Statute of Limitation and Fraud upon the Court

I'm trying to find the corollation between the Statute of Limitation for ONGOING CASES while the Fraud upon the Court happens.

First, let's see what Fraud upon the Court means. BBM

In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication".[1]

In Bulloch v. United States,[2] the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

Click to expand...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations"]Statute of limitations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

So, one more time: the selected officials or lawyers who CORRUPTED or INFLUENCED...directed to the JUDICIAL MACHINERY itself...performed the 'crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation....let's remember this last sentence please:

FRAUD UPON the COURT has NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION.

Now, let's talk about Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy.

In 1999, was Alex Hunter the officer of the court? - YES.
In 2008, was Mary Lacy the officer of the court? - YES.
Does anyone of them commited the Fraud upon the Court? - IMO, yes! (and I'll get to it in my next posts).

If 'Fraud upon the Court' has NO statute of limitation then ANY cases performed under such a CRIME (yes, I'll emphasize again: Fraud upon the Court is punishable CRIME) will be dismissed!!!!

Let's say Mr. Smith has been indicted of murder and has been sentenced by jury for LWOP (life sentence without parole). 10 years later, Mr. Smith has appealed his sentencing to Supreme Court by providing the solid proof of the 'Fraud upon the Court' during his trial, 10 years ago. If Supreme Court would find his appeal justifiable then what do you think would happens to Mr. Smith? Yes, you're correct. His charges would be dissmised immidietly!

Now, what happens with ongoing cases (like JBR case) when 'Fraud upon the Court' happens? Nothing to dismiss yet, right?...But what about the Statute of Limitation for these ongoing cases? What happens with the 'clock' for these cases? Would it stops and starts AGAIN after the 'Fraud upon the Court' has been completed?...

I tried to find the answers to above questions without success. I need your help, thoughts and suggestions...I'm sure you know where (and why) I'm taking this path...I rather stop if the path is wrong without taking much of your time :blushing:...

....so, please stop me or let's travel together ...:seeya:

jmo

OpenMind4U said:

So, one more time: the selected officials or lawyers who CORRUPTED or INFLUENCED...directed to the JUDICIAL MACHINERY itself...performed the 'crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation....let's remember this last sentence please:

Click to expand...

OM4U,

To which legal proceeding are you looking to apply this to?
Additionally, what specifically is the fraud/impropriety that you are alleging?

cynic said:

OM4U,

To which legal proceeding are you looking to apply this to?
Additionally, what specifically is the fraud/impropriety that you are alleging?

Click to expand...

Cynic, I'm glad to have you on this discussion.

To which legal proceeding are you looking to apply this to?

Click to expand...

If I understand your question, you're refering to 'Fraud upon the Court' issue and asking me in which LEGAL PROCEEDINGs it could be applicable. Right?

Let's start with definitions first. What calls the 'legal proceeding'?

1. Definitions

Action or procedure instituted in a court of law to acquire a benefit, interest, or right or to enforce a remedy.

Click to expand...

Remedy:

Legal means of cessation of a wrong or enforcement of a relief, such as award of damages or grant of an injunction.

Click to expand...

Injunction:

Court order forbidding something from being done (prohibitory injunction), or commanding something to be done (mandatory injunction). Injunctions are issued where mere award of damages at the end of a trial would not be satisfactory or effective, or may lead to a greater harm or injustice. Other types of injunctions are (1) Interlocutory (Preliminary): granted provisionally before a trial to maintain the status quo until the court hears both sides before granting a permanent injunction. (2) Permanent (Perpetual): granted after the hearing of a trial. (3) Ex parte, granted after hearing only one party (in case of a great urgency). (4) Interim: granted to restrain the accused until a certain date. (5) Quia timet: granted to prevent a threatened wrong or injury. All injunctions are granted at the discretion of the court and their violations are punished by means of contempt of court proceedings.

Click to expand...

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-proceeding.html

2. Where is the FRAUD?

In which 'legal proceedings' AH and ML have been involved?

- investigation/deposition proceeding;
- GJ proceeding;
- obtaining/signing legal documents (affidavits) proceeding;
- establish the reason and invoke exoneration proceeding....

....just the few to named...

IMO, AH and ML were involved in the unlawfull actions during above legal proceedings. And I believe that with the proper legal support - the 'Fraud upon the Court' could be established, presented and (pray to God!) justified.

This would be the FIRST STEP.

Additionally, what specifically is the fraud that you are alleging?

Click to expand...

I'll provide only ONE example (to save the time and space) for each 'legal proceeding', ok?

