Case Fixing and Bribery in U.S.Courts - JAMES S. MOODY, JR.

8/9/2019 Case Fixing and Bribery in U.S.Courts - JAMES S. MOODY, JR.

1/21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT, DR. JORG BUSSE,Plaintiffs,

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

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL; SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL;JOHN EDWIN STEELE; JENNIFER WAUGH CORINIS; A. BRIANALBRITTON,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

INDEPENDENT ACTION

FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CRIMES, CORRUPTION,

FACIALLY FRAUDULENT WRIT OF EXECUTION,AND FORGED AND VOIDjudgments and orders

____________________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FACIALLY FRAUDULENT order, DOC. # 22,ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME & CORRUPTION, RACKETEERING,

RETALIATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FRAUD, DEPRIVATIONS

NOTICE OF FALSIFICATIONS OF claim, PRIMA FACIE SCAM O.R. 569/875,AND FORGED foreign $5,048.60 money judgment AFTER APPEAL CLOSURE,

CH. 712; 95; 73, 74; 55; 695.26, 695.09, 689.01, 55.10, 55.509, FLORIDA STATUTES,

FLORIDA ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT

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

1. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of and holders of indisputableunencumbered title toLot 15A, Cayo Costa, S-T-R-A-P 12-44-20-01-00015.015A, herebyappeal 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 criminalmeans of Doc. # 22] as perfectly conveyed and legally described, Plaintiffs publiclyrecorded WARRANTY DEED, INSTR4450927, Collier County Public Records, INSTR2010000171344, Lee County Public Records, 2 pages:


2/21

Lot 15A, private undedicated residential Cayo Costa Subdivision, as recordedand legally described in Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912), Public Records of Lee County,Florida, U.S.A.

Property I.D./S.T.R.A.P.: 12-44-20-01-00015.015A[A for Accreted; see PB 1, PP. 48, 51, 52]

TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments, appurtenances, publiclyrecorded natural accretions and riparian rights thereto belonging or in anywiseappertaining.

GRANTORS further warrant the within described riparian accreted Gulf-frontproperty is not presently homestead property and that the Grantors legal address is:Post Office Box 7561, Naples, FL 34101-7561.

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

AND the Grantors hereby covenant with said Grantees that the Grantors are lawfullyseized of said riparian upland and adjoining riparian street land on the Gulf ofMexico in fee simple; that the Grantors have good right and lawful authority to selland convey said riparian Gulf-front upland and street land on said Gulfas legallydescribed in reference to said private 1912 Subdivision Plat; that the Grantorshereby fully warrant the unimpeachable record title to said riparian accreted street andup-lands on the Gulf of Mexico and pursuant to the Lee County, State of Florida, andFederal Public Records have defended and will defend their marketable record titleagainst the lawful and unlawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and in particular,against the prima facie unlawful and criminal claims of Lee County, the State ofFlorida, and the United States of America, and their corrupt Agents, Officials ofrecord, and the Defendants in their private individual capacities of record such as,e.g., Joel F. Dubina, Charlene E. Honeywell, Sheri Polster Chappell, Gerald B.Tjoflat, John E. Steele, Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Tony West; and that said accretedriparian street and up-lands on the Gulf of Mexico are free of any legitimate and validencumbrances and/or judgments, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,2010; zoning, building code and other restrictions legitimately imposed by lawfulgovernmental authority; outstanding oil, gas, mineral, and or any other interests ofrecord, if any; and private riparian water-front easements of record, restrictions, ifany, and unimpeachable private implied street and alley easements of record asconveyed in reference to said 1912 Plat.

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM CORRUPT JUDGE MOODYS ORDER, DOC. # 22

2. The Plaintiffunimpeachable 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 organizedGovernment crime, corruption, racketeering, extortion, retaliation, obstruction ofjustice, fraud, fraud on the Court, deliberate deprivations, et al., Doc. # 22, filed07/27/2010, by Defendant U.S. Judge and Racketeer James S. Moody, Jr.

2


3/21

DEF. MOODYS FRAUDULENT AND IDIOTIC PRETENSES OF claim as public land3. Under fraudulent pretenses of a facially idiotic and incomprehensible claim aspublic land and fictitious $5,000 sanctions, Doc. # 22, Defendant Racketeer Moodyconspired to extortLot 15A and money from the Plaintiff unimpeachable record ownersof Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.

