STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF FACIALLY FORGED foreign judgment

1. § 55.509, Florida Statutes, Stay of enforcement of foreign judgment, provides:

“(1) If, within 30 days after the date the foreign judgment is recorded, the judgment
debtor files an action contesting the jurisdiction of the court which entered the
foreign judgment or the validity of the foreign judgment and records a lis pendens
directed toward the foreign judgment, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign
judgment and the judgment lien upon the filing of the action by the judgment debtor.

(2) If the judgment debtor shows the circuit or county court any ground upon
which enforcement of a judgment of any circuit or county court of this state would be
stayed, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate
period, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which is
required in this state.”

Here, Defendant “land parcel” Forger and Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee County
Appraiser’s Office, had fraudulently pretended
a. a falsified foreign or out-of-Florida “July 29, 2009 judgment”, Doc. ## 386, 432;
b. unauthorized recordation of a fake “July judgment” in Lee County Circuit Court;
c. a falsified “writ of execution” illegally issued by the Clerk of U.S. District Court.
2. Here, the U.S. District Court, Middle Division of Florida:
a. had no jurisdiction;
b. had no authority to enforce the fake foreign judgment;
c. had no authority to issue the falsified writ of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:07-cv-00228.

Here, the Defendant Clerk of U.S. District Court had no authority to enforce the facially
forged and falsified out-of-Florida judgment and/or “July 29, 2009 judgment”. Here, said
U.S. Clerk could not have possibly enforced the fake out-of-Florida foreign judgment
“recorded” by the Clerk of Florida or Lee County Circuit Court.

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

3. § 55.507, F.S., Lien; when effective, states:

“A foreign judgment does not operate as a lien until 30 days after the mailing of
notice by the clerk…”

Here, the Clerk had never “mailed” any “notice” of the facially forged judgment, and the
fake foreign judgment could not have possibly “operated as a lien”.

PUBLICLY RECORDED FRAUD ON THE COURTS

4. Here, Defendant [Appellee] Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson was
a. No judgment holder;
b. No judgment creditor;
c. Not entitled to enforce anything;
 d. Not entitled to enforce a fake foreign judgment “recorded” in State Court by
unauthorized means of Doc. # 425, U.S. Case 2:2007-cv-00228;

Here, Plaintiff(s) had contested the “validity of the [facially forged] foreign judgment” and
filed an action directed toward the prima facie fraudulent foreign judgment. Here, the Court
shall stay enforcement of the fake foreign judgment and the facially forged judgment lien,
§ 55.509, Florida Statutes.

RECORD RECUSALS OF FOUR (4) JUDGES

5. On 07/27/2010, the Case was reassigned to Defendant Crooked Judge James S. Moody, Jr.,
after the
a. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge John E. Steele (07/22/2010);
b. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Charlene E. Honeywell (06/22/2010);
c. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Sheri Polster Chappell (06/30/2010);
d. Recusal of Judge Douglas N. Frazier (06/28/2010).

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

6. 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:

7. Here within hours, Defendant Moody fixed and conspired to fix Plaintiff record public
corruption victims’ Case and fraudulently and falsely pretended to have reviewed
a. “four years” of “proceedings”;
b. “eleven actions”;
c. “hundreds, if not thousands, of filings”;
d. “appeals, up to 20 in one case alone”;
e. falsified “adoption” of a fake “1969” “resolution”.

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

2
8. Here, no fit, honest, intelligent, and reasonable judge or person in Defendant Moody’s shoes
could have possibly reviewed said alleged hundreds/thousands of “filings”, “eleven actions”
… and Plaintiffs’ highly meritorious and conclusively proven allegations within hours.
PRIMA FACIE ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND MALICIOUS JUDICIAL TRASH
9. Here another bungling Government idiot, Def. Judge Moody, copied and pasted
“repetitive” and “incomprehensible” judicial trash, Doc. # 22, which on its very face was,
e.g.:
a. “patently frivolous”; “baseless”;
b. absurd; idiotic; “abusive”;
c. irrational; unintelligent;
d. corrupted and “vexatious”;
e. arbitrary, capricious, and malicious;
f. premeditated and reckless.

Here, Crook Moody “impacted the resources” of the Court(s) and further tarnished its
publicly recorded reputation of organized crime and corruption, 28 U.S.C. § 455.

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

10. 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”.
11. 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”.
12. If [hypothetically] there had been involuntary alienation of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A against
Plaintiffs’ will in a court of law, and a record judgment, as a matter of law there could not
have possibly been:
a. any forced sale of purportedly involuntarily alienated Lot 15A;
b. any genuine “writ of execution”;
c. any lis pendens;
d. any execution.

PATTERN & POLICY OF ORGANIZED CRIME & CORRUPTION ON RECORD

13. Here in action after action, organized Criminal Judge after Judge, extended the publicly
recorded premeditated pattern and policy of, e.g., fraud, corruption, extortion, fraud on the
Court, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540.

