PUBLIC NOTICE OF “RES PERVERTA”

DEFENDANT CROOKED U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS G. WILSON

ATTN: MAGISTRATE JUDGE REAPPOINTMENT COMMENTS

401 W. Central Blvd., Suite 2100
Orlando, FL 32801-0210

OBJECTIONS TO FACIALLY FRAUDULENT “report and recommendation”, DOC. # 67

1. The Plaintiff Government corruption & crime victims object to Defendant Crooked
Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson’s premeditated
a. Cover-up of Government Officials’ crimes and corruption on the public record;
b. Fraudulent concealment of, e.g., Def. Officials’ extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice;
c. Extension of Government corruption, fraud, retaliation, and deliberate deprivations;
d. Extortion of Plaintiffs’ Lot 15A, Cayo Costa, and money under fraudulent pretenses.
See Doc. # 67, mailed on 08/19/2010; Case 2:2010-cv-00089.

PLAINTIFFS CONTEST MAGISTRATE WILSON’S CORRUPTION, DOC. # 67

2. The Plaintiff unimpeachable record owners of and title holders to Lot 15A contest
Defendant Magistrate Thomas G. Wilson’s publicly recorded and proven:
a. Corruption;
b. Fraud, deception, and trickery;
c. Fraud on the Court;
d. Dishonesty;
e. Objective partiality;
f. Incompetence;
g. Perversion of the law and public record evidence.

DEF. CROOKED JUDGE WILSON’S FABLE & FABRICATION OF “res judicata”

3. It is a hackneyed truism that “res judicata does not preclude a litigant from making a direct
attack upon the judgment before the court which renders it. 1B J. Moore, Federal Practice, §
0.407, at 282 (2d ed. 1991). In other words, a party may introduce evidence, normally
extrinsic in nature, "with the direct and primary objective of modifying, setting aside,
canceling or vacating, or enjoining the enforcement of the judgment.” C. Wright & A.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure at § 4406 (citing Intermill v. Nash, 94 Utah 271, 75
P.2d 157 (1938)).

DIRECT ATTACK OF BRAZEN FRAUD ON THE COURTS SINCE 2006

4. Here, the Plaintiff unimpeachable record title holders to riparian Gulf-front Lot 15A
directly attacked publicly recorded organized judicial crime and corruption in Florida
Courts.
a. Here, the original Federal Case, 2:2007-cv-00228, is under appeal and attack for, e.g.,
publicly recorded Government racketeering, retaliation, extortion, fraud, fraud on
the Courts, and deliberate deprivations, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242;
 b. Here, the purported “factual findings” by Crooked Magistrate Wilson are under direct
attack, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and conclusively controverted by U.S., Florida, and Lee
County Public Records;
c. Government corruption and crimes did not, and could not have possibly, created
“finality” but voided deception, trickery, and fraud on the Courts since 2006.
d. Cover-up by res judicate

COVER-UP, CONCEALMENT & CORRUPTION UNDER PRETENSES OF res judicata

5. Here under fraudulent and facially false pretenses of “res judicata”, Defendant Corrupt
Judge Thomas G. Wilson:
a. Covered up Crimes by Corrupt Officials and Defendants;
b. Concealed Organized Government Crime & Corruption;
c. Conspired with other Government Crooks to conceal and cover up.

PLAINTIFF ATTACK DEF. WILSON’S FALSIFIED “factual findings”, DOC. # 67

6. The Plaintiffs hereby attack Defendant T. G. Wilson’s
a. Perversion of publicly recorded marketable title and ownership evidence, Ch. 712, F.S.;
b. Perversion of prima facie scam “O.R. 569/875” into an “instrument” of trickery;
c. Perversion and falsification of record real property tax payment evidence;
d. Alteration of official records and documents for criminal purposes of racketeering.

