Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
AND FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION
____________________________________________________________________________/
conceal that
b. the D.C. Clerk never had any authority to issue the falsified “writ”, Doc. # 425, 2:2007-
cv-00228;
d. a genuine and authentic “writ of execution” would have expired after 180 days;
e. any procedure on execution shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of
f. the legislative history and judicial application of Rule 69(a) make clear that the first
sentence of the Rule expresses a limitation on the means of any enforcement of money
judgments;
g. the legislative history and judicial application of Rule 69(a) does not create a general
power to issue writs of execution in disregard of the state law incorporated by the rest of
the Rule.
2. Rule 69(a) represents the drafters' adoption of prior practice under former 28 U.S.C. § 727,
Rev.Stat. § 916. United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 355, 86 S.Ct. 500, 15 L.Ed.2d 404
(1966); See 1937 Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, Reprinted in, 7 J. Moore, Federal
Practice P 69.01(2).
3. "Section 916 prohibit(ed) the courts of the United States from adopting, recognizing, or
giving effect to any form of execution, except such as was . . . a writ authorized by the laws
of the state." See Custer v. McCutcheon, 283 U.S. 514, 517-18, 51 S.Ct. 530, 531, 75 L.Ed.
2
737 (1931). Thus, the overall intent of Rule 69(a) is to limit both the procedure for obtaining
process and the effect of writs to that available under state law.
4. The first sentence of Rule 69(a) does not affect this rule that state remedies are exclusive.
5. Equity Rule 8 is the source of the first sentence of Rule 69(a). 7 J. Moore, Supra at 69-10.
Equity Rule 8 restricted remedies on purely monetary equitable judgments to those provided
for legal causes. See Hamilton v. MacDonald, 503 F.2d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 1974); See 7 J.
6. Thus, the purpose of the first sentence of Rule 69(a) is to restrict remedies on money
7. The courts have consistently read Rule 69(a) as limiting all federal process on money
8. Here, Florida law did not give any effect to the facially fraudulent writ, Doc. # 425, Case
2:2007-cv-00228.
9. Rule 69 made availability and effect of federal process strictly subject to state law.
10. Therefore here, the writ of execution fraudulently issued by the clerk had no effect.
11. Because a writ fraudulently issued in the record absence of any judgment solely on the non-
existent authority of a crooked U.S. District Court clerk has no effect under Florida law, it
12. The Plaintiff Government corruption and crime victims hereby adopt by reference the
3
13. On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, PM, the Clerk of Court, Defendant Drew Heathcoat,
obstructed Dr. Jorg Busse’s satisfaction of the record final mandate and judgment in the
amount of $24.30.
14. On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, PM, Defendant Crooked Clerk Drew Heathcoat illegally
demanded “$5,048.60” from Dr. Jorg Busse with criminal intent to defraud, extort, and
deliberately deprive.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
15. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott complained to Fort Myers Police about the
16. Defendant Heathcoat asserted to be a lawyer. Plaintiffs complained to the Florida Bar about
17. The Plaintiff public corruption and crime victims complained about Defendant Clerk
Heathcoat to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, D.C. 20544,
18. Defendant Drew Heathcoat altered and conspired with other Officials and Defendants to
19. In particular, Defendant Heathcoat fabricated ninety (90) pages, Notice of Appeal, Doc. #
4
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Government corruption and racketeering victims demand
1. An Order relieving the Plaintiffs from the fraud on the Courts and falsified “judgment”, fake
“writ of execution”, fake “lien” and fake “Lee County” “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
2. An Order declaring the “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, on its face
4. An Order taking judicial notice of CH. 712; 95; 73, 74; 55; §§ 695.26, 695.09, 689.01,
a. Art. I, s. 10, Fla. Const., stating that "No . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed.";
b. Art. I, s. 2, Fla. Const. stating that "[a]ll natural persons are equal before the law. . .";
c. Article I, s. 9, Fla. Const., stating that "[n]o person shall be deprived of . . . property
See fake “lien”, fake “writ”; fake “land parcels”; fake “resolution/law”; fake “judgment”.
6. An Order declaring the facially fraudulent “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, violative of
7. An Order declaring the lack of any genuine authentic foreign (out-of-Florida) judgment;
8. An Order declaring the falsified “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, 2:07-cv-228, null and void;
5
9. An Order recusing and disqualifying Defendant Crooked and objectively partial Judge
10. An Order recusing Def. Crooked Charlene E. Honeywell because of publicly recorded
organized crime, racketeering, corruption, bribery, retaliation against the Plaintiffs, and
extortion of said money and Lot 15A in violation of Florida and Federal law;
11. An Order vacating and/or setting aside the prima facie unconstitutional and null and void
“pre-filing injunction”, Doc. # 245, which was for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g.,
cover-up, concealment, and conspiracy to extort said money and land, Lot 15A;
12. An Order recusing Def. Crooked S. Polster Chappell, because she conspired to conceal
13. An Order vacating and/or setting aside any and all orders by Defendants Sheri Polster
Chappell and Charlene Edwards Honeywell, because they were procured through fraud,
and falsification and destruction of official records, documents, and conclusive evidence;
14. An Order declaring that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson did NOT “have any lien”;
15. An Order declaring that Defendant Wilkinson did NOT “hold any $5,048.60 judgment” as
falsely pretended and falsified by said Defendant Wilkinson and Defendant Crooked
asserting a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment” in the Collier and Lee County Public Records;
proceedings on any illegal and criminal execution in violation of, e.g., Chapters 55 and 56,
Fla. Stat., and the 4th, 14th, 1st, and 7th U.S. Const. Amendments, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 – 1968;
6
17. An Order sanctioning Defendant Attorney JACK N. PETERSON for recorded perjury and
conspiring with Def. Wilkinson and other Government Officials to extort, racketeer,
retaliate, and deliberately deprive Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott;
18. An Order declaring the final record mandate in the amount of $24.30 paid;
19. An Order vacating and setting aside the facially oppressive and unconstitutional “pre-filing
injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, which on its face was for criminal and
the organized Criminals and criminal Defendants in this Court and the 11th Circuit;
20. An Order restraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO
civil provisions;
21. An Order declaring the lack of any recorded mandate and/or money judgment other than the
$24.30, which was “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and recorded on June 15, 2009
pursuant to the certified Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, U.S. District Court, M.D.