3
 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FACIALLY FRAUDULENT “order”, DOC. # 22,
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME & CORRUPTION, RACKETEERING,
RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FRAUD, DEPRIVATIONS

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

CH. 712; 95; 73, 74; 55; §§ 695.26, 695.09, 689.01, 55.10, 55.509, FLORIDA STATUTES,
FLORIDA ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FRAUDULENT “order” [DOC. # 22] & RACKETEERING

14. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of and holders of indisputable
unencumbered title to Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, hereby
appeal from the publicly recorded prima facie Government racketeering and extortion of
“$5,048.60” and/or “$5,000.00” and their accreted riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A [by criminal
means of Doc. # 22] as perfectly conveyed and legally described, Plaintiffs’ publicly
recorded WARRANTY DEED, INSTR 4450927, Collier County Public Records, INSTR
2010000171344, Lee County Public Records, 2 pages:

“… Lot 15A, private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, as recorded

and legally described in Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912), Public Records of Lee County,
Florida, U.S.A.

Property I.D./S.T.R.A.P.: 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

[“A” for “Accreted”; see PB 1, PP. 48, 51, 52]

TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments, appurtenances, publicly

recorded natural accretions and riparian rights thereto belonging or in anywise
appertaining.

GRANTORS further warrant the within described riparian accreted Gulf-front

property is not presently homestead property and that the Grantors’ legal address is:
Post Office Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever.

AND the Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantees that the Grantors are lawfully
seized of said riparian upland and adjoining riparian street land on the Gulf of
Mexico in fee simple; that the Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell
and convey said riparian Gulf-front upland and street land on said Gulf as legally
described in reference to said private 1912 Subdivision Plat; that the Grantors
hereby fully warrant the unimpeachable record title to said riparian accreted street and
up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico and pursuant to the Lee County, State of Florida, and
Federal Public Records have defended and will defend their marketable record title
against the lawful and unlawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and in particular,
against the prima facie unlawful and criminal claims of Lee County, the State of

4
 Florida, and the United States of America, and their corrupt Agents, Officials of
record, and the Defendants in their private individual capacities of record such as,
e.g., Joel F. Dubina, Charlene E. Honeywell, Sheri Polster Chappell, Gerald B.
Tjoflat, John E. Steele, Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Tony West; and that said accreted
riparian street and up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico are free of any legitimate and valid
encumbrances and/or judgments, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,
2010; zoning, building code and other restrictions legitimately imposed by lawful
governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas, mineral, and or any other interests of
record, if any; and private riparian water-front easements of record, restrictions, if
any, and unimpeachable private implied street and alley easements of record as
conveyed in reference to said 1912 Plat.”

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

15. 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.
16. 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.
DEF. MOODY’S RECORD “TIRADE” AGAINST PUBLIC CORRUPTION VICTIMS
17. This corrupt Court’s latest “order”, Doc. # 22, “in this case is not so much” an order “as it is
a free-flowing, stream-of-consciousness tirade against” Plaintiff whistle-blowers and
victims of Government corruption and racketeering under fraudulent pretenses of the
publicly recorded “involuntary-alienation-by-fake-legislative-act-extortion scheme”, “O.R.
569/875”.
PRIMA FACIE INCOMPREHENSIBILITY OF IDIOTIC “order” and “claim”, DOC. # 22
18. The law did not recognize the facially incomprehensible and absurd “claim as public
land”, Doc. # 22. See Ch. 73, 74, EMINENT DOMAIN; 95, ADVERSE POSSESSION, 712,
FLORIDA’S MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT, Florida Statutes.
19. Here, the public perception of “judicial fraud and corruption” by Defendant Dishonorable
Officials Charlene Edwards Honeywell and Def. Dishonorable John Edwin Steele were the
inescapable and indisputable conclusions of any reasonable person in Defendant Moody’s
shoes.
20. Here, no reasonable and intelligent person in Def. Moody’s shoes could have possibly
determined that the fake “resolution/legislative act” and “$5,000 sanctions” Government
scams were not prima facie extortion and fraud schemes in violation of Florida Statutes,
Constitution, and law.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ PUBLICLY RECORDED PERFECTED TITLE
21. § 90.201 (1), Fla. Stat., states:

Matters which must be judicially noticed.

A court shall take judicial notice of:

5
 (1) Decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law and resolutions of the Florida
Legislature and the Congress of the United States.

Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, Florida’s
self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act. Here as a matter of law, Chapter 712, Florida
Statutes, governed supremely and superseded the facially falsified and forged
“resolution”, scam “O.R. 569/875”. Here, Defendants Lee County, FL, had no authority to
pervert Florida law.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OF involuntary alienation by “resolution”
22. Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapters 73, 74, EMINENT DOMAIN,
and 95, ADVERSE POSSESSION. Here as a matter of law, said Statutory Chapters governed
supremely and superseded the facially falsified and forged “adoption”-“resolution”-scam
“O.R. 569/875”. Here, the Government Defendants and Officials had no authority to pervert
Florida law.
EXPRESS FLORIDA STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS, CH. 73, 74, 95, FLA. STAT.
23. Here, Florida Statutes, law, and Constitution expressly prohibited any and all involuntary
alienation. See, e.g., Ch. 73, 74, EMINENT DOMAIN; Ch. 95, ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Any involuntary alienation would have strictly and necessarily been a judicial function.
Here, it was elementary that no “legislative act” could have possibly divested the Plaintiffs
of their Lot 15A against their will. Here, the public record, Doc. # 22, established Defendant
Moody as a bungling Government idiot and crook, who disrespected and perverted the law
for criminal and illegal purposes of cover-up and fraudulent concealment.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 55, § 55.10, F.S., FLORIDA FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT
24. Here in violation of § 55.10, Florida Statutes, there were
a. No Florida judgment;
b. No U.S. District Court judgment;
c. No “July 29 judgment”;
d. No domesticated judgment;
e. No “simultaneous” valid affidavit, § 55.10, F.S.;
f. No curative affidavit.
Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter 55, § 55.10, Florida Statutes,
and Florida’s Foreign Judgment Act.

