Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1. 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).
3. 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”.
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.
2
10. 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:
AND the Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantees that the Grantors are lawfully
seized of said riparian upland and adjoining riparian street land on the Gulf of
Mexico in fee simple; that the Grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell
and convey said riparian Gulf-front upland and street land on said Gulf as legally
described in reference to said private 1912 Subdivision Plat; that the Grantors
hereby fully warrant the unimpeachable record title to said riparian accreted street and
up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico and pursuant to the Lee County, State of Florida, and
Federal Public Records have defended and will defend their marketable record title
against the lawful and unlawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and in particular,
against the prima facie unlawful and criminal claims of Lee County, the State of
Florida, and the United States of America, and their corrupt Agents, Officials of
record, and the Defendants in their private individual capacities of record such as,
e.g., Joel F. Dubina, Charlene E. Honeywell, Sheri Polster Chappell, Gerald B.
Tjoflat, John E. Steele, Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Tony West; and that said accreted
riparian street and up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico are free of any legitimate and valid
encumbrances and/or judgments, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,
2010; zoning, building code and other restrictions legitimately imposed by lawful
governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas, mineral, and or any other interests of
record, if any; and private riparian water-front easements of record, restrictions, if
any, and unimpeachable private implied street and alley easements of record as
conveyed in reference to said 1912 Plat.”
3
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM CORRUPT JUDGE MOODY’S ORDER, DOC. # 22
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
17. § 90.201 (1), Fla. Stat., 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”
18. 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
4
“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.
19. 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.
DEF. MOODY VEXATIOUSLY FIXED THE CASE IN EXCHANGE FOR BRIBES
20. 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.
“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.”
5
23. 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
24. “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;
25. Here, absolute power produced absolute judicial & Government corruption
and the publicly recorded perpetration of fraud upon the Courts.
26. 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
27. 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.”
6
h. The facially forged colorless “claim” lacked any authentic legal description;
i. The colorless facially forged “claim” lacked any legislative signature and
name(s).
7
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.
33. 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.
“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
8
39. 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.
AS A MATTER OF LAW, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS HAD BEEN BARRED, CH. 712, F.S.
43. As a matter of law, Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., had extinguished any and all “claims”
against Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.
44. 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.
45. 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
46. 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”.
9
PERVERSION OF RULE 69 FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING
47. 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.
49. 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.
(2) GROUNDS.-- When a person or corporation not the rightful owner of land has
any conveyance or other evidence of title thereto, or asserts any claim, or pretends to
have any right or title thereto, which may cast a cloud on the title of the real owner,
or when any person or corporation is the true and equitable owner of land the record
title to which is not in the person or corporation because of the defective execution of
any deed or mortgage because of the omission of a seal thereon, the lack of
witnesses, or any defect or omission in the wording of the acknowledgment of a
party or parties thereto, when the person or corporation claims title thereto by the
defective instrument and the defective instrument was apparently made and
delivered by the grantor to convey or mortgage the real estate and was recorded in the
10
county where the land lies, or when possession of the land has been held by any
person or corporation adverse to the record owner thereof or his or her heirs and
assigns until such adverse possession has ripened into a good title under the statutes
of this state, such person or corporation may file complaint in any county in which
any part of the land is situated to have the conveyance or other evidence of claim or
title canceled and the cloud removed from the title and to have his or her title
quieted, whether such real owner is in possession or not or is threatened to be
disturbed in his or her possession or not, and whether defendant is a resident of this
state or not, and whether the title has been litigated at law or not, and whether the
adverse claim or title or interest is void on its face or not, or if not void on its face
that it may require extrinsic evidence to establish its validity...”
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.
11
(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.
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
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
12
manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of
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
Defendant objectively partial Judge Honeywell are citing 28 U.S.C. § 455, § 38.10 and Rule
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
13
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 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,
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
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)
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
14
“$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,
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
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
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
15
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”;
d. Fake park.
16