IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

                                                                  CASE NO: 08-CA-050359
                                                                    Judge: Rosman Jay, B.
       Century Bank FSB



       VALERIE J. DONEY, et al,

       Comes now George Malcolm Doney (GMD) who having been sworn, deposes and
       All statements contained in this Affidavit are from my personal knowledge and are
       true and I make these statements under penalty of perjury.
Defendant, GEORGE M. DONEY, (GMD) pro se hereby files this verified motion to
vacate foreclosure judgment and to cancel the sale of the property scheduled for January
7, 2010 pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) Fla. R. Civ. P., states:
        1.      Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) provides in pertinent part:
                    On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a
                    party or a party‟s legal representative from a final judgment, decree,
                    order, or proceeding for the following reasons:… (3) fraud (whether
                    heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
                    other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is
                    void; This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an
                    independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or
                    proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
        2.      Judge Thompson Ordered a Final Judgment Of Mortgage Foreclosure in the
       Rocket Docket Court on December 4, 2009. This Judgment is in violation of both
Fla.R.Civ.P 1.540 (b)(3) fraud and (4) the judgment is void.
 3.   No Default Judgment has been issued by the Clerk, or the Court in
pursuance of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500 (a) and following the closing down of Century
Bank by the Office of Thrift Supervision on November 13, 2009 for, inter alia,
abuses of the Federal Truth in Lending Acts and dangerous banking practices,
after an unsuccessful attempt by Defendant George M. Doney to persuade
Attorney McKay to cancel the Hearing for Summary Judgment scheduled for
December 4, 2009 on the grounds that he could no longer represent the former
Century Bank as though it were the Plaintiff in this Action, Defendants filed an
Answer and Affirmative Defenses in the Court on November 17, 2009 as
permitted by Fla.R.Civ.P 1.500(c). Defendants aver that this action immediately
established that this was a contested case and was not appropriate for
consideration by a Rocket Docket Court.
 4.   Attorney McKay's response was to file two further documents in the Court, a
Notice of Re-Hearing [specifically requested to be in Courtroom 5H, known to
him as the Rocket Docket Courtroom] in which he represented himself as Attorney
for Plaintiff (the then non existent Century Bank) and a Motion to Substitute
Plaintiff in which he represented himself as "counsel for non-party IberiaBank."
 5.   Attorney McKay also informed the Court that he would not personally be
present at the Hearing but would be represented by local Attorney Goetz.
 6.   Defendant George M. Doney (GMD) made two further attempts by email to
persuade Attorney McKay to cancel the ex-parte arrangement he had made for this
Hearing and specifically pointed out to him all the relevant facts as to why this
Hearing should not proceed, including the inappropriateness of a Hearing in the
Rocket Docket Court, previously described by Judge Thompson and recorded by
Fort Myers Court Reporting on August 28, 2009, as "not a thinking Docket"
[Exhibit A].
 7.   Florida Statue 90.108 (2) states, "The report of a court reporter, when
certified to by the court reporter as being a correct transcript of the testimony and
proceedings in the case, is prima face a correct statement of such testimony and
proceedings. Defendants therefore aver that this is a correct statement and an
admission by Judge Thompson that when he presides at Rocket Docket Hearings
that he "is not required to think" and when read with his further statement, “I
would simply continue the matter and let you all reset it before the assigned judge”
and with his introductory statements made at the commencement of each such
Court session to the effect that the assembled Defendants "do not have any legal
defenses" is prima face evidence that a heavily contested case, in which no
Default Judgment has been issued [Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500] supported by evidence in
the form of "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." Fla. Sta. 90.202 (12) of the Evidence Code."
 8.   Attorney McKay ignored Defendant's Answer, but filed a frivolous
Avoidances To Defendants' Affirmative Defenses on December 2, 2009 as counsel
for what he knew at that time was no longer able to represent itself as a Plaintiff
following its shuttering by its regulator, The Office of Thrift Supervision on
November 13, 2009. Also on December 2, 2009, Defendants filed their Motion to
Strike [the non existent Plaintiff's] Motion to Substitute non-party IberiaBank and
sought Summary Judgment in their favor and Sanctions.