PRIMA FACIE RECORD FALSIFICATION & FORGERY OF FAKE “judgment”

25. 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.
26. [Hypothetically,] had there been any foreign judgment, the judgment holder would have
been required to present a certified copy of the judgment, execute an affidavit concerning
the identity of the judgment holder and judgment debtor and pay the filing fee charged by the
court wherein the judgment is filed.
27. Here, the clerk of court never served the purported judgment debtor, Dr. Jorg Busse, with any
notice. Here, no lien had ever legally existed.
CONTESTED “lien”, “writ of execution” FRAUD, EXTORTION, RACKETEERING
28. Here, Dr. Busse had contested, e.g., the fake “lien”, fake “writ of execution”, fraud, fraud
on the Courts, extortion, and racketeering.

6
29. Here, nothing could have possibly become a “lien” on any real property of Dr. Jorg Busse.
30. 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”
31. 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.
32. § 695.09, F.S., Identity of grantor, states:
“No acknowledgment or proof shall be taken, except as set forth in s. 695.03(3), by
any officer within or without the United States unless the officer knows, or has
satisfactory proof, that the person making the acknowledgment is the individual
described in, and who executed, such instrument or that the person offering to make
proof is one of the subscribing witnesses to such instrument.”

PUBLICLY RECORDED RACKETEERING & EXTORTION SCHEMES

33. 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
34. § 689.01, How Real Estate Conveyed, Florida Statutes, provides:
“No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertain
interest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall be
created, made, granted, transferred or released in any other manner than by
instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the
party creating, making, granting, conveying, transferring or releasing such estate,
interest, or term of more than 1 year, or by the party’s lawfully authorized agent,
unless by will and testament, or other testamentary appointment, duly made according
to law …”
35. 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

7
36. 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”

37. § 90.202 (12), Fla. Stat., states:

“Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and
ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”

ACCURATE & READY DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD OWNERSHIP

38. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded title to and ownership of accreted riparian Lot 15A,
Cayo Costa Subdivision, as legally described in reference to the 1912 Plat of Survey in Lee
County Plat Book 3, Page 25 was
a. Indisputable; Ch. 712, F.S.;
b. Unimpeachable;
c. Unencumbered;
d. Perfected;
e. Marketable;
f. Exclusive;
g. Protected under express Florida Constitutional Guarantees;
h. Protected by the fundamental right to own property;
i. Protected by the fundamental right to exclude government from one’s property.
See Florida’s self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act; Ch. 712, Florida Statutes. See
Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, on file.
PUBLICLY RECORDED ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME AND CORRUPTION
39. Defendant U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., is part of a Government crime and corruption
organization in Florida, U.S.A. “For approximately four years”, the publicly recorded
policy and pattern have been cover-up, fraudulent concealment, obstruction of justice,
racketeering, fraud, fraud on the Court, and extortion of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, and
money.
GOVERNMENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT, FLA.R.CIV.P. 1.540
40. “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;

8
41. Here, absolute power produced absolute judicial & Government corruption and the
publicly recorded perpetration of fraud upon the Courts.
42. 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
43. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., conspired with other Officials,
Defendants, and Government gang members to racketeer, retaliate, obstruct justice, and
extort money and Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, from the Plaintiff indisputable record land owners.
DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD TITLE

“At the heart of each case, Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of Lot 15A in the
Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida. Plaintiffs attempt to challenge a
resolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County,
Florida, where Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land.”

See Doc. # 22, p. 1.

Here, Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., knew, fraudulently concealed,
and conspired with other Officials and Criminals to conceal that
a. The Plaintiffs had conclusively proven and alleged that they are the record owners of
Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida;
b. The public record had conclusively evidenced that indisputably, the Plaintiffs are the
unimpeachable record owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee
County, Florida;
c. Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, was never “claimed as public land”;
d. Lot 15A could not have possibly been “claimed as public land” under any law;
e. The prima facie fake “claim as public land” was incomprehensible and unrecognized;
f. The Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their perfected record title and prosecute;
g. Plaintiffs were entitled to redress their well-proven recorded Government grievances;
h. The facially forged colorless “claim” lacked any authentic legal description;
i. The colorless facially forged “claim” lacked any legislative signature and name(s).

DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED NULLITY OF SHAM “claim”

44. 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.
45. Here, the Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title had paid property taxes, Lot 15A, since
1912 and since the date of the publicly recorded Federal Land Patent root title. See Lee
County Grantor/Grantee Property Index.
46. Here more than thirty (30) years had passed since the recordation of the Cayo Costa U.S.
Land Patent root title, the statute of limitations had expired, and any and all claims had been
barred and extinguished., Ch. 712, Florida Statutes.
47. Here, Defendant Crook and Racketeer J. S. Moody extended the Government pattern and
policy of, e.g., public corruption, racketeering, retaliation, extortion, fraud on the Courts,
and deliberate deprivations under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., a legally and factually
impossible and falsified “claim”, “resolution 569/875”, “legislative act”, “sanctions”,

9
 “judgment” in the record absence of any authority and jurisdiction. Here, Defendant Crook
Moody had no authority to break Florida law on the record and perpetrate Government
crimes under color of office.
DECEPTION, TRICKERY, FRAUD; LACK OF RECORD OF ANY “claim”
48. § 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
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.
49. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judge Moody knew, concealed, and conspired to fraudulently
conceal that
a. No “claim” had ever legally existed;
b. No “claim” had ever been legally recorded;
c. No “claim” could have possibly ever legally existed;
d. Any and all “claims” had been extinguished and barred, Ch. 712, 95, Fla. Stat.

DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED EXTORTION, RACKETEERING

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

10
 “Plaintiff Busse was sanctioned $5,000 but refused to pay.”
Here, Defendant Racketeer Moody knew and fraudulently concealed that Defendant
Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never incurred actual and necessary attorney’s fees in the
facially falsified amount of “$5,000”. In June 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit had lost “jurisdiction”. Here, Def. Moody conspired with Def. Wilkinson and other
Officials to falsify a fake “July 29 judgment” and alter the official records.
51. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the final money judgment in the amount of “$24.30” for
“copies” issued as mandate in June 2009, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.
52. Here just like a bungling Government crook and idiot, Defendant Moody covered up,
concealed the truth, and obstructed justice for publicly recorded criminal purposes of
extortion and racketeering.
53. Here, Def. Moody knew that frivolity had never been any issue, whatsoever, as publicly
recorded and conclusively evidenced by the Opinion, Judgment, and Mandate in said Case.

COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

54. § 90.203, Florida Statutes, COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, provides:

“A court shall take judicial notice of any matter in § 90.202 when a party requests it..”

Here for years, the Plaintiff exclusive indisputable record owners of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa,
PB 3, PG 25 (1912) had requested the Federal Courts to take judicial notice of the matter
and issue of their record unencumbered and perfected ownership and title, 12-44-20-01-
00015.015A.
DEFENDANT CROOKED JUDGE MOODY’S SHAM “order”, DOC. # 22
55. Here on its face, Defendant Crooked Judge Moody’s sham “order”, Doc. # 22, was
a. Controverted by Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded indisputable title to Lot 15A;
b. Controverted by Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded property tax payments;
c. Facially incomprehensible and baseless;
d. Arbitrary, capricious, and malicious;
e. Idiotic and irrational.

RECORD TAX PAYMENTS WERE CAPABLE OF ACCURATE DETERMINATION

56. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded satisfactory real property tax payments, Lot 15A, were
capable of accurate and ready determination and indisputable. Said indisputable record
tax payments had controverted any “claim”.
PLAINTIFFS’ RECORD DEED WAS CAPABLE OF READY DETERMINATION
57. Here, Plaintiffs’ publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate and
ready determination and indisputable.
58. Here as a matter of law, Plaintiffs’ record title and tax payments had conclusively
controverted:
a. Any and all barred “claims”, Ch. 712, Florida Statutes;
b. Sham “claim” “O.R. 569/875”;
c. Any and all absurd, unrecognized, and frivolous “claim(s) as public land”;
d. Any and all non-existent “title transfer” to Lee County, FL;
e. Any involuntary alienation; Chapters 73; 74, 95, Florida Statutes.

11
AS A MATTER OF LAW, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS HAD BEEN BARRED, CH. 712, F.S.
59. As a matter of law, Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., had extinguished any and all “claims” against Lot
15A, Cayo Costa.
60. 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.
61. Here, Lee County, FL, had never “claimed” anything, and no authentic record of any “claim”
had ever legally existed or had ever been legally recorded.
FALSIFIED “claim”, “O.R. 569/875” WAS LEGALLY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE
62. Here as a matter of law:
a. No “resolution” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their Lot 15A;
b. No “law” could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their Lot 15A;
c. Any involuntarily alienation would have necessarily been a judicial function;
d. Plaintiffs were the indisputable record owners, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa;
e. Plaintiffs were the unimpeachable title holders, Lot 15A;
f. Plaintiffs’ said record ownership was capable of accurate and ready determination;
g. Plaintiffs’ said record title, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate & ready determination;
h. Defendant Moody fabricated and conspired to falsify an incomprehensible “claim”.

PERVERSION OF RULE 69 FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING

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

(a) In General.
(1) Money Judgment; Applicable Procedure.
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs
otherwise. The procedure on execution — and in proceedings supplementary to and
in aid of judgment or execution — must accord with the procedure of the state where
the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.
(2) Obtaining Discovery.
In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or a successor in interest
whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any person — including
the judgment debtor — as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state
where the court is located.