- investigation (sharing sensative information with the suspects);
- GJ (using the freudious GJ result as the mean to influance the outcome for other, related to, court procedures);
- legal documents (signing sensative afidavits without court review)
- exoneration (indicted by GJ suspects were officially 'cleared of guilt' without substantial proof in support of innocence).

Cynic, did I answer your questions??? I honestly hope that whatever was OUTLINED above (as the initial 'framework' for the future exploration) could be used for revised process of the curent 'statute of limitation' in JBR case.===> This would be the SECOND STEP.

What do you think?

jmo

Can Tricia file a lawsuit based on these findings? Any WS lawyers out there ready to do some pro bono work for a good cause?

I'm not sure what AH did could be considered fraud upon the court, but it was certainly unethical if nothing else. I wonder if he could be disbarred for what he did? ML is a different story though. She flat out lied to the court about the GJ! For that she should be prosecuted and disbarred!

The good thing is there is no statute of limitations on murder!

Nom de plume said:

I'm not sure what AH did could be considered fraud upon the court, but it was certainly unethical if nothing else. I wonder if he could be disbarred for what he did? ML is a different story though. She flat out lied to the court about the GJ! For that she should be prosecuted and disbarred!

The good thing is there is no statute of limitations on murder!

Click to expand...

Num de plume,

Regardless WHO (AH or ML), if one of them has comitted 'Fraud upon the Court' crime DURING ongoing JBR case then the reason for this particular thread is to find out if JBR 'statute of limitation' can be reversed.

OpenMind4U said:

Num de plume,

Regardless WHO (AH or ML), if one of them has comitted 'Fraud upon the Court' crime DURING ongoing JBR case then the reason for this particular thread is to find out if JBR 'statute of limitation' can be reversed.

Click to expand...

Sorry OM4U, I guess I'm not following you. "Statute of limitation" for what crime? There is none for murder!

Rashi'sDaughter said:

Can Tricia file a lawsuit based on these findings? Any WS lawyers out there ready to do some pro bono work for a good cause?

Click to expand...

Thank you Rashi'sDaughter, but first thing we need to find out (make as much as possible research in legal fields):

What happens with the Statute of Limitation in ONGOING cases when Fraud upon Court occurs?

When we'll know the answer to this question - we can start the fight.:great:

jmo

Nom de plume said:

Sorry OM4U, I guess I'm not following you. "Statute of limitation" for what crime? There is none for murder!

Click to expand...

It's OK. I'll explain better.

'1999 GJ indictment' is not volid TODAY, right? Why? Because of the Statute of Limitation. Every case (except the murder!) - has the Statute of Limitation. It's important and reasonable LAW in USA juristictional system.

In 1999, if AH had the balls, Ramseys would be in court but NOT for MURDER. Since time has passed by, the Statute of Limitation for the indicted by GJ crime - has been reached. Today, no one can take JR to court based on 1999 GJ indictment. The only POSSIBLE chances to do so are:

- assemble the new GJ with the hope that indictment will be reached or
- proof the 'Fraud upon the Court' during the ONGOING JBR investigation and start the clock for 'Statute of Limitation' ticking again...

Hope I explained better this time. Again, I have no idea if this is even possible by the LAW...but based on what I researched so far, the Fraud upon the Court and the Statute of Limitation has pretty strong relationship with each other...

jmo

I have no idea whether or not a DA can act today on a GJ verdict given so many years ago and based on what he could do it
And I have no idea whether a new grand jury can be summoned without new evidence

but I would like to know,thanks for bringing this up

and btw,legally AH and ML did nothing wrong,I mean,prove it,you can't,even if they did take bribe or something (no idea),you won't be able to prove it....they were intimidated biased cowards,but for that you can't charge anyone...

OpenMind4U said:

It's OK. I'll explain better.

'1999 GJ indictment' is not volid TODAY, right? Why? Because of the Statute of Limitation. Every case (except the murder!) - has the Statute of Limitation. It's important and reasonable LAW in USA juristictional system.

In 1999, if AH had the balls, Ramseys would be in court but NOT for MURDER. Since time has passed by, the Statute of Limitation for the indicted by GJ crime - has been reached. Today, no one can take JR to court based on 1999 GJ indictment. The only POSSIBLE chances to do so are:

- assemble the new GJ with the hope that indictment will be reached or
- proof the 'Fraud upon the Court' during the ONGOING JBR investigation and start the clock for 'Statute of Limitation' ticking again...

Hope I explained better this time. Again, I have no idea if this is even possible by the LAW...but based on what I researched so far, the Fraud upon the Court and the Statute of Limitation has pretty strong relationship with each other...

jmo

Click to expand...