COVER-UP OF RECORD CRIMINALITY & ILLEGALITY OF execution, DOC. # 224. Here, no domesticated foreign judgment existed. Therefore, Defendant Forger andRacketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson could notsequester, levy on, orseize control of, any assetsof Dr. Jorg Busse. Here in exchange forbribes, Defendant Crooked Judge James S. Moody,Jr., covered up, concealed, and conspired to cover up and conceal the Government crimes,corruption, and racketeering.

PERVERSION OF RULE 69 & FABRICATION OF writ of execution5. Rule 69, Fed.R.Civ.P., did not apply or govern to any extent:

(1) Money Judgment; Applicable Procedure.A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directsotherwise. The procedure on execution and in proceedings supplementary to and

in aid of judgment or execution must accord with the procedure of the state wherethe court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.Here, the procedure on execution did not accord with the procedure of the state [Florida]where the court is located.6. Here, the recorded final money judgment and mandate was for$24.30, and thefederalstatute governed as to the extent it applied: Here, Rule 69 did notapplyat all, and the Clerkwas neverauthorizedto issue the fraudulent and forged writ of execution, Doc. # 425.7. Here, Defendant Crooked Officials Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Jack N. Peterson, SheriPolster Chappell, John Edwin Steele, and Drew Heathcoat idiotically conspired to pervertRule 69 forcriminal purposes of, e.g., racketeering, retaliation, extortion, fraud, fraudon the Court, and obstruction of justice, and falsified an unauthorized writ of

execution, Doc. ## 425, 386, 432, 424, 338.LACK OF exemplified copy OF FACIALLY FORGED foreign judgment8. Florida's statutory law required that

a. An exemplified out-of-state and/or foreign judgment first be recorded in thecounty in which the purported debtorresides and/or has anyproperty;b. An attached certificate be signed three times, twice by the clerk of the issuingcourt, and once by the presiding judge.

9. Here, the facially forged and falsifiedforeign July 2009 judgment wasa. Nevervalidated;b. Neverauthenticated;c. Nevercertified.

Here, the purported judgment creditor, Dr. Jorg Busse [and Jennifer Franklin Prescott], filedlawsuits and appeals on the fake foreign judgment and attacked the prima faciecriminality, illegality, and nullity of Defendant Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinsonsfraud, extortion, and racketeering scheme. See, e.g., U.S.A. Ex. Rel., et al. v. U.S.A., et al.10. Here, Kenneth M. Wilkinson had never been entitled to begin any collectionefforts and execute on Dr. Busses assets.

3


4/21

11. Def. Wilkinson conspired with Jack N. Peterson, Esq., and other Defendants andOfficials to perpetrate record fraud on the Courts and falsify a writ of execution, e.g.,Doc. ## 386, 432, 424, 425.12. Def. land parcel Forger Wilkinson did

a. Not recordany authentic judgment;

b. Not domesticate anygenuine foreign judgment;c. Notfile a case.13. Here, no case numberexisted for the clerk of court to, e.g.,

a. issue a writ of execution, andb. schedule any depositions to review a purported debtor's assets.

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF FACIALLY FORGEDforeign judgment14. 55.509, Florida Statutes, Stay of enforcement offoreign judgment, provides:

(1) If, within 30 days after the date the foreign judgmentis recorded, the judgmentdebtor files an action contesting the jurisdiction of the court which entered the

foreign judgmentor the validity of the foreign judgment and records a lis pendensdirected toward the foreign judgment, the court shall stay enforcement of theforeign judgmentand the judgment lien upon the filing of the action by the judgmentdebtor.

(2) If the judgment debtorshows the circuit or county court any ground uponwhich enforcement of a judgment of any circuit or county court of this state would bestayed, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgmentfor an appropriateperiod, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which isrequired in this state.

Here, Defendant land parcel Forger and Racketeer Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Lee CountyAppraisers Office, had fraudulently pretendeda. a falsifiedforeign orout-of-Florida July 29, 2009 judgment, Doc. ## 386, 432;b. unauthorized recordation of a fake July judgment in Lee County CircuitCourt;c. a falsified writ of execution illegally issued by the Clerk of U.S. District Court.