 9.   Upon receipt, examination and comprehension of a copy of Plaintiff's
Avoidances to their Affirmative Defenses, [delivered by US Mail on the afternoon
of December 2, 2009 and postmarked 'Fort Myers' where Attorney James Goetz
has his business address, but bearing the purported signature of Attorney Mckay,
whose business address is in Sarasota] Defendants discovered further evidence and
commenced preparation of a further Motion to Strike those frivolous Pleadings
also, but was unable to finish that document until the morning of December 4,
2009, the day of the Hearing.
 10. That Motion contained a material Exhibit of 125 pages, being a Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) document which was filed in the Court at
12.50 on December 4, 2009, just before the Hearing, with the intention of handing
it up to the Judge at the commencement of the Hearing. Judge Thompson's
actions prevented this evidence together with all the previous Motions, Affidavits
and Exhibits filed in his Court ever being considered by him.
 11. Attorney McKay has violated the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, quoted
irrelevant case law, made what he knew, or should have known were false
statements in writing contained in papers he has filed in this and other actions in
this Court, changed his story after seeing Defendant's Answer and Affirmative
Defenses, but continued to leave his original deceptive submissions to this Court
un-amended in other cases where the Defendants had not challenged those
submissions, he has also violated the Florida Bar Conduct Rules, has acted in a
manner towards Defendant GMD, both before and after the 'Hearing' on December
4, 2009 for which he has previously been sanctioned by the Florida Bar, [who
were particularly concerned that he showed no remorse and continued to represent
that he had not behaved improperly despite a unanimous decision by the Bar
Exhibit B].
 12. Judge Thompson has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of
Florida, in the instant case [and GMD has witnessed at first hand angry and biased
behavior by this same Judge on previous occasions, some of which are on the
record in official Court Reports]. This Judge regularly violates Cannon 3A, B (4),
(5), (7), (8), D (2) and E 1(a), full details of which are contained in the Affidavit of
George Malcolm Doney which will be filed as Exhibit C, either at the time of
filing this Motion, or as shortly thereafter as his limited time as a pro se litigant
can be allocated for its final preparation.
 13. The Rocket Docket Court is where Judge Thompson regularly sits, churning
through anything from 200 to 300 cases in each half-day session of his Court.
 14. Defendant GMD has regularly attended the Rocket Docket Court when he
has prepared witness affidavits in support of defendants in foreclosure suits, and
thus has personal knowledge of the modus operandi of the Rocket Docket Court
that follows broadly the same procedure whether or not Judge Thompson is
 15. Immediately after Judge Thompson takes his seat on the bench he introduces
the assembled defendants at their Summary Judgment Hearings to the reasons for
the existence of the Court [being the need to cope with the huge volumes of
foreclosures, without any explanation as to the legality or otherwise of such a
Court] and to the procedures that they can expect when their case number is
 16. He gave that same introductory talk on the afternoon of December 4, 2009.
He attempted to prepare everyone who was appearing on that afternoon to accept
that they do not have any legal defense by saying [as he did on this occasion]
“only cases where Defendants have no legal defense are scheduled for Hearing in
this Court after careful and detailed consideration.” No explanation is given as to
which person, group of persons, or entity engaged in "careful and detailed
consideration" or made the decision that the particular defendants had "no legal
defense" and could be identified as being responsible for placing their case into a
Rocket Docket Court procedure, or what led such person or persons unknown, to
conclude that “no legal defense” existed.
 17. Judge Thompson concluded this portion of his introduction as he always
does in such sessions by stating “If anyone believes that they do have a legal
defense they need to speak up. His actions in the instant case and on other
occasions referred to in Exhibit C belied those words.
 18. Defendants (GMD) and his wife Valerie J. Doney, (VJD) acting pro se,
attended the Hearing and as detailed herein, had previously filed extensive
pleadings in this case, most of which had been filed in good time to be available to
Judge Thompson on the electronic record available to him at the Hearing and the
date and time stamped copy of additional and pertinent evidence filed in the Court
just before the Hearing commenced which was brought by Defendants to the
Court, that given the opportunity Defendants would have handed up to the Judge
on the bench.