Thanks OM4U. Now I see where you're going with this. I don't really want to see JR stand trial for child abuse resulting in death. I want to see him on trial for MURDER in the 1ST DEGREE!

madeleine said:

I have no idea whether or not a DA can act today on a GJ verdict given so many years ago and based on what he could do it
And I have no idea whether a new grand jury can be summoned without new evidence

but I would like to know,thanks for bringing this up

and btw,legally AH and ML did nothing wrong,I mean,prove it,you can't,even if they did take bribe or something (no idea),you won't be able to prove it....they were intimidated biased cowards,but for that you can't charge anyone...

Click to expand...

Sorry, have to disagree with you. Mary Lacy lied to the court regading the GJ in the case with LHP. That is most certainly breaking the law!

Nom de plume said:

Sorry, have to disagree with you. Mary Lacy lied to the court regading the GJ in the case with LHP. That is most certainly breaking the law!

Click to expand...

didn't know.
if she lied and it can be proven then why is nobody doing anything

madeleine said:

I have no idea whether or not a DA can act today on a GJ verdict given so many years ago and based on what he could do it
And I have no idea whether a new grand jury can be summoned without new evidence

but I would like to know,thanks for bringing this up

and btw,legally AH and ML did nothing wrong,I mean,prove it,you can't,even if they did take bribe or something (no idea),you won't be able to prove it....they were intimidated biased cowards,but for that you can't charge anyone...

Click to expand...

Madeleine,

I don't agree on BBM. IMO, (at the minimum!!!!) ML did commit the Fraud upon the Court. When you'll have the time and desire - please read 'Fraud upon the Court' cases. And you'll see WHICH act(s) of officers of the court can be prosecuted under such a law. You'll be amazed how 'little' wrongdoing can be reviewed under 'Fraud upon the Court' crime.

Granted, I do agree, it'll take good fight by the strong legal mind in front of Supreme Court to get JUSTIFICATION for these 'little' missteps to have grounds for dismissal. BUT, please read these dismissed cases and compare them to ML 'wrongdoing'. You'll be very much surprized!!!!

jmo

Nom de plume said:

Thanks OM4U. Now I see where you're going with this. I don't really want to see JR stand trial for child abuse resulting in death. I want to see him on trial for MURDER in the 1ST DEGREE!

Click to expand...

LOL....and I want him to be ON TRIAL, period!!!!!!!

I would rather investigate how money was spent with this case under her leadership..and I'll start with the JMK fiasco and the DNA testing...just an idea....

Nom de plume said:

Thanks OM4U. Now I see where you're going with this. I don't really want to see JR stand trial for child abuse resulting in death. I want to see him on trial for MURDER in the 1ST DEGREE!

Click to expand...

He knows all about how JB died. Just get him into a courtroom - and pray like crazy lease:lease:that there is one prosecutor out there who would be able to present a case strong enough to get and keep his sorry *advertiser censored** behind bars! :jail:

OpenMind4U said:

Cynic, did I answer your questions???
What do you think?

Click to expand...

After reading through the posts following my post, especially your response to Nom de plume, I have the answers to the questions I asked.
Initially, I wasn’t certain if the legal proceeding that I asked you about was the Grand Jury, but it appears that that is what you are referring to. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
If so, there is nothing, IMO, that AH or any member of the DA’s office did, (that is public knowledge,) in relation to the GJ, that could be considered "fraud upon the court." Keep in mind that it would have had to have had a profound effect on the course and outcome of the GJ.
Even the spineless decision to not pursue the “true bill” handed down by the GJ was, of course, within AH’s rights.
Therein lies the problem, for all intents and purposes, the Grand Jury was a “success,” so immediately it would be difficult to allege that some major impropriety/fraud occurred.
Besides, as has been suggested above, for many people, seeing anything less than a murder charge would be unsatisfying anyway.
Moreover, the same issues face a District Attorney today in terms of bringing someone such as John Ramsey to trial whether it be for the original, lesser charge stemming from the GJ indictment or felony murder, so it may as well be for felony murder.

An example where your “fraud upon the court” angle could be pursued, as Nom de plume correctly suggested, would be in terms of the Hoffman-Pugh v. Keenan civil case which proceeded on the fraudulent premise that the GJ did not return an indictment. Prior to that, the same situation was seen in Hoffman-Pugh v. Hunter.

madeleine said:

I have no idea whether or not a DA can act today on a GJ verdict given so many years ago

Click to expand...

No

And I have no idea whether a new grand jury can be summoned without new evidence

Click to expand...

Yes

madeleine said:

didn't know.
if she lied and it can be proven then why is nobody doing anything

Click to expand...

Here is the thread about it:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197670"]Lacy lied to the Supreme Court & we can now request the Ramsey Grand Jury files! - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]