64. Here, Def. Moody conspired to conceal that

a. The paid $24.30 money judgment and final mandate, Doc. # 365, Case 2:2007-cv-
00228 could not be “enforced by a writ of execution”;
b. The facially fraudulent procedure on the falsified execution did not “accord with the
procedure of the State”.
c. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction in June 2009;
d. Defendant Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson falsified and fraudulently
pretended a “July 29, judgment”;
e. Defendant Jack N. Peterson, Esq., perjured himself; see facially fraudulent “Affidavit”;
f. No genuine July 2009 judgment could have possibly existed in said Case;
g. The fictitious “July 29, judgment” could not be found in the public records.

12
65. Here, the prima facie criminality, illegality, and nullity of the fake “5,048.60 judgment”,
Doc. ## 386, 432, fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425, fake “legislative act”, fake
“resolution 569/875” were capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot be questioned.

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

1. 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.

2. Furthermore, RULE 1.432 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE states:

(a) Grounds. Any party may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the action on
the grounds provided by statute.
(b) Contents. A motion to disqualify shall allege the facts relied on to show the
grounds for disqualification and shall be verified by the party.
(c) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time after
discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.
(d) Determination. The judge against whom the motion is directed shall determine
only the legal sufficiency of the motion. The judge shall not pass on the truth of the
facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of
disqualification and proceed no further in the action.
(e) Judge's Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits a judge's authority to enter an order of
disqualification on the judge's own initiative.

Committee Note: The rule is intended to unify the procedure for disqualification.

RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES

3. Said Rule states:

(b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge
assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:

(1) be in writing;
(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the
grounds for disqualification;

13
 (3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate
affidavit;”

SECTION 38.10, FLA. STAT.

4. 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.

5. § 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.; 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 …

14
6. If the judge denies a motion to disqualify brought under § 38.10 the movant has the right to

appeal. Lynch v. State, ___ So. 2d ___, Nos. SC06-2233, SC07-1246, 2008 WL 4809783, at

*26 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2008). As the Florida Supreme Court recently held: “A motion to

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

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

Defendant objectively partial Judge Honeywell are citing 28 U.S.C. § 455, § 38.10 and Rule

2.330, as well as Canon 3E(1).

RECUSAL: MOODY’S ORGANIZED CRIMES & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

7. The Florida Supreme Court has also held, in effect, that § 38.10 and the Canons require the

same thing. See Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983). In Livingston the

court cited the Canon’s requirement that a judge disqualify himself when his “impartiality

might reasonably be questioned” and concluded that it was “totally consistent” with Florida

case law applying § 38.10. Id. Both require disqualification when a party can show “a well

grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge.” Id. (quoting State

ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 179 So. 695, 697-98 (Fla. 1938)); see also Berry v. Berry, 765 So.

2d 855, 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (quoting Canon 3E(1) when describing the standard for

granting a motion under § 38.10). Here of course, this Court was bound to follow Florida

appellate court decisions interpreting that state’s law. The final arbiter of state law is the

state Supreme Court, which is another way of saying that Florida law is what the Florida

Supreme Court says it is.

8. 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

15
 perpetrated fraud upon the Court(s), and the Plaintiffs could not possibly get a fair, just, and

speedy trial because of Def. Moody’s publicly recorded lies, corruption, bribery,

racketeering, partiality, and incompetence.

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

9. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a Code of Judicial Conduct to govern the actions

of state court judges and candidates for judicial office. Canon 3E(1) states, e.g.:

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances
where …

Those provisions address situations in which a judge must disqualify himself because his

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

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

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

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

10. Here in exchange for bribes, Def. Moody had made facially idiotic public statements that

committed Honeywell 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.

11. 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,

16
 supplemented by Rule 2.330, allows a party to have a judge disqualified for the same reason.

Canon 3E(1)(f), which the Florida Supreme Court adopted in January 2006, covers areas in

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

Code of Judicial Conduct, 918 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2006). In addition to the Florida Supreme

Court, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (Ethics Committee) and the Judicial

Qualifications Commission (JQC) have roles in administering the Code. The Florida

Supreme Court established the Ethics Committee “to render written advisory opinions to

inquiring judges concerning the propriety of contemplated judicial and non-judicial conduct.”

Petition of Comm. on Standards of Conduct for Judges, 327 So. 2d 5, 5 (Fla. 1976). Here,

Def. Judge Moody’s fabrications and perversions of the law were reckless and for criminal

purposes. Canon 3E is enforced by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which has the

authority to bring disciplinary charges against a judge.

SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS – WELL-GROUNDED FEARS

12. Here under 28 U.S.C. § 455, Plaintiffs have been specifically alleging the above facts and

reasons upon which the movants rely as the grounds for Defendant Judge Moody’s

disqualification/recusal. Here, Defendant Moody has been silencing and shutting up the

Plaintiffs without any authority and for criminal purposes of cover up and concealment of

organized Government crimes. See, e.g., Def. Moody’s and Honeywell’s facially

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

13. 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 Moody, who fraudulently concealed said fabrications of, e.g.:

a. Fake “judgment”;

17
 b. Fake “writ of execution”;

c. Facially forged “land parcels”;

d. Fake park.