22. An Order declaring that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction
on 06/11/2009, as had also been evidenced by its own Case Docket, 08-13170-BB];
23. An Order sanctioning and punishing Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson for the publicly
recorded falsifications of, e.g., said fake “judgment”, “land parcels”, fake “resolution”,
24. An Order declaring INSTRUMENT 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public
Records, and the equally fraudulent filing in Lee County part of a racketeering, extortion,
7
25. An Order restraining any further racketeering by Defendant Government Officials and in
particular the illegal forced selling of Plaintiffs’ said riparian Cayo Costa property, Lot 15A,
26. An Order dissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil
27. An Order removing the publicly recorded corrupting influence and make due provision for
said express fundamental rights of innocent persons under the Florida and Federal
Constitutions and, e.g., the 14th, 1st, 7th, 4th, 5th, and 11th U.S. Constitutional Amendments;
28. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked, Objectively Partial, and Unfit
29. An Order making the Government enterprise of record subject of injunctive relief, because it
is designed to aid the illegal enterprise of, e.g., obstructing justice, retaliating and
30. An Order enjoining said U.S. Courts from retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they
blew the whistle on Government crimes & corruption, rather than punishing the Defendant
Racketeers of record and providing remedies and relief to the Plaintiff racketeering and
corruption victims;
31. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge C. E. Honeywell;
32. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Corrupt and Objectively Partial and Unfit
8
34. An Order declaring Plaintiffs’ record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, free & clear and
unencumbered;
00001.0000” falsified and prima facie forgeries as conclusively evidenced by the 1912
36. An Order for EMERGENCY relief from the publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,
39. An Order for triple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1964(c);
41. An Order enjoining any and all Governments and the Defendants and Officials from any
trespass onto the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” “Subdivision” as legally described in
42. An Order declaring the prima facie forgeries of non-existent “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
43. An Order permanently enjoining any and all entries and publications of any “resolution
569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “legislative act 569/875”, and non-existent “land parcels” “12-
44. An Order permanently enjoining any and all Governments and Defendants from fraudulently
“claiming” “asserting” “publishing” Government ownership of the street lands along the
9
Gulf of Mexico as legally described and conveyed in reference to the Plat of the prima facie
45. An Order enjoining and restraining any extortion of property and money and foreclosure
fraud by Defendants Eugene C. Turner, Richard D. DeBoest, II, Chene M. Thompson, and
Hugh D. Hayes.
___________________________
/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
Private Attorney General; Plaintiff public corruption & racketeering victim
10 Benning ST # 135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.
c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
_____________________
[/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott]
Private Attorney General; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim
10 Benning Street # 135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.
c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
10
STATE OF FLORIDA
11
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT; DUTIES OF CLERK OF COURT, § 55.141, F.S.
(1) All judgments and decrees for the payment of money rendered in the courts of this
state of Florida and which have become final, may be satisfied at any time prior to the
actual levy of the purported fraudulent execution issued thereon by payment of the full
amount of such judgment or decree, with interest thereon, plus the costs of the issuance, if
any, of execution thereon into the registry of the court where rendered.
(2) Upon such payment, the clerk shall execute and record in the official records a
satisfaction of judgment upon payment of the recording charge prescribed in s. 28.24(12).
Upon payment of the amount required in subsection (1) and the recording charge required
by this subsection and execution and recordation of the satisfaction by the clerk, any lien
created by the judgment is satisfied and discharged. In this Case, there was no lien.
(3) The satisfaction of judgment is to be executed by the clerk.
(5) Upon application of the judgment holder, the clerk shall pay over to the judgment holder
the full amount of the payment received, less the clerk’s fees for issuing execution on such
judgment, if any has been issued.
12
CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar
13
7/31/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC
Plaintiff
Jorg Busse represented by Jorg Busse
P.O. Box 1126
Naples, Fl 34106-1126
239/595-7074
PRO SE
Plaintiff
Kenneth M. Roesch, Jr. represented by Kelly Lina Rooth
TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 Rooth Law Group, PA
Suite 322
4399 35th St N
St Petersbsurg, FL 33714
727/824-6212
Fax: 727/822-8048
Email: krooth@roothlawgroup.com
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 1/5
7/31/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Anita M. Roesch represented by Kelly Lina Rooth
TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 (See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Troy Parnell represented by William Alfred Keyes , Jr.
