g., cover-up, concealment, and racketeering;
j. Destroying public records as “ scandalous material ” for criminal purposes;
k. “Striking” and removing official documents and records, because they conclusively
proved judicial and Government corruption, racketeering, retaliation, and organized
crime.
RECKLESSLY, DEF. JAMES S. MOODY PERVERTED SUPREME FLORIDA LAW
The undersigned Clerk of Court acknowledges on this 24th
day of August, 2010, receipt from Dr.
Jorg Busse, Plaintiff, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, purported judgment debtor, of $30.00, comprisedof $24.30 face amount of the June 2009 final mandate/judgment; and $5.70 miscellaneous costs.
Pursuant to section 55.141, Florida Statutes, said sum is again paid to satisfy the judgment for
“copies” under Fed.R.App.P. 39, Doc. # 365, and to discharge that certain final judgment and
mandate in the amount of $24.30 procured through fraud in favor of Defendant Kenneth M.
Wilkinson (fictitious judgment holder ), whose last known address is Lee County Property
Appraiser Thompson ST, Fort Myers, FL 33901. Here, Defendant crooked Official Kenneth M.
Wilkinson did not file any authentic affidavit as required; did not file any lis pendens; and did
not record said final mandate and $24.30 money judgment in the Public Records of Lee County.
Here, neither the $24.30 nor any other judgment or debt became any lien on any property. Here
in particular, no judgment ever became any lien on Plaintiff’s property, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.
The only Florida judgment was the $24.30 judgment, which was procured through fraud and
fraud on the Court.
Upon the execution of this satisfaction, said $24.30 judgment is satisfied and discharged.
No address for the purported judgment holder was provided under section 55.10(1), Florida
Statutes. Dr. Jorg Busse certifies that a copy of this Notice of Satisfaction and Discharge has
been sent to Defendant “land parcel” Forger [facially forged Lee County parcel “12-44-20-01-
00000.00A0”] Kenneth M. Wilkinson, purported holder of said $24.30 judgment at Lee County
Property Appraiser’s Office, Thompson ST, Fort Myers, FL 33901 by certified U.S.P.S. mail
with return receipt requested.
Hereby, Dr. Jorg Busse applies that the Clerk of Court shall pay over to the purported judgment
holder , Defendant “ judgment and land parcel ” Forger Kenneth M. Wilkinson the full amount of
the payment received, less the clerk’s fees for issuing execution on such judgment, if any has
been issued.
Clerk of Court, Fort Myers, Florida, August 24th day of 2010