 19. What Judge Thompson's Order improperly refers to as a Hearing lasted no
more than two minutes, did not follow the format described in that document
which was signed by Judge Thompson and was conducted in the presence of a
Court Reporter, being Jackie Burrell, one of the owners of Von Ahn Associates
Inc., provided by the Defendants at their expense. A copy of the Court Report is
at Exhibit D.
 20. Defendants regret to bring to the Court‟s attention that despite the provisions
of Florida Staute 90.108(2) this Court Report is inaccurate and aver that it is
manifestly obvious to any reader of that report, even if the reader had not been
present at the Hearing to draw that inescapable conclusion.
 21. This Court Report cannot be a true record of what transgressed at this
Hearing as it opens with the words spoken by Judge Thompson addressed to
GMD, "Did you just listen to what I said?" Clearly there must have been
something Defendant GMD said to have provoked such a response and the fact is
that in front of a Courtroom full of witnesses GMD had read the opening words
that he had previously drafted from a sheet of paper he was holding in his
hand.(Exhibit E).
 22.   Some of those words appear on the Court Report slotted in an obviously
incorrect place right at the end of this non-Hearing, just prior to the aggravated
battery by an armed Bailiff on Defendant GMD's person, referred to hereinafter,
and clearly did not reflect what actually transpired during the Hearing. Only when
an electronic copy of this document has lines 9 through 17 on page four of the
transcript cut and pasted in front of line 1 on page three, does it make any sense as
a cohesive transcript and also accurately reflect the sense of what was actually said
and the order in which it was said by the three parties whose voices it purports to
have recorded.
 23. In addition to the sworn testimony of Defendant GMD an Affidavit is also
filed by Christian Meister, EXHIBIT F, and further Affidavits may be
subsequently filed by another person or persons, who were in the Court and
witnessed the events described in this Motion.
 24. However, in the event that the Court strictly upholds the provisions of Fla.
Sta. 90.108 (2) despite the evidence now submitted, there is more than sufficient
content in that Court Report to establish that the Final Judgment of Mortgage
Foreclosure, signed by Judge Thompson is not an accurate and fair record of what
actually transpired and to establish that the alleged violations contained
hereinabove and in GMD's Affidavit to be filed in the Court are accurate with
regard to breaches by Judge Thompson, Attorneys Scott McKay and James Goetz
of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida and/or of the Rules of
Professional Conduct of the Florida Bar, by both Judge and Attorneys in this case.
 25. In the case of Attorneys McKay and Goetz and especially in the case of
McKay this conduct was not confined to the Courtroom as detailed in evidence
filed in the Court and continued after the Hearing in inappropriate e-mails sent to
Defendant GMD. [EXHIBIT G].
 26. Full details of what transpired subsequent to GMD receiving the transcript
from Von Ahn between GMD and Jackie Burrell, who states that she is a part
owner of Von Ahn are contained in the Affidavit at Exhibit C.
 27. The Court should also be aware that at the conclusion of Judge Thompson‟s
treatment of GMD and concurrent with the laying of an armed Bailiff's hands upon
GMD's arm, a person known to me, Christian Meister, who was one of a large
number of witnesses to these events [and who has now filed an Affidavit in this
case] while sitting in the Courtroom, sprang to his feet and was shouting at Judge
Thompson that as a Sheriff's candidate he wanted him to know that he had never
before witnessed such a miscarriage of justice and that he intended to make certain
that the people of Lee County would learn of the corruption that was taking place
in this Court. Defendants played no part in what Christian Meister said that day, it
had not been pre-planned and Defendants can only assume it to have occurred as a
result of his genuine disgust at what he witnessed in Judge Thompson's Rocket
Docket Court.
 28. A sworn statement in support of this Motion from Defendant GMD is in
course of preparation and will be submitted to this Court within the next week.
This statement, together with the Court Reporter‟s inaccurate transcript of what
little proceedings took place evidence, inter alia, fraud upon the Court, lack of
standing to continue this lawsuit, no subject matter jurisdiction, no Plaintiff,
misrepresentations and changes of story by Attorneys McKay and Goetz,
violations of law, violation of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(c), breaches of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, including denial of equal access rights by Judge Thompson [in
his capacity as a Rocket Docket Judge to an educated, law abiding, elderly,
hearing impaired American pro se litigant], Ordering Summary Judgment, [not
after a careful Judicial weighing of all the overwhelming evidence, as is stated in
the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure] which bears a Clerk of the Court
date stamp indicating that it was filed in the Court on the day of the 'Hearing' (a
Friday) [despite the conflicting statement that it was recorded on 12/08/2009 at
8.34am the following Monday].