RECORD FACIALLY FORGED judgment AND FAKE “lien”

66. Here, there were
a. No “July 2009 judgment”, because the 11th Circuit had lost jurisdiction in June 2009;
b. No “judgment”, whatsoever, because the 11th Circuit had closed the Case in June 2009;
c. No “judgment”, because “frivolity” had never been any issue until the Case was closed;
d. No “lien”, because a non-existent judgment could not have matured into a “lien”;
e. No “lien”, because the lienholder's address did not appear on the forged judgment.
67. Here, there was no judgment. A [hypothetical] judgment does not mature into a lien where
the lienholder's address does not appear on the judgment. § 55.10(1), Fla. Stat. Consequently
here, no lien could have possibly attached to Plaintiffs’ real property and/or Lot 15A as a
result of the unlawful recordation of a fictitious and facially forged judgment. See Tomalo
v. Kingsley Displays, Inc., 862 So. 2d 899, 900-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Hott Interiors,
Inc. v. Fostock, 721 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)); Dyer v. Beverly & Tittle, P.A.,
777 So. 2d 1055, 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Decubellis v. Ritchotte, 730 So. 2d 723, 725-26
(Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

68. In Florida, a lien is not any conveyance of the legal title or of the right of possession, §
697.02, F.S. The [hypothetical] execution of any [hypothetical] lien would not destroy any
of the unities. Therefore, the joint tenancy and the right of survivorship could not have
possibly been destroyed…

18
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC

JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER,
KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,

Defendants.
__________________________________________/

WILKINSON'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

DIRECTING PUBLIC SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Defendant, KENNETH M. WILKINSON, as THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY

APPRAISER ("Wilkinson"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court

for the entry of an order directing the public sale of the interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE

("Busse") in a parcel of real property located in Cayo Costa, Florida, pursuant to Rule 69,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Chapter 56, Florida Statutes, along with this Court's Writ

of Execution, and as grounds therefor, states as follows:

Procedural and Factual Background

1. On April 10, 2007, Busse filed this action against Lee County, Florida, Board of

Lee County Commissioners, The Lee County Property Appraiser, State of Florida Board of

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, State of Florida Department of Environmental
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 7

Protection.

2. Busse's Third Amended Complaint was dismissed by this Court on May 5, 2008

(D.E. 338) and Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants (D.E. 339).

3. Busse appealed this Court's Order dismissing his Third Amended Complaint to

the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ("11th Circuit") on May 6, 2009 (D.E. 341).

4. On August 22, 2008, Wilkinson filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh

Circuit Rule 27-4, requesting an order awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,000, double

costs and such other relief as the Court deemed appropriate for defendant Appellant's frivolous

appeal.

5. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's

Third Amended Complaint in its opinion issued on March 5, 2009 (D.E. 365).

6. The 11th Circuit also granted Wilkinson's Motion for Damages and Costs in its

Order issued on March 5, 2009 (D.E. 386, Ex. C).

7. On July 28, 2009, the 11th Circuit issued a Judgment awarding Wilkinson $5,000

in attorneys' fees and double costs in the amount of $48.60 ("the Judgment") (D.E. 386, Ex. D),

as sanctions for Busse's pursuit of a frivolous appeal.

8. The Judgment remains outstanding and unpaid in its entirety.

9. Busse has an interest in a parcel of vacant real property legally described as

follows (the "Property"):

Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of
Lee County, Florida, also known as Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.015A.

10. The Property was acquired by Busse on April 30, 2004, conveyed by Warranty

Page 2
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 7

Deed recorded in Official Record Book 4300, at Page 474, Public Records of Lee County,

Florida, and transferred on April 16, 2008, to Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott, as

Tenants in Common, by Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 2008000101396, Official

Records of Lee County, Florida.

11. A certified copy of the Judgment was recorded on November 18, 2009, in the

Public Records of Lee County, Florida at Instrument No. 2009000309384, along with an

Affidavit containing the address of the judgment holder, Instrument No. 2009000309382, which

serve as a lien against the Property. Copies of the recorded Judgment and Affidavit are attached

hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

12. Wilkinson believes that there are no other assets in Lee County of Busse's that

may be seized to satisfy the Judgment against Busse.

13. Wilkinson filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution by on November 30,

2009 (D.E. 386).

14. This Court construed Busse's Emergency Motions for Relief filed on December 4,

2009 (D.E. 389) as his response to such motion (in this Court's Order dated January 26, 2010,

D.E. 422), and granted Wilkinson's motion in its Order entered February 1, 2010 (D.E. 424),

directing the Clerk to issue a Writ of Execution.

15. On February 2, 2010, the Clerk of this Court issued a Writ of Execution (D.E.

425).

16. Upon Wilkinson's direction, on February 8, 2010, the U.S. Marshal Service

served the Writ of Execution personally on Busse.

17. On April 4, 2010, the U.S. Marshal Service also levied upon and posted the Writ

Page 3
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432 Filed 05/21/10 Page 4 of 7

of Execution on the Property described in paragraph 9 above, as evidenced by the Process

Receipt and Return filed in this Court on April 6, 2010 (D.E. 429).

