Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 05-10-19 Third Circuit Articulates Its Definition of Fraud Upon The Court S

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    23 views1 page
    Fraud upon the Court is in fact very common in the United States today. However, the reason that it is "so rare" in review by the courts, is that the United States courts routinely eliminate complaints where fraud upon the court is claimed. Any paper that I filed at the US District Court LA, US Court of Appeals, 9th circuit, and the US Supreme Court, which provided evidence along the lines of the standards described below, was simply eliminated from the docket.

    Original Title

    05-10-19 Third Circuit Articulates Its Definition of Fraud Upon the Court s

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Fraud upon the Court is in fact very common in the United States today. However, the reason that it is "so rare" in review by the courts, is that the United States courts routinely eliminate complaints where fraud upon the court is claimed. Any paper that I filed at the US District Court LA, US Court of Appeals, 9th circuit, and the US Supreme Court, which provided evidence along the lines of the standards described below, was simply eliminated from the docket.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    23 views1 page

    05-10-19 Third Circuit Articulates Its Definition of Fraud Upon The Court S

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    Fraud upon the Court is in fact very common in the United States today. However, the reason that it is "so rare" in review by the courts, is that the United States courts routinely eliminate complaints where fraud upon the court is claimed. Any paper that I filed at the US District Court LA, US Court of Appeals, 9th circuit, and the US Supreme Court, which provided evidence along the lines of the standards described below, was simply eliminated from the docket.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Digitally signed

    by Joseph Zernik
    Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
    Zernik, o, ou,
    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@
    earthlink.net,
    Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net c=US
    Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.10.16
    20:21:00 +03'00'
    Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

    05-10-19 Third Circuit Articulates Its Definition of Fraud upon the Court

    From Federal Civil Practice Bulletin 

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2005

    Third Circuit Articulates Its Definition of Fraud upon the Court


    The Third Circuit in Herring v. U.S., 424 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. Sep. 22, 2005) for the first time announced
    its standards for assessing fraud upon the court claims:

    Actions for fraud upon the court are so rare that this Court has not previously had the occasion to
    articulate a legal definition of the concept. The concept of fraud upon the court challenges the very
    principle upon which our judicial system is based: the finality of a judgment. The presumption
    against the reopening of a case that has gone through the appellate process all the way to the United
    States Supreme Court and reached final judgment must be not just a high hurdle to climb but a steep
    cliff-face to scale.

    In order to meet the necessarily demanding standard for proof of fraud upon the court we conclude
    that there must be: (1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court; (3) which is directed at
    the court itself; and (4) in fact deceives the court. We further conclude that a determination of fraud
    on the court may be justified only by "the most egregious misconduct directed to the court itself,"
    and that it "must be supported by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence." In re Coordinated
    Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir.1976) (citations
    omitted).  

    You might also like