to Lee County by virtue of prima facie fraud and extortion scheme“O.R. 569/875”. The Defendants knew that the purported “
” [counterfeit “claim”“O.R. 569/875”] never
and was never
MEMORANDUM:PLAINTIFFS’ DIRECT ATTACK ON FRAUD & FRAUD ON COURT UNDER R. 60(b)
2. The practical effect of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is to lift the bar of
in, e.g., fraud cases.See Woodrum v. Southern Ry. Co., 750 F.2d 876, 883 (11th Cir. 1985).
doesnot bar direct attacks on final judgments. See Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir.1985).3. Here, Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) Motion represents a direct attack on the prior fraudulentJudgment(s) of this Court. The jurisdiction in which relief from judgment is available is theMiddle District of Florida. See C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure at §2865. Therefore, nothing can possibly
the Plaintiff record owners from making adirect attack upon the judgment of this court in the form of their Rule 60(b) Motion. SeeWatts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d at 410.
U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
4. Similarly, the Defendants cannot rely on the
of any Eleventh Circuitdecision to
Plaintiff record owners Rule 60(b) Motion and/or claim. The Supreme Courthas held that a Federal District Court can hear a Rule 60(b) motion without leave from theappellate court. See Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S. Ct.31, 50 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1976) Therefore, an appellate court's mandate does not bar this trialcourt from disturbing judgment fraudulently entered in accordance with a fraudulentmandate. See also, Lairsey v. Advance Abrasives Co., 542 F.2d 928, 932 (5th Cir. 1976).