 29. Even the inaccurate Court Report demonstrates that all the evidence
contained in Defendant's Pleadings against frivolous pleadings from a non-existent
Plaintiff in order to establish matters of law, fact, and/or equity, had been ignored
and Judge Thompson elected instead to inflict upon both Defendants an
unprovoked angry punishment [when the Court Proceedings evidence that VJD
had not said a word during this „Hearing‟ and that VJD is the spouse who invested
substantial equity derived from her retirement funds into this property that was
over appraised by the former Century Bank].
 30. The clearly intended harsh discipline and humiliation Judge Thompson
inflicted upon both Defendants for the 'crime' committed by GMD for daring to
ask permission as a Hearing Impaired Senior Citizen, in compliance with his basic
Constitutional and legal rights to be allowed equal access as was and is always
afforded to the non-Plaintiff‟s counsel and finally causing two police officers of
the three armed bailiffs in his Court to move towards Defendants with one of them
coming through the swing door in the Court barrier and by laying hands on
Defendant George M. Doney while shouting at him "The Judge has ruled"
causing an unnecessary aggravated battery of his elderly person, causing him to
feel very unwell from the shock of such unprovoked treatment.
 31. Defendant, GMD also informs the Court that on knowledge and belief,
Judge Thompson displayed a personal bias against him which should have brought
about his Recusal based upon GMD's prior appearances in his Court as a witness,
when with the Judge's permission he had explained in detail the extent of the void
and fraudulent judgments that emanated from the Rocket Docket Court backed up
by exhibits of multiple fraudulent documents filed in the Court by purported
counsels to Plaintiffs.
 32. GMD is a regular observer of Judge Thompson, from his attendances at the
Rocket Docket Court, sometimes as an observer, or when he has filed Witness
Affidavits in that Court. Due to the volume of cases processed there every day he
has observed such outbursts of bias on many occasions, often showing his
intolerance and anger against Defendants when they raise questions and
objections. Some of those have been cases where GMD has personal knowledge of
the facts of the case as a result of his investigations, compilation of evidence and
preparation of Affidavits, which on one such occasion, just like the instant case,
Judge Thompson refused to read. Details are contained in GMD's Affidavit to be
filed in the Court when it is completed and which include GMD's two
presentations that Judge Thompson permitted him to make on the afternoon of
April 24, 2009 during the consideration of a case in which he had filed an
evidence Affidavit and numerous EXHIBITS which proved extensive fraud in that
case and many others that demonstrated that this filing of fraudulent documents
followed a pattern.
 33. Subsequently, despite an Order being issued for the case to be referred to the
Assigned Judge it was not recorded in the Court Docket and the Plaintiff once
again brought the case before Judge Thompson on July 14, 2009 when Judge
Thompson permitted GMD to speak as a witness and displayed bias against a pro
se litigant, this time in front of a Court Reporter. Details will be provided in the
forthcoming GMD Affidavit.
 34. GMD believes that pattern and others within his personal knowledge are
sufficient to demonstrate Racketeering and the active involvement of foreclosure
Mill Attorneys and others.
 35. In the instant case no Default had been entered in the Court, a procedurally
correct Answer and Affirmative Defenses had been filed by Defendants as had
Motions to Strike and for Summary Judgment to be entered in Defendants' favor,
Attorneys McKay and Goetz represented to the Court that the so-called Plaintiff,
the former Century Bank was a bona fide Plaintiff despite having previously been
shut down by its regulator, 'The Office of Thrift Supervision,' for inter alia,
dangerous banking practices and Federal Truth in Lending Act violations, the
original Complaint was defective, counsel had misrepresented the facts and
claimed to still be representing their now defunct entity, while simultaneously
claiming to represent non-party IberiaBank, making false, vague and hearsay
statements in their Pleadings (in their capacities as counsels) about an alleged, but
unsubstantiated arrangement they claimed the 'Plaintiff' had with the FDIC in
order to falsely show Standing for that bank in this matter and which argument
was wholly unsustainable by the facts displayed in the FDIC's Purchase and
Assumption Agreement with that bank, dated November 13, 2009.