TERMINATED: 09/21/2007 Stewart & Keyes, PL
2125 First St - Ste 101
PO Drawer 790
Ft Myers, FL 33902
239/334-7477
Fax: 239/334-7941
Email: stewartkeyespl@comcast.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Lee County, Florida represented by Jack Neil Peterson
Lee County Attorney's Office
2115 Second St
PO Box 398
Ft Myers, FL 33902
239/533-2236
Fax: 239/485-2118
Email: peterj@leegov.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Board of Lee County Commissioners represented by Jack Neil Peterson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
The Lee County Property Appraiser represented by Jack Neil Peterson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 2/5
7/31/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherri L. Johnson
Dent & Johnson, Chartered
3415 Magic Oak Lane
Sarasota, FL 34232
941/952-1070
Email: sjohnson@dentjohnson.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
State of Florida, Board of Trustees of represented by Harold George Vielhauer
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Florida Department of Environmental
past & present Protection
MS 35
3900 Commonwealth Blvd
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
850/245-2242
Fax: 850/245-2296
Email: Harold.Vielhauer@dep.state.fl.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 3/5
7/31/2010 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Co…
Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson represented by Jack Neil Peterson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherri L. Johnson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Lee County Attorney represented by Jack Neil Peterson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
State of Florida Department of represented by Harold George Vielhauer
Environmental Protection, and Division (See above for address)
of Recreation and Parks LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Jack N. Peterson
ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p… 5/5
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 2 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 3 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 4 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 5 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 7 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 8 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 9 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 10 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 11 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 12 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 13 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 14 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 15 of 16
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 365 Filed 06/15/09 Page 16 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
INDEPENDENT ACTION
FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,
FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION,
AND FORGED AND VOID judgments and orders
____________________________________________________________________________/
AND the Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantees that the Grantors are lawfully
seized of said riparian upland and adjoining riparian street land on the Gulf of
Mexico in fee simple; that the Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell
and convey said riparian Gulf-front upland and street land on said Gulf as legally
described in reference to said private 1912 Subdivision Plat; that the Grantors
hereby fully warrant the unimpeachable record title to said riparian accreted street and
up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico and pursuant to the Lee County, State of Florida, and
Federal Public Records have defended and will defend their marketable record title
against the lawful and unlawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and in particular,
against the prima facie unlawful and criminal claims of Lee County, the State of
Florida, and the United States of America, and their corrupt Agents, Officials of
record, and the Defendants in their private individual capacities of record such as,
e.g., Joel F. Dubina, Charlene E. Honeywell, Sheri Polster Chappell, Gerald B.
Tjoflat, John E. Steele, Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Tony West; and that said accreted
riparian street and up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico are free of any legitimate and valid
encumbrances and/or judgments, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,
2010; zoning, building code and other restrictions legitimately imposed by lawful
governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas, mineral, and or any other interests of
record, if any; and private riparian water-front easements of record, restrictions, if
any, and unimpeachable private implied street and alley easements of record as
conveyed in reference to said 1912 Plat.”
2
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
justice, fraud, fraud on the Court, deliberate deprivations, et al., “Doc. # 22, filed
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
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,
3
Here, “the procedure on execution” did not “accord with the procedure of the state [Florida]
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 (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
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
fraud, extortion, and racketeering scheme. See, e.g., U.S.A. Ex. Rel., et al. v. U.S.A., et al.
4
10. Here, Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been entitled to begin any collection efforts and
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,
13. Here, no case number existed for the clerk of court to, e.g.,
“(1) If, within 30 days after the date the foreign judgment is recorded, the judgment
debtor files an action contesting the jurisdiction of the court which entered the
foreign judgment or the validity of the foreign judgment and records a lis pendens
directed toward the foreign judgment, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign
judgment and the judgment lien upon the filing of the action by the judgment debtor.
(2) If the judgment debtor shows the circuit or county court any ground upon
which enforcement of a judgment of any circuit or county court of this state would be
stayed, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate
period, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which is
required in this state.”
Here, Defendant “land parcel” Forger and Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County
a. a falsified foreign or out-of-Florida “July 29, 2009 judgment”, Doc. ## 386, 432;
5
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.
a. had no jurisdiction;
c. had no authority to issue the falsified writ of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:07-cv-00228.
Here, the Defendant Clerk of U.S. District Court had no authority to enforce the facially
forged and falsified out-of-Florida judgment and/or “July 29, 2009 judgment”. Here, said
U.S. Clerk could not have possibly enforced the fake out-of-Florida foreign judgment
“A foreign judgment does not operate as a lien until 30 days after the mailing of
notice by the clerk…”
Here, the Clerk had never “mailed” any “notice” of the facially forged judgment, and the
a. No judgment holder;
b. No judgment creditor;
6
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,
18. Florida law governs the question of whether the proper procedures were followed on
“It is clear from Rule 69 that Florida law governs the question of whether the proper
procedures were followed on execution, there being no federal statute applicable to
the contrary. Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's &
Warehousemen's Union, 128 F. Supp. 697 (D.C. Hawaii 1955). *fn2"
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.
7
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.
19. On 07/27/2010, the Case was reassigned to Defendant Crooked Judge James S. Moody, Jr.,
after the
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:
8
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
b. “eleven actions”;
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.
