Richman Greer Fraud Upon the Court
avatar

Richman Greer

John G. White, III Motion

Richman Greer, John G. White, III, Motion

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 502011CPOO5095XXXXSB

JASON HALLE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETER HALLE,

Defendant.

__________________________ /

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

            JASON HALLE, Pro Se, moves this Honorable Court as follows:

  1. To relieve the Plaintiff from the Order of the Honorable Court Dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice that was signed by the Honorable David E. French on September 25, 2013. (Exhibit A).
  2. During the hearing held on August 28, 2013, which resulted in the Order of September 25, 2013, Mr. John G. White, III, opposing counsel, committed intrinsic fraud upon the court, was guilty of misrepresentation and other misconduct of an adverse party. As a direct result of this fraud upon the court, the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint was dismissed with Prejudice. This prevented the plaintiff from presenting his case due to the fraud and deception practiced by his adversary.
  3. Relief is sought under Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party…from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:…(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;…This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
  4. As of the date of serving this motion the status of this case is pending.
  5. John G. White, III, opposing counsel, committed intrinsic fraud upon the court, was guilty of misrepresentation and other misconduct of an adverse party during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This is the hearing that resulted in the Honorable Trial Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice on September 25, 2013. (Exhibit A)
  6. White fraudulently told the Court during the hearing, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit B, page 11, lines 14-18)
  7. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”
  8. On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.”
  9. White did not take this opportunity to change, modify or further explain his intrinsically fraudulent testimony. He let it stand so it would have its full impact on the court.
  10. The record of the court in this action confirms the following:
    1. The motion to dismiss the Original Complaint was for lack of jurisdiction. As a result of a hearing on this motion, on February 21, 2012, the Honorable Judge Martz ordered a 30 day continuance so the parties could engage in limited discovery on jurisdiction. (Exhibit C)
    2. The First Amended Complaint had a Motion to Dismiss filed on February 29, 2012. There was never a hearing on Defendant’s motion.
    3. The Second Amended Complaint was never followed by a Defense Motion to Dismiss
    4. The Third Amended Complaint had a Defense Motion to Dismiss served on June 19, 2012. It was DENIED by the Honorable Court on March 26, 2013. (Exhibit D)
  11. When the Fourth Amended Complaint was before the Honorable Court on August 28, 2013, ZERO motions to dismiss had been granted by the court. But, Mr. White fraudulently stated, “they keep getting dismissed”, instead of giving a true statement that ZERO complaints had been dismissed by the court in this case before the hearing on August 28, 2013.
  12. The plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing so that opposing counsels may have the opportunity to present court orders for motions to dismiss that were granted by the court before August 28, 2013, in order to substantiate their statements. The trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on opposing counsel’s statements after plaintiff objected to them.
  13. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his complaint before the court so as to state a cause of action as a direct result of Mr. White’s intrinsic fraud and deception practiced upon the court.
  14. Only a Trial Court Judge has the authority to determine if a complaint states a cause of action. This happens at a hearing. Only a trial court judge can grant a motion to dismiss.
  15. Dynasty Express v. New General Rent-A-Car,675 So.2d 235, 240 (Fla. 4d DCA 1996) “A party seeking relief on the basis of [fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct] has an obligation to raise this issue as soon as is reasonably possible… On the other hand, if the party only becomes aware of the fraud after final judgment the fraud should be asserted in either a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530 or [a motion for relief from final judgment under] Rule 1,540(b), depending on the time the fraud is discovered. In either case, however, the party asserting such fraud is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue.”
  16. Stella v. Stella, 418 So.2d. 1029, 1030 (Fla. 4d DCA 1982) “Although we find the motion of the wife to be less than artfully drawn and the statement of her position to the trial court and now on appeal to be less than clear-cut, we conclude that she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her allegations of fraudulent conduct…. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be conducted on the wife’s motion.”
  17. Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 65 So. 3d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) which states: “Public policy favors the liberal amendment of pleadings, and courts should resolve all doubts in favor of allowing the amendment of pleadings to allow cases to be decided on their merit…. A denial of leave to amend a pleading is an abuse of discretion….”

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief from the Honorable Court:

To vacate its Order of September 25, 2013, as it was based on intrinsic fraud upon the court, misrepresentation and misconduct by opposing counsel during the hearing on August 28, 2013.

Plaintiff respectfully further requests leave of the court to amend his complaint.

And for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

JASON HALLE, Pro Se

This motion is a public record and is filed with the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.