Professional Documents
Culture Documents
,;·:i:,·':<)ji-
".
"
-. -,~
:?'
f, ,
.
.. ;
IN THECIRcurr COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR . ~
~:
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
i
.
! CNILACTION
L
i
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
;
;. AS TRUSTEE FOR GSMPS 2004-4
I Plaintiff,
t
r
i
CASE NO: 08-CA-055974
I' vs. Judge: RichardslMcHugh
i'
!.
I . LARRY R. BRADSHAW, et al,
/' Defendant(s).
/
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
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
l
F
I'
I
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
iI
b feats he cannot receive a fair hearing from Judge McHugh, and states in support;
f
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On March 22, 2010 defendant received a corrected order dated March 15,
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
located at the Lee County Courthouse at 1700 Monroe st. Court Room 16, 4th
may be heard.
4. Judge McHugh did call the case for hearing and therefore did not hear
after Judge McHugh retired to his chamber, that the Motion was heard by
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 on February
I
I 22,2010.
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
BRIEF
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
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
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,
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
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).
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.
"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
!' adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the
I
presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense. See Granados v. Zehr, 5DO&-515
egregious prejudice toward the plaintiff wherein he conspired or colluded with plaintiff
RELIEF REQUESTED
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
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 attorney fees
I 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.
6;'1~ .
LaITY: Bradshaw
< ".~----
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,, JOAN E. MIDDLETON
~~o' . '\~":. Notary Public. State of Florida
~.;' ~':. ~ My Commission Expires Feb·19. 2011
County of Lee ':.::~~I :~~ Commission # DO 642367
"'if;,9f.1\r~--"'''''' Bonded Through Natlona!·NotaryAssn.
State of Florida
O~PUbliC
My Commission expires Z;/;?;/