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.:
c. irrational; unintelligent;
Here, Def. Crook Moody “impacted the resources” of the Court(s) and further tarnished its
9
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
d. any execution.
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
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)
10
if it was rendered without jurisdiction of the subject matter or the parties or in a manner
29. This corrupt Court’s latest “order”, Doc. # 22, “in this case is not so much” an order “as it is
569/875”.
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,
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
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,
11
(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
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
“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
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 55, § 55.10, F.S., FLORIDA FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT
a. No Florida judgment;
12
b. No U.S. District Court judgment;
c. No “July 29 judgment”;
d. No domesticated judgment;
f. No curative affidavit.
Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter 55, § 55.10, Florida Statutes,
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
39. Here, the clerk of court never served the purported judgment debtor, Dr. Jorg Busse, with any
40. Here, Dr. Busse had contested, e.g., the fake “lien”, fake “writ of execution”, fraud, fraud
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”
13
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.
a. No witnesses;
b. No notary;
c. No acknowledgment;
d. No grantor;
e. No grant;
f. No conveyance;
Here, there were known racketeering, retaliation, extortion, and fraud schemes on the
record. Record scam and sham “claim” “O.R. 569/875” was an extortion and racketeering
scheme by organized Government Criminals who covered up, concealed, and conspired.
“No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain
interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be
14
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
Here, the judicial and Government Defendants covered up, concealed, and conspired to
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
a. Lot 15A “claim as public land” in violation of, e.g., Chapters 712, 73, 74, 95 Fla.
Statutes;
b. “resolution”;
d. any transfer of title to Lee County from Plaintiffs to Lee County against Plaintiffs’ will;
“Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and
ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”
15
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
b. Unimpeachable;
c. Unencumbered;
d. Perfected;
e. Marketable;
f. Exclusive;
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.
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.
16
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”;
53. Here, absolute power produced absolute judicial & Government corruption and the
54. The procedural and substantive rules prohibited Defendant Moody from fixing the Case
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.
“At the heart of each case, Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of Lot 15A in the
Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida. Plaintiffs attempt to challenge a
resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County,
Florida, where Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land.”
Here, Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., knew, fraudulently concealed,
17
a. The Plaintiffs had conclusively proven and alleged that they are the record owners of
b. The public record had conclusively evidenced that indisputably, the Plaintiffs are the
unimpeachable record owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee
County, Florida;
d. Lot 15A could not have possibly been “claimed as public land” under any law;
e. The prima facie fake “claim as public land” was incomprehensible and unrecognized;
f. The Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their perfected record title and prosecute;
h. The facially forged colorless “claim” lacked any authentic legal description;
i. The colorless facially forged “claim” lacked any legislative signature and name(s).
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
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
18
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
“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
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;
(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
19
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
d. Any and all “claims” had been extinguished and barred, Ch. 712, 95, Fla. Stat.
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
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
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.
20
COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
“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.
67. Here on its face, Defendant Crooked Judge Moody’s sham “order”, Doc. # 22, was
68. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded satisfactory real property tax payments, Lot 15A, were
capable of accurate and ready determination and indisputable. Said indisputable record
69. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate and
70. Here as a matter of law, Plaintiffs’ record title and tax payments had conclusively
controverted:
21
a. Any and all barred “claims”, Ch. 712, Florida Statutes;
c. Any and all absurd, unrecognized, and frivolous “claim(s) as public land”;
AS A MATTER OF LAW, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS HAD BEEN BARRED, CH. 712, F.S.
71. As a matter of law, Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., had extinguished any and all “claims” against Lot
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”
a. No “resolution” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their Lot 15A;
b. No “law” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their Lot 15A;
d. Plaintiffs were the indisputable record owners, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa;
f. Plaintiffs’ said record ownership was capable of accurate and ready determination;
g. Plaintiffs’ said record title, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate & ready determination;
22
PERVERSION OF RULE 69 FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING
(a) In General.
(1) Money Judgment; Applicable Procedure.
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs
otherwise. The procedure on execution — and in proceedings supplementary to and
in aid of judgment or execution — must accord with the procedure of the state where
the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.
(2) Obtaining Discovery.
In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or a successor in interest
whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any person — including
the judgment debtor — as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state
where the court is located.
a. The paid $24.30 money judgment and final mandate, Doc. # 365, Case 2:2007-cv-
b. The facially fraudulent procedure on the falsified execution did not “accord with the
c. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction in June 2009;
e. Defendant Jack N. Peterson, Esq., perjured himself; see facially fraudulent “Affidavit”;
f. No genuine July 2009 judgment could have possibly existed in said Case;
g. The fictitious “July 29, judgment” could not be found in the public records.
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
23
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,
(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.
(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.
24
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
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
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
25
*26 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2008). As the Florida Supreme Court recently held: “A motion to
e.g., Defendant objectively partial Judges Moody, Steele, Chappell, Wilson, and Honeywell
are citing 28 U.S.C. § 455, § 38.10 and Rule 2.330, as well as Canon 3E(1).
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
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
26
speedy trial because of Def. Moody’s publicly recorded lies, corruption, bribery,
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
statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to” a particular party,
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.,
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.
27
Canon 3E(1)(f), which the Florida Supreme Court adopted in January 2006, covers areas in
Code of Judicial Conduct, 918 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2006). In addition to the Florida Supreme
Court, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (Ethics Committee) and the Judicial
Qualifications Commission (JQC) have roles in administering the Code. The Florida
Supreme Court established the Ethics Committee “to render written advisory opinions to
inquiring judges concerning the propriety of contemplated judicial and non-judicial conduct.”
Petition of Comm. on Standards of Conduct for Judges, 327 So. 2d 5, 5 (Fla. 1976). Here,
Def. Judge Moody’s fabrications and perversions of the law were reckless and for criminal
purposes. Canon 3E is enforced by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which has the
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
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 partial and bribed
Judge James S. Moody, Jr., who fraudulently concealed said fabrications of, e.g.:
a. Fake “judgment”;
b. Fake “lien”;
28
c. Fake “writ of execution”;
e. Fake park.
a. No “July 2009 judgment”, because the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction in June 2009;
b. No “judgment”, whatsoever, because the 11th Circuit had closed the Case in June 2009;
c. No “judgment”, because “frivolity” had never been any issue until the Case was closed;
d. No “lien”, because a non-existent judgment could not have matured into a “lien”;
e. No “lien”, because the lienholder's address did not appear on the forged judgment.
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
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
29
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
95. Prescott, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., 343 Fed. Appx. 395, 396-97 (11th Cir. Apr. 21,
“I. BACKGROUND
A. Current Action
The Appellants are owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision in Lee
County, Florida.”
“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.”
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
deprivations, and bribery. See Lee County Tax Collector’s public records, riparian Lot
97. 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
30
BRIBERY & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
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
extortion, due process and equal protection violations, 1st, 14th, 4th, 7th U.S.
Constitutional Amendments.
99. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judges Moody and Honeywell fraudulently concealed and
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;
31
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.
100. An appeal becomes final on the date the mandate is issued. Here, the judgment entered
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
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 (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
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
32
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
104. Issuance of the $24.30 mandate on June 11, 2009, and the District Court’s receipt and
mandate could NOT possibly “simply” "issue", because it should have been issued, or
because the panel may have intended it to issue, or because the statute commands it to issue.
105. 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.
106. 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 …”
107. Wilkinson coerced Plaintiff Appellant to refrain from rightful prosecution for prima facie
108. 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.
33
109. 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.
110. 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
111. 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.
112. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse was never served and could not have possibly been served [with]
any “writ of execution”. No evidence of any service existed on the record. Doc. ## 425, 429,
430, 2:2007-cv-00228, were facially fraudulent and for criminal and illegal purposes of,
property seizure in brazen violation of, e.g., the 4th, and 14th U.S. Constitutional
113. 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
34
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.
FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL execution, CH. 56, 55, U.S. CONST. AMENDMENTS
114. Here Dr. Jorg Busse had demanded, has been demanding, and again demands the
facie fictitious, un-documented, un-substantiated, un-recorded and null and void debt in
the facially falsified amount of “$24.30”. Here. Dr. Busse had fully paid the $24.30 final
money judgment and 06/11/2009 mandate (“copies”). Here, the Defendants and Wilkinson
knew that the 11th Circuit never had any jurisdiction and authority to alter and amend the
“$24.30 mandate/judgment” and to sanction and punish the Plaintiff corruption victim Dr.
115. In this organized crime scheme, Defendant Beverly Martin had suspended, and
conspired with, e.g., judicial Def. Steele, Chappell, Lazzara, Pizzo, Honeywell, and other
Defendants and Officials to suspend, the Rules and extended anarchy and lawlessness to
35
obtain unlawful benefits. Here, Def. Crooked Judge Martin recklessly violated Section
“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 judicial
officers accepted bribes to deprive them of this alleged property interest. However,
these statements are merely conclusory, and Plaintiffs provide no factual basis to
support 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.
117. Upon receipt of 443 pages on 08/03/2010, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, the Clerk of this Court
118. Here pursuant to the Docket, 2:2007-cv-00228, Defendant Clerk Drew Heathcoat:
c. Fraudulently concealed the lack of any recorded money judgment and mandate other
d. Refused to accept the appeal fee in the amount of $455.00 while wrongfully alleging
e. Refused to just file the original 443 pages but fabricated 90 additional pages (533 p.);
36
119. In Case, 2:2009-cv-00791, hundreds of pages of Plaintiffs Complaint, Doc. # 1, had
“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 the
instant Complaint. The Court has confirmed, through inquiry of the Clerk of the
Southern District of Florida, that Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed without pages 101 -
178 and without any exhibits.”
120. Here, this Court exhibited its pattern and policy of crimes & corruption; see, e.g.:
c. Falsifying judgments;
d. Falsifying mandates;
h. Falsifying an idiotic and incomprehensible “public land claim” of Lot 15A in the
k. “Striking” and removing official documents and records, because they conclusively
crime.