18. Wilkinson has incurred and will incur additional costs incident to the issuance and

service of the Writ of Execution and the attendant levy and sale of the assets seized therewith,

and is entitled to tax those costs against Busse. See, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1921.

Memorandum of Law

Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the sale of realty pursuant to

a writ of execution, which is to be accomplished "in accordance with the practice and procedure

of the state in which the district court is held." Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 69(a). See, Weir v. United

States, 339 F.2d 82 (8th Cir. 1964); see, also, United States v. Branch Coal Corp., 390 F.2d 7 (3d

Cir. 1968).

In Florida, Florida Statutes § 56.21 governs notice of sales of realty under execution

sales. It states in pertinent part that a public sale of realty requires "Notice [...] given by

advertisement once each week for 4 successive weeks in a news paper published in the county in

which the sale is to take place." Florida Statutes § 56.21.

Wilkinson perfected his judgment lien on the Property on November 18, 2009, by

recording a certified copy of the Judgment (see Exhibit A) and recording an Affidavit containing

the address of the judgment holder in the Official Records of Lee County, Florida (see Exhibit

B). This Court issued the Writ of Execution on February 2, 2010, and the U.S. Marshal Service

served the Writ of Execution personally on Busse on February 8, 2010, and levied upon and

posted the Writ of Execution on the Property on April 4, 2010. Upon levy of the Property,

Wilkinson is entitled to entry of an order directing the public sale of the Property in accordance

Page 4
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432 Filed 05/21/10 Page 5 of 7

with Florida Statutes, § 56.061.

Pursuant to Florida Statutes, § 56.21, the sale shall take place at the time, date, and place

advertised in a notice published once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper published

in the county in which the sale is to take place, namely in Lee County, Florida.

On or before the date of first publication of the notice of sale, Wilkinson shall provide

notice of the sale to Busse by certified mail in accordance with Florida Statutes, § 56.21.

In executing against the Property, Wilkinson is entitled to collect against Busse's interest

as a joint tenant in such Property. The joint tenancy formed between the owners of the Cayo

Costa parcel is severed by enforcement of the judgment lien against the Property. See, McDowell

v. Trailer Ranch, Inc., 421 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1982). In McDowell, a parcel of real

property owned by three joint tenants was found to be subject to execution . The 4th DCA, citing

noted:

There is simply no merit to appellant's position that his interest is not subject to
execution. While there is no case in Florida directly on point, a plethora of
authority throughout the country exists in support of our conclusion.

See, Jamestown Terminal Elevator, Inc. v. Knopp, 246 N.W.2d 612, 614 (N.D. 1976) (severance

of a joint tenancy interest in real property may be accomplished by ... sale under execution upon a

judgment lien); In Re Larendon's Estate, 439 Pa. 535, 266 A.2d 763, 42 A.L.R.3d 1107 (1970)

(sale upon execution of judgment against one joint tenant effects an involuntary severance of the

joint tenancy). See also, 12 Fla.Jur.2d Cotenancy and Partition § 8 (1979) (a tenancy in common

will come to an end upon its conveyance, voluntary or otherwise, to a stranger or third party);

Frederick v. Shorman, 259 Iowa 1050, 147 N.W.2d 478 (1966) (levy and sale upon execution of

interest of one joint tenant operates as severance of joint tenancy and purchaser at sale becomes

Page 5
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432 Filed 05/21/10 Page 6 of 7

tenant in common with other co-owners).

As Judgment Creditor, Wilkinson is entitled to credit bid its judgment at any public sale.

See Flagship State Bank of Jacksonville v. Carantzas, 352 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); see

also Overholser v. Walsh & Nottlebaum, 362 So.2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Therefore,

Wilkinson requests that it be entitled to credit bid its judgment, namely Five Thousand Forty-

Eight Dollars and Sixty Cents ($5,048.60), plus costs incident to the issuance and service of the

Writ of Execution and the attendant levy and sale of the assets seized therewith, plus accrued and

further accruing interest at the rate as allowed by law, at the public sale.

WHEREFORE, Wilkinson requests that this Court enter an order:

A. authorizing and directing the public sale by the U.S. Marshal Service of the

interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE ("Busse") in the Property described in paragraph 9 hereof,

including to set a date, place and time for the sale of the real property in Lee County, Florida,

legally described as follows:

Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of
Lee County, Florida, also known as Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

B. that the public sale shall take place after notice of the sale is published once a

week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in Lee County, Florida;

C. that the notice shall identify the real property by address and/or legal description;

D. allowing Wilkinson the right to credit bid the amount of its Judgment, plus post-

judgment interest, plus costs incident to the Writ of Execution and the sale, at said public sale;

C. taxing against Busse the costs incurred by Wilkinson incident to the issuance and

service of the Writ of Execution and public sale of the Property; and

Page 6
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432 Filed 05/21/10 Page 7 of 7

D. such other relief as the Court feels necessary and proper.

A proposed Order is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 21, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to

the following: Dr. Jorg Busse, Post Office Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124, and

Jennifer Franklin Prescott, P.O. Box 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480.