15. Here, the U.S. District Court, Middle Division of Florida:a. had nojurisdiction;b. had noauthority to enforce the fakeforeign judgment;c. had noauthority to issue the falsifiedwrit of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:07-cv-00228.

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

NON-OPERATIVE lien AND FAKE foreign judgment16. 55.507, F.S., Lien; when effective, states:

4


5/21

A foreign judgmentdoes not operate as a lien until 30 days after the mailing ofnotice by the clerk

Here, the Clerk had never mailed any notice of the facially forgedjudgment, and thefakeforeign judgmentcould not havepossibly operated as a lien.

PUBLICLY RECORDED FRAUD ON THE COURTS17. Here, Defendant [Appellee] Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson wasa. Nojudgment holder;b. Nojudgment creditor;c. Not entitledto enforceanything;d. Not entitled to enforce a fakeforeign judgmentrecorded in State Court byunauthorizedmeans of Doc. # 425, U.S.Case 2:2007-cv-00228;

Here, Plaintiff(s) had contested the validity of the [facially forged]foreign judgment andfiled an action directed toward the prima facie fraudulentforeign judgment. Here, the Courtshall stay enforcementof the fake foreign judgmentand the facially forgedjudgment lien, 55.509, Florida Statutes.

DEFENDANT J. S. MOODY CONCEALED THAT FLORIDA LAW GOVERNED18. Florida law governs the question of whether the proper procedures were followedon execution, Sephus v. Gozelski, 670 F.Supp. 1552, 1554 (S.D.Fla.1987):

It is clear from Rule 69 that Florida law governs the question of whether the properprocedures were followed on execution, there being no federal statute applicable tothe contrary. Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's &Warehousemen's Union, 128 F. Supp. 697 (D.C. Hawaii 1955). *fn2"

Section 56.29(1), Florida Statues,*fn2 provides that:When any person or entity holds an unsatisfied judgment or judgment lien obtained

underchapter 55, the judgment holder or judgment lien holder may file an affidavitso stating, identifying, if applicable, the issuing court, the case number, and theunsatisfied amount of the judgment or judgment lien, including accrued costs andinterest, and stating that the execution is valid and outstanding, and thereupon the judgment holder or judgment lien holder is entitled to these proceedingssupplementary to execution. Fla. Stat. 56.29(1).

A judicial sale differs from an execution sale in that it is conducted pursuant todirections of the court and federal statutes, whereas an execution sale is by merepraecipe of the judgment creditor. United States v. Branch Coal Corp. , 390 F.2d 7 (3dCir. 1968). Id., * fn 2.

In Continental Cigar Corp. v. Edelman & Co., Inc., 397 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA1981), the Third District Court of Appeal rejected earlier courtdecisions*fn3 requiring two jurisdictional prerequisites for post-judgmentproceedings supplementary: (1) a returned and unsatisfied writ of execution and (2)an affidavit averring that the writ is valid and unsatisfied

5
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx#D166150005-opinionfn2http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx#D*fn2http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx#D*fn3http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx#D166150005-opinionfn2http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx#D*fn2http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx#D*fn3


6/21

Florida has since enacted the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,Florida Statutes Section 55.501-55.509, which places a dual responsibility on theClerk of Court and on thejudgment creditor to give notice of the recordation of thejudgment to the debtor. Fla. Stat. Section 55.505. Id., * fn 3.

Here, Defendant Forger Wilkinson had never incurred actualand necessaryattorneys fees.Here, Def. Wilkinson could have neverpossibly incurred any attorneys fees, because theU.S. Court of Appeals had lostjurisdiction, and frivolity had never been any issue in theclosed appeal. See 11th Circuit Opinion, Doc. # 365, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.

RECORD RECUSALS OF FOUR (4) JUDGES

19. On 07/27/2010, the Case was reassigned to Defendant Crooked Judge James S.Moody, Jr., after the

a. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge John E. Steele (07/22/2010);b. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Charlene E. Honeywell (06/22/2010);c. Recusal of Defendant Crooked Judge Sheri Polster Chappell (06/30/2010);

d. Recusal of Judge Douglas N. Frazier (06/28/2010).