37
121. Art. I, s. 10, Fla. Const., states that "No . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed."
122. Art. I, s. 2, Fla. Const. states that "[a]ll natural persons are equal before the law . . . ."
123. Article I, s. 9, Fla. Const., states that "[n]o person shall be deprived of . . . property
124. Here on the public record, Def. Crooked Judge James S. Moody accepted bribes and
acted like a bungling corrupt Government idiot, who could not even present and hold an
elementary legal argument. In particular, and as publicly recorded, Def. Moody was
objectively incapable of spotting the issue [I], applying relevant and material rules [R],
125. Any reasonable average law student could readily determine the prima facie idiocy and
perversion of Doc. # 22. Here in particular, no fit, intelligent, and honest judge or person in
Judge Moody’s shoes could have possibly explained and justified WHY, and HOW the cited
a. Davis v. Kvalheim;
b. Baffford v. Township.
Here, said facially deceptive and fraudulent authorities served as weapons of mass
deception.
126. Here within three (3) pages, Doc. # 22, Defendant insane Judge Moody could not even
maintain the spelling of Dr. Jorg Busse’s name. Any reasonable person could readily detect
38
the fear of being victimized, raped, and injured by criminal means of corruption and
Government crimes at the hands of idiotic judicial bully James S. Moody, Jr.
2. An Order taking judicial notice of CH. 712; 95; 73, 74; 55; §§ 695.26, 695.09, 689.01,
a. Art. I, s. 10, Fla. Const., stating that "No . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed.";
b. Art. I, s. 2, Fla. Const. stating that "[a]ll natural persons are equal before the law. . .";
c. Article I, s. 9, Fla. Const., stating that "[n]o person shall be deprived of . . . property
See fake “lien”, fake “writ”; fake “land parcels”; fake “resolution/law”; fake “judgment”.
4. An Order declaring the facially fraudulent “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, violative of
5. An Order declaring the lack of any genuine authentic foreign (out-of-Florida) judgment;
6. An Order declaring the falsified “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, 2:07-cv-228, null and void;
7. An Order recusing and disqualifying Defendant Crooked and objectively partial Judge
organized crime, racketeering, corruption, bribery, retaliation against the Plaintiffs, and
extortion of said money and Lot 15A in violation of Florida and Federal law;
39
9. An Order vacating and/or setting aside the prima facie unconstitutional and null and void
“pre-filing injunction”, Doc. # 245, which was for criminal and illegal purposes of, e.g.,
cover-up, concealment, and conspiracy to extort said money and land, Lot 15A;
10. An Order recusing Def. Crooked S. Polster Chappell, because she conspired to conceal
11. An Order vacating and/or setting aside any and all orders by Defendants Sheri Polster
Chappell and Charlene Edwards Honeywell, because they were procured through fraud,
and falsification and destruction of official records, documents, and conclusive evidence;
12. An Order declaring that Defendant K. M. Wilkinson did NOT “have any lien”;
13. An Order declaring that Defendant Wilkinson did NOT “hold any $5,048.60 judgment” as
falsely pretended and falsified by said Defendant Wilkinson and Defendant Crooked
asserting a fake “July 29, 2009 judgment” in the Collier and Lee County Public Records;
proceedings on any illegal and criminal execution in violation of, e.g., Chapters 55 and 56,
Fla. Stat., and the 4th, 14th, 1st, and 7th U.S. Const. Amendments, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 – 1968;
15. An Order sanctioning Defendant Attorney JACK N. PETERSON for recorded perjury and
conspiring with Def. Wilkinson and other Government Officials to extort, racketeer,
retaliate, and deliberately deprive Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott;
16. An Order declaring the final record mandate in the amount of $24.30 paid;
17. An Order vacating and setting aside the facially oppressive and unconstitutional “pre-filing
injunction”, Doc. # 245, Case No. 2:2009-cv-00791, which on its face was for criminal and
40
illegal purposes of racketeering, retaliation, intimidation, oppression, and “protection” of
the organized Criminals and criminal Defendants in this Court and the 11th Circuit;
18. An Order restraining and preventing the record violations of section 1962 under the RICO
civil provisions;
19. An Order declaring the lack of any recorded mandate and/or money judgment other than the
$24.30, which was “issued as mandate on June 11, 2009” and recorded on June 15, 2009
pursuant to the certified Docket, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, U.S. District Court, M.D.
20. An Order declaring that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction
on 06/11/2009, as had also been evidenced by its own Case Docket, 08-13170-BB];
21. An Order sanctioning and punishing Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson for the publicly
recorded falsifications of, e.g., said fake “judgment”, “land parcels”, fake “resolution”,
22. An Order declaring INSTRUMENT 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public
Records, and the equally fraudulent filing in Lee County part of a racketeering, extortion,
23. An Order restraining any further racketeering by Defendant Government Officials and in
particular the illegal forced selling of Plaintiffs’ said riparian Cayo Costa property, Lot 15A,
24. An Order dissolving and/or reorganizing the corrupt Government enterprise under, e.g., civil
41
25. An Order removing the publicly recorded corrupting influence and make due provision for
said express fundamental rights of innocent persons under the Florida and Federal
Constitutions and, e.g., the 14th, 1st, 7th, 4th, 5th, and 11th U.S. Constitutional Amendments;
26. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked, Objectively Partial, and Unfit
27. An Order making the Government enterprise of record subject of injunctive relief, because it
is designed to aid the illegal enterprise of, e.g., obstructing justice, retaliating and
28. An Order enjoining said U.S. Courts from retaliating against the Plaintiffs because they
blew the whistle on Government crimes & corruption, rather than punishing the Defendant
Racketeers of record and providing remedies and relief to the Plaintiff racketeering and
corruption victims;
29. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Crooked and Objectively Partial and Unfit
Judge C. E. Honeywell;
30. An EMERGENCY Order recusing Defendant Corrupt and Objectively Partial and Unfit
32. An Order declaring Plaintiffs’ record title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, free & clear and
unencumbered;
00001.0000” falsified and prima facie forgeries as conclusively evidenced by the 1912
42
34. An Order for EMERGENCY relief from the publicly recorded public corruption, extortion,
37. An Order for triple punitive damages under, e.g., Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 1964(c);
39. An Order enjoining any and all Governments and the Defendants and Officials from any
trespass onto the private undedicated “Cayo Costa” “Subdivision” as legally described in
40. An Order declaring the prima facie forgeries of non-existent “land parcels” “12-44-20-01-
41. An Order permanently enjoining any and all entries and publications of any “resolution
569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “legislative act 569/875”, and non-existent “land parcels” “12-
42. An Order permanently enjoining any and all Governments and Defendants from fraudulently
“claiming” “asserting” “publishing” Government ownership of the street lands along the
Gulf of Mexico as legally described and conveyed in reference to the Plat of the prima facie
43. An Order enjoining and restraining any extortion of property and money and foreclosure
fraud by Defendants Eugene C. Turner, Richard D. DeBoest, II, Chene M. Thompson, and
Hugh D. Hayes.
43
___________________________
/s/Jorg Busse, M.D., M.M., M.B.A.
Private Attorney General; Plaintiff public corruption & racketeering victim
10 Benning ST # 135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.
c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
_____________________
[/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott]
Private Attorney General; Plaintiff Government racketeering & corruption victim
10 Benning Street # 135
West Lebanon, NH 03784-3402, U.S.A.
c/o International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague, Netherlands
44
EXHIBITS
WILKINSON] INSTR 4371834, O.R. 4517 PG 1914, Collier County Public Records
B. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:07-cv-00228
C. PRIMA FACIE NULL & VOID “O.R. 569/875” AND LAND EXTORTION SCHEME
CERTIFIED docket at B., which evidenced the lack of any such “appeal” and the
“DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS”
J. Third Amended Complaint, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 288, 282 (11 pages),
PRIMA FACIE NULL AND VOID “legislative act” and/or “law”, Fake “O.R. 569/875”,
ETHICS COMPLAINT against Def. Crooked Lee County Official JACK N. PETERSON
Attached as Page 10 of 11
45
K. PRIMA FACIE FRAUDULENT and FRIVOLOUS motion by Defendant Racketeer and
Sanctions for Filing of a frivolous Motion”, “Rule 27-4”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. #
JUDICIAL RETALIATION, and EXTORTION under color of fake “judgment” & “writ”,
M. Lee County, FL, INSTRUMENT # 2010000171344, WARRANTY DEED Lot 15A, “Cayo
judgment, Doc. # 386, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. Racketeer Jack N. Peterson;
O. Lee County Tax Collector’s Office, Statement of Paid Property Taxes, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa
(2 pages)
By Defendant Racketeers Dubina, Chief Judge, Tjoflat, and Birch, Circuit Judges
Facially forged and pasted “certification”, Doc. # 386-5, p. 2, right lower corner
46
Q. MEMORANDUM OF NO DEDICATION OF THE CAYO COSTA ROADS TO PUBLIC,
From The Office of Lee County, Florida, Attorney, Dec. 29, 2000, Joan C. Henry, Esq.
R. 1912 Plat of undedicated private “Cayo Costa” Subdivision in Lee County Plat Book 3, P. 25
S. Recorded Survey of riparian Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, PB 3 PG 25 (1912) on the Gulf of Mexico
O.R. 1651 / 2488, O.R. 2967 / 1084 – 1090, BLUE SHEET 980206, 03/24/1998(6 pages)
V. Falsified “resolution”, “legislative act”, and/or “law” by Def. Racketeer John Edwin Steele,
X. Bill of Costs Issued as Mandate June 11 2009, in the amount of $24.30, FRAP 39 (1 p)
Y. Fraudulent “Conclusion” and Case Fixing by Defendant U.S. Circuit Judges, Doc. # 365,
REMOVED to U.S. District Court by Def. Judges John E. Steele and S. Polster Chappell
AA. EXTORTION & PUBLIC CORRUPTION NOTICE to Def. Drew Heathcoat, U.S.
Clerk (2 pages)
Circuit
DD. DESTRUCTION of Docket No. 201010963, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
47
EE.CASE FIXING, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND RETALIATION by Def. Judges
Def. JOHN LEY, U.S. Circuit Clerk, 11th U.S. Appellate Circuit (2 pages)
GG. Motion to Stay Prima Facie Illegal Execution as a Matter of Law, Case No. 2:10-cv-
00390 (5 pages)
II. Case No. 2:2010-cv-00089, Doc. # 29, pp. 4, 7, Def. U.S. Attorney, Tony West, Matthew
JJ. FACIALLY FALSIFIED “writ of execution”, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 425
Interrogatories” under oath, 10/22/2007; in particular, asserting under oath the RECORD
MM. Florida 19th Statewide Grand Jury on Public Corruption (09/30/2009 Petition),
NN. FALSIFIED “Plat” of “Cayo Costa Subdivision” as falsified and filed by Defendant
OO. Publicly recorded Case Fixing and Obstruction of Justice by Defendant Judges Gerald
B. Tjoflat, Susan Birch, and Joel F. Dubina, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit,
48
PP. Fraudulent Order, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, Doc. # 422, pp. 17-18, by Defendant
access, and retaliation under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., “writ of execution”, “lack of
and office.
