Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lee County Defendants Objection to Arbitrary Corrected Order Issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on grounds of "Fraud on the Court" Writ of Mandamus Exhibit P-22

Lee County Defendants Objection to Arbitrary Corrected Order Issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on grounds of "Fraud on the Court" Writ of Mandamus Exhibit P-22

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17|Likes:
Published by Larry Bradshaw
Lee County - Defendants Objection to Arbitrary Corrected Order Issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on grounds of "Fraud on the Court"
Lee County - Defendants Objection to Arbitrary Corrected Order Issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on grounds of "Fraud on the Court"

More info:

Published by: Larry Bradshaw on Dec 03, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/13/2011

pdf

text

original

 
W
I,
k
L
i
I'
I
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHETWENTIETHJUDICIALCIRCUITINANDFORLEECOUNTY;FLORIDACIVILACTIONUSBANKNATIONALASSOCIATION,ASTRUSTEEFORGSMPS2004-4Plaintiff,vs.CASENO:08-CA.:055974Judge:Richards/McflughLARRYR.BRADSHAW,etal,Defendant(s).
------------------------~/--------------------------------
DEFENDANT'SOBJECTIONTOARBITRARYCORRECTEDISSUEDBYJUDGEMCHUGHDATED
MARCIl15,
2010ONGROUNDSOF"FRAUDONTHECOURT"
&
DEFENDANT'SMOTIONTODISQUALIFYJUDGEMCHUGH
ComesnowDefendantLarry
R
Bradshaw,prosewithhisobjectiontothearbitrarycorrectedorderissuedbyJudgeMcHughdatedMarch15,2010onthegroundsthatJudgeMcHughpracticeda:FraudontheCourt"whereinheclaimstohaveheardamotionthatwasinfactheardbyJudgeRobertsinanotherhearingroomatthesametimeasJudgeMcHughwasinsessioninhearingroom16,onthe
4th
Floor.Wheredefendantwaspresentinresponsetoplaintiffnoticeofhearing(SeeattachedasexhibitD-I).DefendantMovestodisqualifyJudgeMcHughforegregiousbiasagainstDefendantandknowinglyengaginginconductinvolvingdishonesty,fraud,deceit,ormisrepresentation(FloridaRule4-8.4(c)wherethefactsshowtheJudgeknowinglyissuedashamorderinviolationoftheRulesoftheFloridaBar4-3.3(a)(l)(alawyershallnotknowinglymakeafalsestatementofmaterialfactorlawtoatribunal);and4-3.4(alawyershallnotunlawfullyobstructanotherparty'saccesstoevidenceorotherwiseunlawfullyalter,destroy,orconcealadocument,orothermaterialthatalawyerknows,orreasonably
 
....
I
I:
~!
I:
shouldknowisrelevanttoapendingproceeding,orcounsel,orassistawitnesstotestify
i'
I:
falsely.FloridaBarv.Miller,863So.2d231(pIa.2003),andstatesinsupport:STATEMENTOFFACTS1.OnMarch22,2010defendantreceivedacorrectedorderdatedMarch15, 2010,fromJudgeMcHughwhograntedPlaintiff'sMotiontoCompeldiscoverywithin20daysthathadbeendeniedbyJudgeRoberts,whosomehowheardthecasethatwasnoticedforJudgeMcHugh'scourt.2.JudgeMcHughdidnotheartheplaintiff'smotiontocompelonFebruary22,2010inhishearingroomatthetimesetforhearinginplaintiff'snoticeofhearingSeeExhibitD~1).3.Plaintiff'sNoticeofHearingsetthehearinginJudgeMcHugh'sCourtlocatedattheLeeCountyCourthouseat1700MonroeSt.CourtRoom16,4th.
o
Floor,FortMyers,FL33901at11:AMEST,orassoonthereafterascounsel maybeheard.4.JudgeMcHughdidcallthecaseforhearingandthereforenotheartheMotion.5.DefendantpresentinJudgeMcHugh'scourtroomat11:OOAM,discoveredafterJudgeMcHughretiredtohischamber,thattheMotionwasheardbyJudgeRobertsinRobert'shearingroomonthe1
st
floor.6.DefendantwenttoJudgeRobert'sHearingRoomafterJudgeMcHughretiredtochamber,whereinhefoundthedoorlockedwithplaintiffattorney'sstillinside.7.JudgeMcHughdidnotcallthecasenumber36-2008-CA-055974forhearing.
I
I
I
I
__________________________I
----------.-----------~
 
8.JudgeMcHughdidnotreviewthedocumentsorhearfromdefendantonsaidmotion.9.JudgeMcHughcouldnothavebeenfullyadvisedinthepremises
as
statedinhiscorrectedorder.OBJECTIONDefendantobjectstothelegalchicanerymachinatedbythePlaintiffsCounsel,JudgeMcHughandpossiblyJudgeRoberts,isnoticingthehearingforMcHugh'scourtwheredefendantwasdirectedbytheNoticeofHearing,datedJanuary14,2010,whileholdinganexpartehearinginJudgeRobertscourtonthe1
st
floor.DefendantfurtherobjectstothecorrectedorderissuedbyJudgeMcHughwhoknewthathedidnotheartheMotion.JudgeMcHughkneworshouldhaveknownthathedidnothavethepowertomodifytheinterlocutoryorderofapredecessorjudgeuntilfinaljudgment,whichwasnotthecasehere
(PinellasCtySchoolBD.VSuncam,
829So.2d989(Fla.
App,
2Dist.2002)Citing
Russ
v.
CityofJacksonville,
734So.2d
508,511(Fla.
1st.
DCA1099).JudgeMcHugh'sshamorderconstitutesa"fraud.ontheCourt"whereinhestatedintheorderthathereviewedthedocuments,andheardfromplaintiffcounsel,andthedefendant,andwas:fullyadvisedinthepremises.JudgeMcHughorderispalpablyorinherentlyfalse,andfromtheplainfactsinthecase,musthavebeenknownbythejudgetobeuntrue.SuchunethicalpracticebyJudgeMcHughisanaffronttotheimpartialityofthecourt,establisheddueprocess,adversarialpractice,andevidentiaryrules.Theapparentcollusion,orotherwrong-doingclearlysatisfiestherequisiteto"fraudonthecourt"whereitcanbedemonstrated,clearly,andconvincingly,thataschemewascalculatedtointerferewiththejudicialsystem'sabilitytoimpartially

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->