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

20. On the day of his re-assignment, 07/27/2010, Defendant Crooked Judge James S.Moody fixed and conspired to fix Plaintiffs Case in exchange for Defendants bribes:

21. Here within hours, Defendant Moody fixed and conspired to fix Plaintiffrecordpublic corruption victims Case and fraudulently and falsely pretended to have reviewed

a. four years of proceedings;b. eleven actions;c. hundreds, if not thousands, of filings;d. appeals, up to 20 in one case alone;e. falsified adoption of a fake 1969 resolution.

6


7/21

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

22. Here, no fit, honest, intelligent, and reasonable judge or person in DefendantMoodys shoes could have possibly reviewed said alleged hundreds/thousands offilings,eleven actions and Plaintiffs highly meritorious and conclusively proven allegations

within hours.PRIMA FACIE ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND MALICIOUS JUDICIAL TRASH23. Here another bungling Government idiot, Def. Judge Moody, copied andpasted repetitive and incomprehensiblejudicial trash, Doc. # 22, which on its very facewas, e.g.:

a. patentlyfrivolous; 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 itspublicly recorded reputation oforganized crime and corruption, 28 U.S.C. 455.

RECORD INSANITY & IMPOSSIBILITY OF execution of lien on claimed land24. In particular, Def. Crooked Judge Moody concealed and conspired to concealthat as a matter of law, execution proceedings and/orenforcementof a facially forgedlienand 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 anyclaim 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 15Aagainst Plaintiffs will in a court of law, and a record judgment, as a matter of law therecould not havepossibly been:

a. anyforced sale of purportedly involuntarily alienatedLot 15A;b. anygenuine writ of execution;c. any lis pendens;d. any execution.

PATTERN & POLICY OF ORGANIZED CRIME & CORRUPTION ON RECORD

27. Here in action after action, organized Criminal Judge after Judge, extendedthe publicly recorded premeditatedpattern and policy of, e.g., fraud, corruption, extortion,fraud on the Court, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540.

DEF. MOODY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE & RELIEF FROM VOID orders & judgments28. Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court mayrelieve a party from an order or final judgment that is void. A judgment is void under Rule60(b)(4) if it was rendered without jurisdiction of the subject matter or the parties or in amannerinconsistent with due process of law.

7


8/21

DEF. MOODYS RECORD TIRADE AGAINST PUBLIC CORRUPTION VICTIMS29. This corrupt Courts latest order, Doc. # 22, in this case is not so much anorder as it is a free-flowing, stream-of-consciousness tirade against Plaintiff whistle-blowers and victims of Government corruption and racketeering under fraudulentpretenses 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. # 2230. The law did not recognize the faciallyincomprehensible and absurd claim aspublic land, Doc. # 22. See Ch. 73, 74,EMINENT DOMAIN; 95, ADVERSE POSSESSION,712,FLORIDAS MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT, Florida Statutes.31. Here, the public perception of judicial fraud and corruption by DefendantDishonorable Officials Charlene Edwards Honeywell and Def. Dishonorable John EdwinSteele were the inescapable and indisputable conclusions of any reasonable person inDefendant Moodys shoes.32. Here, no reasonable and intelligent person in Def. Moodys shoes could havepossibly determined that the fake resolution/legislative act and $5,000 sanctions

Government scams were not prima facie extortion and fraud schemes in violation ofFlorida Statutes, Constitution, and law.JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS PUBLICLY RECORDED PERFECTED TITLE

33. 90.201 (1), Fla. Stat., states:

Matters which must be judicially noticed.

A court shall takejudicial notice of:(1) Decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law and resolutions of the FloridaLegislature and the Congress of the United States.

Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapter712, Florida Statutes, Floridas

self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act. Here as a matter of law, Chapter712, FloridaStatutes, governed supremely and superseded the facially falsified and forgedresolution, scam O.R. 569/875. Here, Defendants Lee County, FL, had noauthority topervert Florida law.JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OF involuntary alienation by resolution34. Here, the U.S. Courts shall take judicial notice of Chapters 73, 74, EMINENTDOMAIN, and 95,ADVERSE POSSESSION. Here as a matter of law, said Statutory Chaptersgoverned supremely and superseded the facially falsified and forgedadoption-resolution-scam O.R. 569/875. Here, the Government Defendants andOfficials had noauthority 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 allinvoluntary alienation. See, e.g., Ch. 73, 74, EMINENT DOMAIN; Ch. 95, ADVERSEPOSSESSION. Any involuntary alienation would have strictly and necessarily been ajudicial function. Here, it was elementary that no legislative act could have possiblydivestedthe 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 disrespectedand perverted the law for criminal and illegal purposes of cover-up and fraudulentconcealment.

8


9/21

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 55, 55.10, F.S., FLORIDA FOREIGN JUDGMENT ACT

36. Here in violation of 55.10, Florida Statutes, there werea. NoFlorida 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 Chapter55, 55.10, Florida Statutes,and Floridas Foreign Judgment Act.

PRIMA FACIE RECORD FALSIFICATION & FORGERY OF FAKE judgment37. Here, Dr. Busse had challenged the prima facie falsification and forgery of afakeforeign $5,048.60judgment in the publicly recorded absence of anyjurisdiction bythe 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 affidavitconcerning the identity of the judgment holder and judgment debtor and pay the filing feecharged by the court wherein the judgment is filed.39. Here, the clerk of court neverserved the purported judgment debtor, Dr. JorgBusse, with any notice. Here, nolien had everlegallyexisted.CONTESTED lien, writ of execution FRAUD, EXTORTION, RACKETEERING40. Here, Dr. Busse had contested, e.g., the fake lien, fake writ of execution,fraud, fraud on the Courts, extortion, and racketeering.41. Here, nothing could have possibly become a lien on any real property of Dr.Jorg Busse.42. Here, no Florida Court had everissued any writ of execution.

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CH. 695, PRIMA FACIE SCAM & SHAM claimO.R. 569/87543. 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 topervert Florida law. Here, prima facie scam and sham claim O.R. 569/875 could nothavepossibly affected real property, because it was null and void and violated the FloridaConstitution Statutes.44. 695.09, F.S., Identity of grantor, states:

No acknowledgment or proof shall be taken, except as set forth in s. 695.03(3), byany officer within or without the United States unless the officer knows, or hassatisfactory proof, that the person making the acknowledgment is the individual

described in, and who executed, such instrumentor that theperson offering to makeproof is one of the subscribing witnesses to such instrument.

PUBLICLY RECORDED RACKETEERING & EXTORTION SCHEMES

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

9
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0600-0699/0695/Sections/0695.03.htmlhttp://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0600-0699/0695/Sections/0695.03.html


10/21

d. Nograntor;e. Nogrant;f. No conveyance;

Here, there were known racketeering, retaliation, extortion, and fraud schemes on therecord. Record scam and sham claim O.R. 569/875 was an extortion and racketeering

scheme by organized Government Criminals who covered up, concealed, and conspired.JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 689.01, FLA. STAT., AND U.S. JUDICIAL CRIMES

46. 689.01, How Real Estate Conveyed, Florida Statutes, provides:No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year, or any uncertaininterest of, in or out of any messuages, lands, tenements or hereditaments shall becreated, made, granted, transferred or released in any other manner than byinstrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by theparty creating, making, granting, conveying, transferring or releasing such estate,interest, or term of more than 1 year, or by the partys lawfully authorized agent,unless by will and testament, or other testamentary appointment, duly made accordingto law

47. Here, prima facie scam and fake resolution 569/875 could not havepossiblya. created any interest;b. transferred any interest;c. conveyed any interest.

Here, the judicial and Government Defendants covered up, concealed, and conspired toconceal publicly recorded Government crimes, racketeering, extortion, and fraud.

DEF. MOODY VEXATIOUSLY FIXED THE CASE IN EXCHANGE FOR BRIBES

48. Here, Def. Moodys order, Doc. # 22, was patently frivolous, baseless,vexatious, and harassing. Nointelligent,fit, and honestjudge or person in Defendant J. S.Moodys shoes could havepossibly determinedany

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 toLee County against Plaintiffswill;e. any transfer of title by any legislative act, resolution, orlaw, whatsoever.

PRIMA FACIE CRIMINALITY OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE claim as public land49. 90.202 (12), Fla. Stat., states:

Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and

ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.

ACCURATE & READY DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS RECORD OWNERSHIP

50. Here, Plaintiffs publicly recorded title to and ownership ofaccreted riparianLot 15A, Cayo Costa Subdivision, as legally described in reference to the 1912 Plat ofSurvey in Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 was

a. Indisputable; Ch. 712, F.S.;b. Unimpeachable;

10


11/21

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 onesproperty.

See Floridas self-enforcing Marketable Record Title Act; Ch. 712, Florida Statutes. SeePlaintiffs publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, on file.

PUBLICLY RECORDED ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME AND CORRUPTION

51. Defendant U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., is part of a Government crime andcorruption organization in Florida, U.S.A. For approximately four years, the publiclyrecorded policy and pattern have been cover-up, fraudulent concealment, obstruction ofjustice, racketeering, fraud, fraud on the Court, and extortion of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa,and money.

GOVERNMENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT, FLA.R.CIV.P. 1.54052. For approximately four years, Defendant U.S. Judges and Government Officialshave showered courts in the Middle District of Florida with hundreds of prima faciecorrupted fraudulent orders and communications for criminal and illegal purposes ofracketeering and extortion of Lot 15A and money underfraudulent pretenses of, e.g.:

a. Fake resolution;b. Fake land parcels see, e.g., 12-44-20-01-00000.00A0; 07-44-21-01-00001.0000;c. Fake 5,048.60 judgment, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;d. Fake writ of execution, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228;

53. Here, absolute power produced absolute judicial & Government corruption

and the publicly recorded perpetration of fraud upon the Courts.54. The procedural and substantive rules prohibited Defendant Moody from fixingthe Case based upon the perversion ofconclusive public record evidence.

CONSPIRACY TO RACKETEER, EXTORT, RETALIATE, AND DEFRAUD

55. Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., conspired with otherOfficials, Defendants, and Government gang members to racketeer, retaliate, obstructjustice, and extort money and Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, from the Plaintiff indisputable recordland 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 aresolution adopted in December 1969 by the Board of Commissioners of Lee County,Florida, where Lot 15A, among other property, was claimed as public land.

See Doc. # 22, p. 1.Here, Defendant Crooked U.S. Judge James S. Moody, Jr., knew, fraudulently concealed,and conspired with other Officials and Criminals to conceal that

11


12/21

a. The Plaintiffs had conclusively proven and alleged that they are the recordowners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of Lee County, Florida;b. The public record had conclusively evidenced that indisputably, the Plaintiffsare the unimpeachable record owners of Lot 15A in the Cayo Costa subdivision of LeeCounty, Florida;

c. Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, was never claimed as public land;d. Lot 15A could not havepossibly been claimed as public land under any law;e. The prima facie fake claim as public land was incomprehensible andunrecognized;f. The Plaintiffs were entitled to defend their perfected record title and prosecute;g. Plaintiffs were entitled to redress their well-proven recorded Governmentgrievances;h. The facially forgedcolorless claim lacked any authentic legal description;i. The colorless facially forged claim lacked any legislative signature andname(s).

DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED NULLITY OF SHAM claim56. Here in particular, Def. Crooked Judge Moody knew, fraudulently concealed,and conspired to conceal that Ch. 95, Florida Statutes, would have absolutely requiredDefendants Lee County, FL to pay real property taxes prior to any [hypothetical] judicialadjudication of any colorlessadverse possession claim by Defendants Lee County, FL.57. Here, the Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title had paid property taxes, Lot15A, since 1912 and since the date of the publicly recorded Federal Land Patent roottitle. See Lee County Grantor/Grantee Property Index.58. Here more than thirty (30) years had passed since the recordation of the CayoCosta U.S. Land Patent root title, the statute of limitations had expired, and any and allclaims had been barred and extinguished., Ch. 712, Florida Statutes.

59. Here, Defendant Crook and Racketeer J. S. Moody extended the Governmentpattern and policy of, e.g., public corruption, racketeering, retaliation, extortion, fraudon the Courts, and deliberate deprivations under fraudulent pretenses of, e.g., a legallyand factually impossible and falsified claim, resolution 569/875, legislative act,sanctions, judgment in the record absence of any authority and jurisdiction. Here,Defendant Crook Moody had noauthority to break Florida law on the record and perpetrateGovernment crimes undercolor of office.