“RES PERVERTA”
7. On the record Wilson confuses “res perverta” and “res judicata”. Just like criminal Catholic
Church Officials conspired to “create finality”, cover up, and conceal organized Church
crime and corruption, here Def. Wilson conspired to conceal rape of the law under
fraudulent pretenses of “res judicata” and color of office.

DEF. CROOKED JUDGE WILSON CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL FAKE “land parcels”

8. In particular, Defendant Wilson conspired with other Officials and Defendants to conceal,
e.g.:
a. Fake “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;
b. Fake “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
c. Fake “judgment”;
d. Fake “July 29, 2009, judgment”;
e. Fake un-recorded “$5,048.60 judgment”, Doc. ## 386, 432;
f. Fake “lien”;
g. Fake “writ of execution”, Doc. # 425;
h. Fake “resolution 569/875”, “O.R. 569/875”, “Lee County Public Records”, Doc. # 338;
i. Non-existence of fictitious “08/22/2008” “Rule 38 Motion”, Doc. # 386.
See Case 2:2007-cv-00228; see Lee County Plat Book 3, Page 25 (1912) on file.

DEF. WILSON CONCEALED LACK OF RECORD OF FALSIFIED “land parcels”

9. Def. Wilson knew that he or any intelligent, fit, and honest person in Wilson’s shoes could
a. NOT find facially forged “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;\
b. NOT find facially forged “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
c. NOT find any “Lee County” title to forged “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;

2
 d. NOT find any “Lee County” title to forged “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;

DEF. CROOKED JUDGE WILSON PERVERTED THE 1912 PLAT, PB 3, PG 25

10. Plain and short, the attached 1912 Cayo Costa Subdivision Plat of Survey
a. Was devoid of falsified “land parcel” “12-44-20-01-00000.00A0”;
b. Was devoid of falsified “land parcel” “07-44-21-01-00001.0000”;
c. Was devoid of the falsified “Lee County” park.
Here, Def. Wilson knew that as a matter of law the fraudulently pretended conveyance of
said fake “land parcels” in reference to said 1912 Plat had been legally and factually
impossible.

WILSON CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL ORGANIZED JUDICIAL CRIME, DOC. # 67

11. Florida law prohibits fraudulent fabrication of a fake interest in fictitious “land parcels”.
Here, Plaintiff(s) had demanded judicial notice of, e.g.:
a. Ch. 95, Florida Statutes, ADVERSE POSSESSION;
b. Ch. 73, 74, Florida Statutes, EMINENT DOMAIN;
c. Ch. 712, F.S., self-enforcing FLORIDA MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT;
d. Article I, s. 10, Florida Constitution;
e. Article I, s. 2, Florida Constitution;
f. Article I, s. 9, Florida Constitution;
g. The recorded fraudulent violations of Florida Statutes and Constitution;
h. Def. K. M. Wilkinson’s publicly recorded fabrications and fraud on the Court.

DEF. CROOK WILSON CONCEALED DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS,

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, 1st, 14th, 7th, 4th, 5th U.S. CONST. AMEND.
12. Article I, s. 9, Fla. Const., states that
"[n]o person shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of law . . . ."
Art. I, s. 2, Fla. Const. states that
"[a]ll natural persons are equal before the law . . . ."
Art. I, s. 10, Fla. Const., states that
"No . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."
Here, the Plaintiffs had the fundamental equal rights to own their Lot 15A, Cayo Costa,
and exclude Defendant Governments from their riparian Gulf-front street and uplands, PB 3
PG 25, U.S. Constitutional Amendments. The Plaintiff record real property tax payers, Lot
15A, and title holders were entitled to defend their perfected unencumbered marketable
record title against Defendant Officials’ racketeering, extortion, retaliation, deliberate
deprivations, and obstruction of justice under fraudulent pretenses and color of office.