 36. Commencing on November 16, 2009, GMD made one telephone call and
sent three e-mails to Attorney McKay which were filed in the Court. Details of
this unsatisfactory telephone call and subsequent e-mails are contained in GMD's
Affidavit of Support to this Motion, but Defendants wish to draw the Court's
particular attention to the fact that Attorney McKay specifically asked for the
Hearing [in his Re-Notice of Hearing to be held on December 4, 2009] to be held
in Courtroom 5H, the Court most frequently used for the Rocket Docket Court and
where Judge Thompson was presiding and not Judge Rosman who is the assigned
Judge on this case.
 37. Defendants also state that Attorney McKay was repeatedly told that the
Rocket Docket Court was not appropriate as this was a contested case and no
Default had been issued, making Summary Judgment inappropriate. Case Law
will be supplied in the forthcoming GMD Affidavit to be filed in the Court.
 38. Judge Thompson signed the Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure on
December 4, 2009 and it was filed in the Court that same Friday afternoon,
although it was not electronically recorded until the following Monday morning,
December 8, 2009 at 8.34 AM. It is obvious that with at least 200 cases to process
that afternoon coupled with the fact that the instant case was the first he 'heard'
that Judge Thompson simply placed his signature on a document prepared by
Attorney McKay and/or Attorney Goetz and did not read the content of that
document, [which seems to be verified in the Court report on line 19 of page 3 by
the words addressed to Attorney Goetz, "Give me a Summary Judgment"], or
alternatively, he was fully aware of its content and was prepared to knowingly
place his signature on a document that by his own recorded admissions in the
Court Report he knew to be a series of false statements.
 39. Had Judge Thompson actually read the document that he signed he would
have known that his statement, "After…………… reviewing the pleadings and
affidavits filed herein, and conducting a hearing on the matter, the Court orders
and finds as follows:" to be completely false, as by Judge Thompson‟s own
admission and recorded statement on lines 6 to 9 on page 3 of the Court Report he
knew nothing about the case when GMD was seeking to approach the bench and
prior to saying to Attorney Goetz, "Give me a Summary Judgment" did not review
any of the Defendant's pleadings and affidavits filed and did not conduct a hearing
on the matter.
 40. It is therefore indisputable that at no time did Judge Thompson review
anything prior to signing the Final Judgment in Foreclosure and by those
admissions he has either deliberately, or negligently signed that Order in
contravention of Canon 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct.
 41. In paragraph 1 he states "This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and
subject matter of this action." The Judge knows that subject matter jurisdiction
does not exist when the Plaintiff does not have a cause of action, or where the
Plaintiff was an entity that has been forced to close its business for inter alia
dangerous banking practices and violations of the Truth in Lending Act, or where
intrinsic frauds or extrinsic frauds have been committed to mislead the Court into
showing a Cause of Action where none exists.
 42. Paragraph 2 of this Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure signed by
Judge Thompson, states "The allegations contained in the complaint have been
proved by substantial and competent evidence." It further states that, "The
equities of this action are with the plaintiff, and plaintiff is entitled to foreclose the
mortgage on the real property at issue in this foreclosure bearing the following
legal description…………………"
 43. Defendants aver that all three of these statements conflict with The Code of
Judicial conduct for the State of Florida Canon 3A and B as detailed in Exhibit B.
 44. As repeatedly stated in this Motion, in previous Motions submitted to the
Court and as stated by Defendant GMD to Judge Thompson when he stated “the
Plaintiff gets to speak first” there was no legitimate Plaintiff able to continue this
action and the absent counsel Attorney McKay and the local counsel Goetz were
both aware of that fact before they submitted their fraudulent documents to the
Court and Goetz was testifying at the „Hearing‟ and Attorney McKay had been
repeatedly reminded of that same fact by GMD, once on the telephone and three
times in e-mails commencing on November 16, 2009 immediately after he became
aware that this entity no longer existed.
