r

".
"

,;·:i:,·':<)ji-

-.

-,~

:?'

f, ~:
i
i

,

. ..

IN THECIRcurr

L
; ;.

.
!

COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CNILACTION

.

; ~

t

I

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR GSMPS 2004-4 Plaintiff, vs. LARRY R. BRADSHAW, et al, Defendant(s). CASE NO: 08-CA-055974 Judge: RichardslMcHugh

r
i

i'

I'

! .

I .

/'

/

DEFENDANT'S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE MCHUGH
Comes now Defendant Larry R. Bradshaw, pro se with his Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge McHugh for issuing corrected order dated March 15,2010 on the

1

.

grounds that defendant fears that he will not receive a fair hearing or trial from Judge McHugh. Judge McHugh has shown an egregious bias against pro se defendant wherein he claims to have heard a motion, that he did not hear. In Fact, the motion was 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. Defendant was present in Judge McHugh's courtroom in response to plaintiff notice of hearing (See attached as exhibit D-I). Defendant Moves to disqualify Judge McHugh for egregious bias 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 order in violation of the Rules of the Florida Bar 4-3.3 (a)(1) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal); and 4-3.4 (a lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise

I

unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that a lawyer knows or

F I'

l

reasonably should know is relevant to a pending proceeding, or counselor assist a witness to testify falsely. Florida Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2003), and defendant feats he cannot receive a fair hearing from Judge McHugh, and states in support;

iI
f

I

b

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 within20 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-l). 3. Plaintiff's Notice of Hearing setthehearing 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 II:AM EST, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. 4. Judge McHugh did call the case for hearing and therefore did not hear plaintiff motion to compel. 5. Defendant present in Judge McHugh's court room at 11:00AM,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.

I

(

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 22,2010.

on February

I. ,

I

I

8.

Judge McHugh did not review the documents or hear from defendant on said motion with both plaintiff counsel and defendant present on February 22, 2010.

9.

Judge McHugh could not have been fully advised in the premises as stated in his corrected order. BRIEF Defendant alleges a well-founded fear; that a legal chicanery was machinated, by

the Plaintiff's Counsel, and Judge McHugh, in noticing the hearing for McHugh's court, knowing defendant would be guided by the notice to Judge McHugh's court, where defendant was directed by the Notice of Hearing, dated January 14,2010, while the actual hearing was conducted in Judge Robert's Court, without a proper notice of hearing being issued. Plaintiff counsel fraudulently misrepresented the place of hearing evidenced by the fact that they were present in Judge Robert's court. Where an ex parte hearing was conducted by Judge Roberts's court on the 1st floor, wherein Judge Robert's denied plaintiff's motion to compel. A verified motion for disqualification must contain an actual factual foundation for the alleged fear or prejudice. Fischer v Knuck; 497 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 1986); see Scholz v Hauser, 657 So.2d 950, 951 (Fla 5th DCA 1995). The facts alleged in the motion

I

must be taken as true by the trial judge when ruling on the motion. See Steiman v. Steiman, 975So.2d 533,535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The trial judge has a duty to determine

whether the factual allegations are "reasonably sufficient to create a well founded dear that the moving party would not receive a fair trial." Kowalshi v. Boyles, 557 So.2d 885, 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Defendant alleges that Judge McHugh knew that plaintiff counsel had misrepresented. the notice of hearing yet issued a "sham" corrected order, having no basis in fact. Judge McHugh knew that he did not hear the Motion in which he stated that he had heard from both plaintiff counsel and defendant. 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 ED. V Suneam, 829 So. 2d 989 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 2002) Citing Russ v, City a! Jacksonville, 734 So.2d 508, 511 (Fla. 1st. DCA 1099).

JudgeMclhigh'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, and defendant fears that he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial or hearing from Judge McHugh. 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

i

.'.'"'\

scheme was calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially

!'

I
I, !

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 v. 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 Mclfugh 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.

!

I


!.
r

RELIEF REQUESTED
Wherefore, plaintiff counsel and Judge Mclfugh have colluded to deprive defendant of his right to due process of law, 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.

)
I

Defendant further request sanctions sufficient to cover reasonable attorney fees against plaintiff and plaintiff counsel for chicanery for fraudulently misrepresentation in

! I

I

knowingly issuing a Notice of Hearing for Judge McHugh's court, 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 11:00AM calendar call, and any other relief just due and owing.

LaITY: Bradshaw
<

6;'1~ .
".~----

18291 Useppa Road 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, Florida33622-5018 April, 5" 2010.
""~V~~/J,,
~~o' . '\~":. JOAN E. MIDDLETON Notary Public. State of Florida Commission # DO 642367

~.;'

~':.

~ My Commission Expires Feb·19. 2011
:~~

County of Lee State of Florida

':.::~~ I

"'if;,9f.1\r~--"'''''' Bonded Through Natlona!·NotaryAssn.

Appeared before me this 5' day of April 2010, affiant Larry R. Bradshaw, who being duly sworn, verifies truth of the contents of Defendant's Motion to Dis lify Judge McHu ,under oath. O~PUbliC My Commission expires Z;/;?;/

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful