Fraud Upon The Court

[ezrhythm]

Taken from;
http://www.caught.net/prose/gembala.htm


"Fraud upon the court" occurs whenever any officer of the court commits fraud before a tribunal. A judge is not a court; he is under law an officer of the court, and he must not engage in any action to deceive the court. Trans Aero Inc. v. LaFuerga Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457 (2nd Cir. 1994); Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) (fraud upon the court exists "where the judge has not performed his judicial duties").

The Supreme Court, In re Eugene Lee Armentrout et al., 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill.Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983), stated that:

"Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including " ' * * * anything calculated to deceive, * * * whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture.' " (Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc. (1977), 68 Ill.2d 419, 435, 12 Ill.Dec. 151, 369 N.E.2d 858, citing People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Gilmore (1931), 345 Ill. 28, 46, 177 N.E. 710; In re Alschuler (1944), 388 Ill. 492, 503-04; Black's Law Dictionary 594 (5th ed. 1979).) Too, this court has previously disciplined lawyers even though their fraudulent misconduct did not harm [99 Ill.2d 252] any particular individual. In re Lamberis (1982), 93 Ill.2d 222, 229, 66 Ill.Dec. 623, 443 N.E.2d 549."

[sabredrivr]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Taken from;
http://www.caught.net/prose/gembala.htm


"Fraud upon the court" occurs whenever any officer of the court commits fraud before a tribunal. A judge is not a court; he is under law an officer of the court, and he must not engage in any action to deceive the court. Trans Aero Inc. v. LaFuerga Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457 (2nd Cir. 1994); Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) (fraud upon the court exists "where the judge has not performed his judicial duties").

The Supreme Court, In re Eugene Lee Armentrout et al., 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill.Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983), stated that:

"Fraud encompasses a broad range of human behavior, including " ' * * * anything calculated to deceive, * * * whether it be by direct falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or by silence, by word of mouth or by look or gesture.' " (Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc. (1977), 68 Ill.2d 419, 435, 12 Ill.Dec. 151, 369 N.E.2d 858, citing People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Gilmore (1931), 345 Ill. 28, 46, 177 N.E. 710; In re Alschuler (1944), 388 Ill. 492, 503-04; Black's Law Dictionary 594 (5th ed. 1979).) Too, this court has previously disciplined lawyers even though their fraudulent misconduct did not harm [99 Ill.2d 252] any particular individual. In re Lamberis (1982), 93 Ill.2d 222, 229, 66 Ill.Dec. 623, 443 N.E.2d 549."

good stuff!
now, if we could just get the judicial system to uphold their own rulings.

[freeindeed]

iamfreeru2 has just filed a counterclaim based on fraud upon the court and asked me to share with you. A DC has filed suit claiming assignment from the original OC and iamfreeru2 is asking for over $25,000.00 in damages based upon fraud. He had a case against Discover that was dismissed with prejudice where he did not file a counterclaim, but this one he is going after the DC. It should be interesting and I will keep all posted with regard to the outcome.

[ezrhythm]

Sounds good! Thanks for keeping us posted.

[charlesa6]

Way to go. Keep us posted.

[masterduke]

That is great! Can you share any details concerning the case that was dismissed with prejudice? And could it be put in the success story section?

[charlesa6]

Here it is to the link.
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/succes...-discover.html

[freeindeed]

Iamfree has filed request for admissions, request for documents into the case as well. I have seen the docs and they are awesome. The alleged plaintiff, a DC, has twenty days to answer the counterclaim and thirty to answer the admissions and documents. Should be very interesting. BTW the alleged plaintiff has no Florida address and is not registered with the SOS as having an agent for service of process.

The DC tried to use a scare tactic to get iamfree to sign a stipulation agreeing to pay the alleged debt and the DC would not take him to court. You know that really scared iamfree into submission, NOT!!!! LOL

[charlesa6]

No problem! Iamfree can deal with it. It's very knowledgeable man in that arena.

[freeindeed]

Just want to update you on the progess of iamfreeru2's counterclaim. When I saw this I ROTFLOA!!!!

This is what the plaintiff's motion for extension of time states in the pertinent parts:

2. On or about (Date here), Defendant filed a counterclaim as a result of which undersigned counsel advised Plaitiff of same and requested intructions as to what further action to take.

3. That Plaintiff's general cousel and/or the carrier's counsel must review the anclosed counterclaim and determine Plaintiff's exposure, along with liability carriers, if any, mut be advised of the pendency of this counterclaim.

4. As a result of the above and foregoing and in an effort not to waive any of Plaintiff's rights regarding possible insurance, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order Extending the Time for it to file the appropriate motion or pleadings for a period of thirty (30) days so that the appropriate measures as set forth above may be taken.

Then the Plaintiff just asked the usual that the court grant the motion. Of course iamfreeru2 has filed a response in opposition to their motion. LOL

Me thinks the alleged Plaintiff knows he is in trouble on this one. What ya think, eh?