 45. GMD avers that not one shred of evidence that complies with the Florida
Evidentiary Code Statute was submitted by Attorneys McKay and/or Goetz either
before the 'Hearing' or during that 'Hearing.' Defendants however, do recognize
that hearsay and deliberately inaccurate statements that purport to portray facts to
the Court were contained in their written pleadings and in an Affidavit by a now
former employee of Century Bank that was challenged as inadmissible hearsay in
Defendant‟s pleadings.
 46. In contrast, Defendants had submitted very substantial evidence that was in
conformity with Fla. Stats. 90.202 (12) and (13), and as admitted by Judge
Thompson were not even looked at and he could not therefore claim that the
allegations of this 'dead pretend plaintiff' "had been proved by substantial and
competent evidence." In fact evidence that was in compliance with the
Evidentiary Code Statute and filed in the Court by the Defendants proved
conclusively the opposite of what Judge Thompson‟s Summary Judgment has
 47. As there was no plaintiff, the equities could not have been with it and it was
not entitled to foreclose or to do anything in this Court. It is also a fact that the
only evidence submitted to the Court and the only Affidavits submitted to the
Court emanated from the Defendants. Therefore Judge Thompson's statement that
"The allegations contained in the complaint have been proved by substantial and
competent evidence must be false on two counts. First there was no evidence
submitted by the pretend Plaintiff [other than inadmissible and/or hearsay
statements contained in pleadings].
 48. Second, the only evidence that was filed in this action had been filed in the
Court by the Defendants prior to the 'Hearing', including the full text of the
Purchase and Assignment Agreement entered into with IberiaBank by the FDIC
and which provides proof positive of the misleading and fraudulent pleadings put
into Court by counsel for the pretend plaintiff, the former Century Bank.
 49. Further evidence was submitted to the Court that Defendant VJD had
invested personal retirement funds in this property of close to $200,000. Clearly
the equities cannot be with the 'dead bank' and even if IberiaBank could have been
legitimately substituted, which it could not as shown in the evidence for reasons of
failure to comply with Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.260(c) and failure to fall within the
provisions of the inappropriate case law submitted by counsel for the 'plaintiff,'
Defendant's evidence in the form of the FDIC's published Purchase and
Assumption Agreement with IberiaBank, that entity invested zero Dollars in any
loan that was shown in their records as 'in default' and was previously owned or
serviced by Century Bank.
 50. Further as previously submitted in evidence to the Court, the actual list of
loans transferred has been redacted by the FDIC, and no proof that this loan was
ever transferred to that Bank is currently available and therefore there is no
evidence to support any of the misleading and broad statements made by Attorney
 51. Paragraph 3 of the Order signed by Judge Thompson states, "Plaintiff owns
and holds the note and mortgage in this matter. Plaintiff's mortgage is a valid lien
on the property, and the mortgage is in default as alleged in this action." This is a
further inaccurate statement which conflicts with paragraph 2 of the Complaint
which states, "Plaintiff or it’s assigns [emphasis added] currently owns and holds
the promissory note and mortgage being foreclosed, which clearly establishes that
even when Century Bank was an existing entity it was unable to categorically
make the statement that Judge Thompson now makes for it in its capacity as a
'dead entity.'
 52. Defendants aver that the Equities are clearly and unarguably with Defendant
VJD and that it appears that the sole objective of these fraudulent submissions is
for IberiaBank for an investment of zero Dollars, underwritten by the FDIC
against any loss, to get a free windfall to which it has absolutely no entitlement.
Judge Thompson, by multiple violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct and his
allowing one of the Court Bailiffs to engage in aggravated battery of a Florida
Senior Citizen has used the color of law for fraudulent purposes.
 53. Paragraph 4 of Judge Thompson's Order states a total amount owing,
including Attorney's fees of $377,312.64. This is a further unsubstantiated
statement, whereas Defendants state that the 'plaintiff' does not exist, that on the
date of the 'Hearing' it could not have verified what it claims was owing to it by
virtue of the fact that it ceased to exist on November 13, 2010 and despite the
frequent claims of Attorney McKay that he is in contact with their staff and
employees since that date.