DECEPTION, TRICKERY, FRAUD; LACK OF RECORD OF ANY claim60. 695.26, Requirements for recording instruments affecting real property,provides:

(1) No instrument by which the title to real property or any interest therein is

conveyed, assigned, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of shall be recorded by

the clerk of the circuit court unless:

(a) The name of each person who executed such instrument is legibly printed,

typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument immediately beneath the signature

of such person and the post-office address of each such person is legibly printed,

typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument;

12


13/21

(b) The name and post-office address of the natural person who prepared the

instrument or under whose supervision it was prepared are legibly printed,

typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument;

(c) The name of each witness to the instrument is legibly printed, typewritten, or

stamped upon such instrument immediately beneath the signature of such witness;

(d) The name of any notary public or other officer authorized to take

acknowledgments or proofs whose signature appears upon the instrument is

legibly printed, typewritten, or stamped upon such instrument immediately

beneath the signature of such notary public or other officer authorized to take

acknowledgment or proofs;

(e) A 3-inch by 3-inch space at the top right-hand corner on the first page and a 1-

inch by 3-inch space at the top right-hand corner on each subsequent page are

reserved for use by the clerk of the court; and(f) In any instrument other than a mortgage conveying or purporting to convey

any interest in real property, the name and post-office address of each

grantee in such instrument are legibly printed, typewritten, or stamped upon

such instrument.History. s. 1, ch. 90-183; ss. 8, 22, ch. 94-348; s. 773, ch. 97-102.

61. Here, Defendant Corrupt Judge Moody knew, concealed, and conspired tofraudulently conceal that

a. No claim had everlegally existed;b. No claim had ever been legally recorded;

c. No claim could havepossibly everlegally existed;d. Any and all claims had been extinguished and barred, Ch. 712, 95, Fla. Stat.

DEF. MOODY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED EXTORTION, RACKETEERING

62. Defendant Moody fraudulentlyasserted and pretended, Doc. # 22, p. 2:Plaintiff Busse was sanctioned $5,000 but refused to pay.

Here, Defendant Racketeer Moody knew and fraudulently concealed that DefendantKenneth M. Wilkinson had never incurred actual and necessary attorneys fees in thefaciallyfalsified 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 otherOfficials to falsify a fake July 29 judgment and alter the official records.

63. Here, Dr. Jorg Busse had paid the final money judgment in the amount of$24.30 for copies issued as mandate in June 2009, Case No. 2:2007-cv-00228.64. Here just like a bungling Government crook and idiot, Defendant Moodycovered up, concealed the truth, and obstructed justice for publicly recorded criminalpurposes ofextortion and racketeering.65. Here, Def. Moody knew that frivolity had never been any issue, whatsoever, aspublicly recorded and conclusively evidenced by the Opinion, Judgment, and Mandate insaid Case.

13


14/21

COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

66. 90.203, Florida Statutes, COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, provides:

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

Here for years, the Plaintiffexclusiveindisputable record owners of Lot 15A, Cayo Costa,PB 3, PG 25 (1912) had requested the Federal Courts to take judicial notice of the matterand issue of their record unencumbered and perfected ownership and title, 12-44-20-01-00015.015A.

DEFENDANT CROOKED JUDGE MOODYS SHAM order, DOC. # 2267. Here on its face, Defendant Crooked Judge Moodys 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 ACCURATEDETERMINATION68. Here, Plaintiffs publicly recorded satisfactory real property tax payments, Lot15A, were capable of accurate and ready determination and indisputable. Saidindisputablerecord tax payments had controverted any claim.PLAINTIFFS RECORD DEED WAS CAPABLE OF READYDETERMINATION69. Here, Plaintiffs publicly recorded Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, was capable ofaccurate and ready determination and indisputable.70. Here as a matter of law, Plaintiffs record title and tax payments had conclusively

controverted:a. Any and all barred claims, Ch. 712, Florida Statutes;b. Sham claim O.R. 569/875;c. Any and all absurd, unrecognized, and frivolous claim(s) as public land;d. Any and all non-existent title transfer to Lee County, FL;e. Any involuntary alienation; Chapters 73; 74, 95, Florida Statutes.

AS A MATTER OF LAW, ANY AND ALL CLAIMSHAD BEEN BARRED, CH. 712, F.S.71. As a matter of law, Ch. 712, Fla. Stat., had extinguished any and all claimsagainst Lot 15A, Cayo Costa.72. In 1969, the fabricated date of the fictitious resolution, the statute of

limitations for any and all claims had expired. Here, more than thirty (30) years hadpassed 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 ofany claim had everlegally existedor had ever been legally recorded.

FALSIFIED claim, O.R. 569/875 WAS LEGALLY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE74. Here as a matter of law:

a. No resolution could have possibly involuntarily divestedthe Plaintiffs of theirLot 15A;

14


15/21

b. No law could have possibly involuntarily divested the Plaintiffs of their Lot15A;c. Any involuntarily alienation would have necessarily been ajudicialfunction;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 readydetermination;g. Plaintiffs said record title, Lot 15A, was capable of accurate & readydetermination;h. Defendant Moody fabricated and conspired to falsify an incomprehensibleclaim.

PERVERSION OF RULE 69 FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES OF RACKETEERING

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

(a) In General.

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

76. Here, Def. Moody conspired to conceal thata. 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 accordwith the procedure of the State.c. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had lostjurisdiction in June 2009;d. Defendant Crooked Official Kenneth M. Wilkinson falsified and fraudulentlypretended a July 29, judgment;e. Defendant Jack N. Peterson, Esq., perjured himself; see facially fraudulentAffidavit;f. NogenuineJuly 2009 judgmentcould havepossibly existedin 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 5,048.60judgment, 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 tosources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.

15


16/21

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

1. Recusal and disqualification ofobjectively 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 fraudulentexecution and enforcement forcriminal 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 thegrounds for disqualification and shall be verified by the party.

(c) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time after

discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.

(d) Determination. The judge against whom the motion is directed shall

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 judgeassigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code ofJudicial Conduct.

(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:(1) be in writing;(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as thegrounds for disqualification;(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separateaffidavit;

16


17/21

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 orbias 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

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,

17


18/21

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: MOODYS 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 Canons 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 states 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 forcriminal 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 notpossibly get a fair,

18


19/21

just, and speedy trial because of Def. Moodys 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 shalldisqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judges

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 forbribes, 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 trialat the dirty hands ofbribed 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.

19


20/21

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

which a judges 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 Moodys 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 disciplinarycharges 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 Moodys

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

Plaintiffs without any authority and forcriminal purposes ofcover up and concealment of

organized Government crimes. See, e.g., Def. Moodys and Honeywells facially

fraudulent orders, gag, pre-filing injunction.

13. Here, the PlaintiffGovernment 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;

b. Fake writ of execution;

20


21/21

c. Facially forged land parcels;

d. Fakepark.

RECORD FACIALLY FORGEDjudgmentAND FAKE lien

78. Here, there werea. No July 2009 judgment, because the 11th Circuit had lostjurisdiction in June2009;b. No judgment, whatsoever, because the 11th Circuit had closed the Case in June2009;c. No judgment, because frivolity had never been any issue until the Case wasclosed;d. No lien, because a non-existentjudgmentcould not have maturedinto a lien;e. No lien, because the lienholder's address did not appear on the forgedjudgment.

79. Here, there was nojudgment. A [hypothetical] judgmentdoes 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/orLot 15A as a result of the unlawfulrecordation of a fictitious and facially forgedjudgment.See Tomalo v. Kingsley Displays, Inc., 862 So. 2d 899, 900-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citingHott 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).

80. In Florida, a lien is not any conveyance of the legal title or of the right ofpossession, 697.02, F.S. The [hypothetical] execution of any [hypothetical] lien would notdestroy any of the unities. Therefore, thejoint tenancy and the right of survivorship could

not havepossibly been destroyed

Case Fixing and Bribery in U.S.Courts - JAMES S. MOODY, JR.

Documents

Transcript of Case Fixing and Bribery in U.S.Courts - JAMES S. MOODY, JR.