QQ. FBI Complaint against Def. Lee County Commissioner John Manning
RR. Concealment of fake writ, Doc. # 434, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. J. E.
Steele
SS. FBI Complaint against Def. U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin,
VV. Facially Fraudulent Order, Doc. # 338, Case 2:2007-cv-00228, by Def. John E.
Steele
WW. March 08, 2010 Letter by Def. John Ley, U.S. Circuit Clerk
YY. FRAUDULENT 04/06/2010 Order by Def. Crooked Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin
ZZ. Supreme Court Justice David Souter Communications, including binding precedent of
49
STATE OF FLORIDA
50
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT; DUTIES OF CLERK OF COURT, § 55.141, F.S.
(1) All judgments and decrees for the payment of money rendered in the courts of this state of
Florida and which have become final, may be satisfied at any time prior to the actual levy
of the purported fraudulent execution issued thereon by payment of the full amount of such
judgment or decree, with interest thereon, plus the costs of the issuance, if any, of
execution thereon into the registry of the court where rendered.
(2) Upon such payment, the clerk shall execute and record in the official records a satisfaction
of judgment upon payment of the recording charge prescribed in s. 28.24(12). Upon
payment of the amount required in subsection (1) and the recording charge required by this
subsection and execution and recordation of the satisfaction by the clerk, any lien created
by the judgment is satisfied and discharged. In this Case, there was no lien.
(3) The satisfaction of judgment is to be executed by the clerk.
(5) Upon application of the judgment holder, the clerk shall pay over to the judgment holder the
full amount of the payment received, less the clerk’s fees for issuing execution on such
judgment, if any has been issued.
51
CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Real Property Probate and Trust Lawyer Section, The Florida Bar
52
Case 2:10-cv-00390-JSM-AEP Document 22 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 3
Plaintiffs,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court, sua sponte. Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro
se, have a persistent history of filing baseless, incomprehensible, and repetitive pleadings
which have impacted the resources of numerous courts within the Middle District of Florida.
This appears to be the eleventh action brought by Plaintiff Dr. Jorge Busse and the tenth
action brought by Plaintiff Jennifer Franklin Prescott. 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
For approximately four years, Plaintiffs have showered courts in the Middle District
of Florida with hundreds, if not thousands, of filings, and have ignored repeated court orders
Case 2:10-cv-00390-JSM-AEP Document 22 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 3
dismissing their lawsuits as frivolous and vexatious. Plaintiff Busse was sanctioned $5,000
but refused to pay. The Eleventh Circuit has imposed a prefiling injunction to screen out the
Plaintiffs’ frivolous filings, but still they file appeals, up to 20 in one case alone. Indeed, on
July 20, 2010, in case 2:09-cv-00791 at Dkt. 245, the Honorable Charlene Edwards
Honeywell, entered a pre-filing injunction against Plaintiffs in light of their vexatious and
abusive behavior. That order describes in detail the history of Plaintiffs’ abusive behavior
against various judicial officers, state officers, and other entities and individuals.
Plaintiffs’ latest complaint in this case is not so much a claim for relief as it is a free-
the Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell and the Honorable John Edwin Steele,
District courts have inherent power to dismiss frivolous lawsuits with prejudice,
without prior notice to the parties. Davis v. Kvalheim, 2008 WL 67676, *3 (11th Cir. Jan.
8, 2008). The instant complaint is patently frivolous, baseless, vexatious, and harassing and
sua sponte dismissal with prejudice is therefore warranted, especially in light of the
numerous sanctions already imposed against Plaintiffs based on their prior lawsuits.
2. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case and terminate any pending motions
-2-
Case 2:10-cv-00390-JSM-AEP Document 22 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 3
incomprehensible pleadings, the CLERK is directed not to accept for filing any future
pleading submitted by Plaintiffs in this case, except for a notice of appeal from this Order.
See Baffford v. Township Apartments Assoc., Ltd., 2008 WL 1817333, *4 (M.D. Fla. 2008)
(directing clerk not to accept any additional filings except a notice of appeal after sua sponte
dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as patently frivolous, harassing, and
vexatious).
-3-
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JORG BUSSE
STATE OF FLORIDA
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to administer oaths and take
acknowledgments, personally appeared Dr. Jorg Busse, and who, after first being duly sworn,
deposes and says upon oath the foregoing and/or attached Notice of Appeal, lis pendens, and
Complaint in U.S. District Court, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al. v. UNITED
__________________________
Expiration of Commission:
__________________
/s/Notary Public
56
AFFIDAVIT OF JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
STATE OF FLORIDA
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority authorized to administer oaths and take
acknowledgments, personally appeared Jennifer Franklin Prescott, and who, after first being duly
sworn, deposes and says upon oath the foregoing, 56 pages, and/or attached Notice of Appeal, lis
pendens, and Complaint in U.S. District Court, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel. et al.
__________________________
Expiration of Commission:
__________________
/s/Notary Public
57