 54. Paragraph 5 of the Summary Judgment and Order states that the Attorney
fee is reasonable. This is a further violation of the Judicial Code. If the
submissions of the Attorneys were false and deliberately misleading [as clearly
proven by Defendant's evidence filed in the Court] no amount of fees can be
construed as reasonable for presenting false evidence to secure a Judgment.
 55. Paragraph 6 of the Order states that the Plaintiff has a lien to secure the
payment of the aforesaid sums against the property. Defendants, again aver that
„no existing entity‟ translates into „no existing Plaintiff‟, which in turn translates
into no lien.
 56. The rest of this void Judgment is concerned with the improper sale of this
property set for January 7, 2010. Defendants state, "This proposed sale of Real
Property based upon a void Judgment, fraudulent pleadings and other documents
submitted by Attorney McKay and Goetz on behalf of a non-existent Plaintiff, is
an extension of the fraud contained in the Judgment and as such, places a cloud on
the title of this property which means that the Court should not allow it to proceed
and should immediately order a Stay of the Sale pending the resolution of this
 57. Defendants wish to draw to the attention of this Court that all the separate
matters contained in this Verified Motion are of a very serious nature and that
every statement contained therein is either backed by the Fla.R.Civ.P., by relevant
case law, the Evidentiary Code Statutes, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
and/or The Codes of Conduct governing Judges and Attorneys in the State of
Florida. Many of the specific issues contained in this Motion, in previous Motions
or Pleadings that have been ignored by the Court, if proven have severe criminal
implications in addition to the Civil Matters to which this Motion is addressed.
 58. The Court should also be aware that in all other cases that GMD has
researched of a similar nature, both in Lee County and in other Florida Counties
where Century Bank, IberiaBank and Attorney McKay and/or Attorney Goetz
have been involved that the same fraudulent submissions have been made,
evidencing that these misrepresentations are not just confined to the 20th Circuit.
 59. For the Court‟s further information a copy of a letter sent by email to
Attorney McKay today is at EXHIBIT H.
 WHEREAS, Defendants George M. Doney and Valerie J. Doney move this
 Court to set a Hearing to vacate this void and fraudulent Judgment, immediately
 Order that this case be Dismissed with Prejudice and if legal fees are
 subsequently incurred the payment by the Attorney's misrepresenting themselves
 as counsel for what they both knew to be a non existent entity, and sanctions
 against those Attorneys, Disciplinary action against Judge Thompson and an
 undertaking that he will never again be permitted to preside over any case in
 which either of the Defendants are parties, or any case where GMD has
 submitted witness statements in order to avoid any further bias or prejudice of
 the kind that Defendants have clearly evidenced that they have been subjected to
 in this case.
 Defendants request a Hearing Date to vacate this void and fraudulent Judgment
 at the earliest possible convenient date for the parties and the Court and in view
 of the substantial evidence that is before this Court, but has been completely
 ignored, with the result that this Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure is both
 fraudulent and void within the meaning of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 (b) 3 and 4. In all
 the circumstances Judge Rosman as the Assigned Judge in this case is hereby
 requested to issue an emergency Order to Stay the Sale of the subject property,
 pending the Hearing to Vacate the Fraudulent and Void Judgment.
                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
              THE UNDERMENTIONED HEREBY CERTIFIES that a true and correct
          copy of the foregoing has been forwarded, via e-mail on January 6, 2010
          and by US Mail, to Scott D. McKay, Esq., McKay Law Firm P. A. , counsel for
          Plaintiff, 2055 Wood Street, Suite 120, Sarasota, Florida 34237 on this 5th
          day of January, 2010.

          George M. Doney             Valerie J. Doney
                                                          16211 Shenandoah Circle,
                                                          Fort Myers, Florida 33908
                                                               Phone 239 466 3627



PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority in and for the
aforesaid County and State, on this the 6th day of January, 2010 within my
jurisdiction, the within named GEORGE M. DONEY, who acknowledged to me that
he is the Affiant signing this document, known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that he
executed the same for the purpose and consideration therein expressed as his act
and deed and in the capacity therein stated. He is personally known to me and did
take the oath.

WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid the
_____day of _____________, _____.

To top