By: /s/ Jack N. Peterson

Jack N. Peterson
Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0832774
DAVID M. OWEN
LEE COUNTY ATTORNEY
2115 Second Street
Post Office Box 398
Fort Myers, Florida 33902-3098
Telephone No. (239) 533-2236
Facsimile No. (239) 485-2118
Peterj@leegov.com

Page 7
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432-1 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432-1 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432-2 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 1
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432-3 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 07-00228-CV-FTM-29-SPC

JORG BUSSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

BOARD OF LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER,
KENNETH M. WILKINSON, et al.,

Defendants.
__________________________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING PUBLIC SALE OF REAL PROPERTY

This matter came before the Court on the Motion of Defendant, KENNETH M.

WILKINSON, as THE LEE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER ("Wilkinson"), for Entry of

Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property. Having reviewed the motion and incorporated

Memorandum of Law and the various filings in this action, the Court has determined that a

public sale of the interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE, in the property described in the motion is

appropriate for purposes of satisfying the judgment, it is now

ORDERED:

1. Wilkinson's Motion for Entry of Order Directing Public Sale of Real Property is

hereby GRANTED.

2. The sale of the interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE, in the real property legally

described as follows (the "Property"):

Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of
Lee County, Florida, also known as Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.015A
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432-3 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 4

is hereby authorized as follows:

A. The United States Marshal for the Middle District of Florida, or his

representative, is authorized and directed by this Court to sell the interest of Plaintiff, JORG

BUSSE, in the real property described as follows:

Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 25, Public Records of
Lee County, Florida, also known as Parcel No. 12-44-20-01-00015.015A

together with any improvements, buildings and appurtenances thereon and thereunto pertaining,

at public auction;

B. The sale by public auction shall be held at the front steps of the Old Lee

County Courthouse, 2120 Main Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901, or at such other place within

Lee County as the United States Marshal shall determine. After the Marshal has determined the

date, time and place for the sale, the Marshal shall insert the date, time and place for the sale in a

Notice of Sale of Real Property and shall promptly mail a copy of said Notice of Sale to counsel

of record;

C. The date, time and place for the sale shall also be announced by the United

States Marshal by advertising the Notice of Sale once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks

preceding the date fixed for the sale in a newspaper or general circulation in Lee County, Florida

and by any other notice that the United States Marshal or his representative may in his discretion

deem appropriate;

D. That the interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE, in the real property shall be

sold with any unpaid ad valorem real property taxes owing to Lee County, Florida, to be paid as

an expense of sale from the proceeds of sale, prorated to the actual date of sale;

Page 2
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432-3 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 4

E. That the successful bidder shall be required to deposit with the United

States Marshal a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the amount bid on the date of the sale, either

by certified check or by cash deposit; however, Defendant Wilkinson, by and through counsel or

authorized person, shall have the right to credit bid its Judgment at the public sale;

F. That the balance of the purchase price, if any, shall be tendered to the

United States Marshal by the successful bidder within ten (10) days following the date of the

sale. Payment shall be made by certified check payable to the United States Marshal for the

Middle District of Florida. In the event the purchaser fails to fulfill this requirement, the deposit

shall be forfeited and applied to the expenses of sale and the interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE,

in the subject parcel shall be re-offered for sale in the same manner as provided for in the initial

sale;

G. That Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE, or any person acting under his direction or

authority shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, in good order with all fixtures

and appurtenances thereto, deliver up to the United States Marshal, his interest in the subject real

property, including all keys to the premises, suitably labeled. No person receiving notice of the

entry of this Order shall take any steps to demean, impair or destroy the value of these premises,

including the improvements thereon, and no actions shall be taken to impede the United States

Marshal in the execution of his duties except pursuant to the order of this Court;

H. That pending the sale of the interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE, in the

subject property, the United States Marshal shall have free access to the premises and shall take

all actions appropriate to preserve and protect said property until the deed thereof is delivered to

the successful bidder, including securing the premises and obtaining any necessary insurance;

Page 3
 Case 2:07-cv-00228-JES-SPC Document 432-3 Filed 05/21/10 Page 4 of 4

I. That the sale shall be subject to confirmation by this Court and upon

confirmation and receipt of the full purchase price of such sale, the United States Marshal shall

execute and deliver his Deed, conveying the interest of Plaintiff, JORG BUSSE, in the subject

property sold to the successful purchaser;

J. That, after confirmation of the sale of the subject property, the United

States Marshal shall ascertain the expenses of the sale, including amounts due for ad valorem

taxes to be ascertained from the Lee County, Florida, Tax Collector, and shall pay those amounts

out of the sale proceeds. The United States Marshal shall then remit the balance of the sale

proceeds to the Clerk of this Court with a statement of the amount of the net proceeds received

from the sale; and

K. That within thirty (30) days after the Clerk gives notice to the parties that

she has received the funds from the United States Marshal, each party claiming an interest in said

proceeds shall certify to the Court and to every other party the amount of its claim.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this ______ day of ________________,

20_____.

__________________________________

United States District Judge

Copies:

U.S. Marshal (3 certified copies)

Counsel of Record (via ECF)
Jorg Busse, Post Office Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101-11124 (via U.S. Mail)
Jennifer Franklin Prescott, P.O. Box 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480 (via U.S. Mail)

Page 4