EXTENSION OF RECORD EXTORTION, FRAUD, DELIBERATE DEPRIVATIONS

13. Defendants’ facially frivolous allegations of said sham “land parcels” were
a. Legally incomprehensible;
b. NOT any valid defense or genuine claim;
c. For criminal purposes of, e.g., racketeering, retaliation, extortion, and fraud;
d. Controverted by the Lee County Real Property Grantor/Grantee Index.
e. Prohibited under

3
 DEF. WILSON’S IDIOTIC, ARBITRARY, AND CAPRICIOUS “report”, DOC. # 67
14. Like a bungling Government idiot, Def. Wilson rambled incomprehensibly:
“The property may have been taken over by Lee County in some way.” Id., p.
Florida law does not recognize “take over” by Government.
15. Any “involuntary alienation” of property in Florida is strictly and necessarily a judicial
function and must follow due judicial process, Chapters 73, 74, 95, Fla. Stat. Here, no judge
had ever ordered any “title transfer”, Lot 15A, against the Plaintiffs’ will. Here, no eminent
domain or adverse possession judgment or document had ever existed.

AMBIGUOUS AND VAGUE JUDICIAL TRASH, DOC. # 67, P. 2:

“GUESSING” GOVERNMENT CROOK THOMAS G. WILSON
16. On the public record, Doc. # 67, Defendant Wilson asserted his “guessing” game and judicial
charade:

“I guess something was appealed …” Id., p. 2.

PLAYING DUMB & DUMBER: DEFENDANT IDIOT THOMAS G. WILSON

“Upon reading of the complaint, I have no concrete idea what happened.” Id., p. 3.

“Other defendants had something to do with the record of title to the property.” Id., p. 2.

“Here is all that I could get out of it.” Id.

Here, Government idiot Wilson “played so dumb” that he confused, e.g.:

a. Causes of action;
b. Claims for relief;
c. Parties;
d. Actions.

17. Here, the Plaintiff record owners and holders of indisputable Warranty Deed, Lot 15A, can
only live in further fear of injury from, e.g., said publicly recorded judicial
a. Corruption;
b. Idiocy;
c. Ignorance;
d. Irrationality;
e. Recklessness.

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A. et al.

18. In their independent action for relief from, e.g., extrinsic fraud, fraud on the Court,
racketeering, retaliation, extortion, obstruction of justice, the Plaintiff record owners of Lot
15A attacked the prima facie nullity, illegality, and criminality of judicial determinations
regarding the record ownership of private “land” fraudulently “claimed as public land” under
facially false and deceptive pretenses of fake “law” and/or ”resolution”, scam “O.R.
569/875”. See U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A. et al., 1:10-cv-321-JL, U.S. District Court,
District of New Hampshire.

4
19. Here, Def. Wilson concealed the most elementary legal principle that any involuntary
alienation could not have possibly been a legislative function, and that the fraudulent “land-
transfer-by-resolution-scam” was a hoax and extortion scheme…

DEF. WILSON CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL FAKED “frivolous appeal” motion:

WILSON KNEW THAT WILKINSON ADMITTEDLY DID NOT file Rule 38 motion
20. Here admittedly, Defendant Kenneth M. Wilkinson, Crooked Lee County Property
Appraiser, had filed a “Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 27-4”.
Here, Defendant Crooked Magistrate Wilson knew, fraudulently concealed, and conspired
with other Government Agents to conceal that Def. Wilkinson did not file a “Rule 38” or
“frivolous appeal” motion:

DEFENDANT WILKINSON FILED “RULE 27-4 motion [frivolous motion]”, DOC. # 386

See Doc. # 386, 11/30/2009, p. 2, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.

DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO “grant” FAKE “rule 38 motion”

21. In the record absence of a “rule 38 motion”, the Defendant U.S. Appellate Court Judges,
11th Circuit, conspired with other Defendant Officials to fake and “grant” a non-existent
“rule 38 motion”, which they knew Defendant Wilkinson had admittedly not filed.

See Doc. # 386-4, 11/30/2009, p. 1 of 2, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.