W

I,
k
L
i
I'
I

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN

AND FOR LEE COUNTY; FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE FOR GSMPS 2004-4
Plaintiff,
CASE NO: 08-CA.:055974
vs. Judge: Richards/Mcflugh

LARRY R. BRADSHAW, et al,

Defendant( s).
------------------------~/--------------------------------
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO ARBITRARY CORRECTED ISSUED BY
JUDGE MCHUGH DATED MARCIl 15, 2010 ON GROUNDS OF
"FRAUD ON THE COURT"
&
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE MCHUGH

Comes now Defendant Larry R Bradshaw, pro se with his objection to the

arbitrary corrected order issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on the grounds

that Judge McHugh practiced a: Fraud on the Court" wherein he claims to have heard a

motion that was in fact heard by Judge Roberts in another hearing room at the same time

as Judge McHugh was in session in hearing room 16, on the 4th Floor. Where defendant

was present in response to plaintiff notice of hearing (See attached as exhibit D-I).

Defendant Moves to disqualify Judge McHugh for egregiousbias against Defendant and

knowingly engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation

(Florida Rule 4-8.4( c) where the facts show the Judge knowingly issued a sham order in

violation of the Rules of the Florida Bar 4-3.3 (a)(l) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make

a false statement of material fact or law to atribunal); and 4-3.4 (a lawyer shall not

unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter,

destroy, or conceal a document, or other material that a lawyer knows, or reasonably

 p ....
I
I:
~!
I: should know is relevant to a pending proceeding, or counsel, or assist a witness to testify
i'
I: falsely. Florida Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 231 (pIa. 2003), and states in support:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On March 22, 2010 defendant received a corrected order dated March 15,

2010, from Judge McHugh who granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

discovery within 20 days that had been denied by Judge Roberts, who

somehow heard the case that was noticed for Judge McHugh's court.

2. Judge McHugh did not hear the plaintiff's motion to compel on February 22,

2010 in his hearing room at the time set for hearing in plaintiff's notice of

hearing See Exhibit D~1).

3. Plaintiff's Notice of Hearing set the hearing in Judge McHugh's Court

located at the Lee County Courthouse at 1700 Monroe St. Court Room 16, 4th.

Floor, Fort Myers, FL 33901 at 11: AM EST, or as soon thereafter as counsel

maybe heard.

4. Judge McHugh did call the case for hearing and therefore not hear the Motion.
o

5. Defendant present in Judge McHugh's court room at 11:OOAM,discovered

after Judge McHugh retired to his chamber, that the Motion was heard by

Judge Roberts in Robert's hearing room on the 1st floor.

6. Defendant went to Judge Robert's Hearing Room after Judge McHugh retired

to chamber, wherein he found the door locked with plaintiff attorney's still

inside.

7. Judge McHugh did not call the case number 36-2008-CA-055974 for hearing.
I
I
I
• __________________________
I
I
----------.-----------~
 8. Judge McHugh did not review the documents or hear from defendant on said

motion.

9. Judge McHugh could not have been fully advised in the premises as stated in

his corrected order.

OBJECTION

Defendant objects to the legal chicanery machinated by the Plaintiffs Counsel,

Judge McHugh and possibly Judge Roberts, is noticing the hearing for McHugh's court

where defendant was directed by the Notice of Hearing, dated January 14,2010, while

holding an ex parte hearing in Judge Roberts court on the 1st floor. Defendant further

objects to the corrected order issued by Judge McHugh who knew that he did not hear the

Motion. Judge McHugh knew or should have known that he did not have the power to

modify the interlocutory order of a predecessor judge until final judgment, which was not

the case here (Pinellas Cty School BD. V Suncam, 829 So. 2d 989 (Fla. App, 2 Dist.

2002) Citing Russ v. City of Jacksonville, 734 So.2d 508, 511 (Fla. 1st. DCA 1099).

Judge McHugh's sham order constitutes a "fraud.on the Court" wherein he stated

in the order that he reviewed the documents, and heard from plaintiff counsel, and the

defendant, and was :fully advised in the premises. Judge McHugh order is palpably or

inherently false, and from the plain facts in the case, must have been known by the judge

to be untrue. Such unethical practice by Judge McHugh is an affront to the impartiality

of the court, established due process, adversarial practice, and evidentiary rules.

The apparent collusion, or other wrong-doing clearly satisfies the requisite to

"fraud on the court" where it can be demonstrated, clearly, and convincingly, that a

scheme was calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially
 adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the Trier of fact, or unfairly hampering the

presentation of the opposing party's claim, or defense. See Granados \1'. Zehr, 5DO&-515

(Fla.App. 5 Dist. 4-18 ..2008).

Judge McHugh without just cause, simply fabricated an order void of material

facts, and in so doing has compromised the impartiality, and integrity of the court. SUch

disregard for honesty confirms defendant's position that Judge McHugh holds an

egregious prejudice toward the plaintiff wherein he conspired, or colluded with plaintiff

counsel ex parte to falsify a court order in favor of the plaintiff.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Wherefore, plaintiff counsel, and Judge McHugh have colluded to deprive

defendant of his right to due process oflaw, defendant request that the court Strike the

arbitrary order as fraudulent, quash plaintiff's Motion to Compel as out of time, being

defendant has challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, which demands an

evidentiary hearing to be held before the court can move forward. And where the record

clearly shows that no evidentiary hearing has been properly conducted, therefore the

court as previously briefed, has not jurisdiction to hear any discovery motions until such

evidentiary hearing has been fully conducted including testimony of defendant's

subpoenaed witness.

Defendant further request that his Motion to Disqualify Judge McHugh be

granted, and that the case be re-assigned to a new judge who has due regard for the

integrity of the judicial system, and the litigants rights to a full, and fair opportunity to be

heard which is due process.

 .'

Defendant further request sanctions sufficient to cover reasonable attorneyfees

against plaintiff and plaintiff counsel for chicanery in issuing a Notice of Hearing for

Judge Mclfugh's court apparently knowing the Motion would be heard in Judge Roberts

Court based on the fact that they were in Judge Roberts Court, and not in Judge

McHugh's court where defendant was during the 11:00AMcalendar call, and any other

relief just due and owing.

~~~
~J3radshaw
18291 UseppaRoad
Ft Myers,Florida 33912

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Larry Bradshaw, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has
been sent by U.S. Mail to: Florida Default Law Group P.L. P.O. Box 25018 Tampa,
Florida 33622-5018 March, ;is; 2010.