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.

Motion to Strike
avatar

Richman Greer

Michael J. Napoleone

John G. White, III

Click here to read the motion.

In the motion the following allegations were made:

“Mr. John G. White, III, a member of the Richman Greer Law firm, gave false and damaging information 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.”

“No previous motion to dismiss had been granted by the Trial Court.”

“The rest of the many dismissals reported to the Courts by the Richman Greer attorneys and the statements to the Courts that many complaints lacked a cause of action were false and fabricated by Richman Greer attorneys. They were not a result of rulings by Trial Court Judges.”

This motion is a public record and is filed at the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Click here to read more about the Lawsuit

Motion for Rehearing
avatar

Motion for Rehearing

On October 23, 2014

Click here to read Motion for Rehearing

When the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida gave a decision of PER CURIAM AFFIRMED, I was really pretty surprised. I thought I had made my case.

In the Motion for Rehearing I pointed out that the ruling was in direct opposition to at least eight prior Appellate Court Rulings and gave citations to back up my claim.

I also pointed out that the amendment process had not been abused as Michael J. Napoleone, an attorney at Richman Greer had charged in his brief to the court. I also pointed out dependencies between the claims or Michael J. Napoleone of Richman Greer and what I believed to be the truth.

Click here to read more about the Lawsuit

Reply to Answer Brief of Richman Greer Filed
avatar

Jason Halle files Reply Brief

Reply to Richman Greer Answer Brief Filed

Reply to Richman Greer Answer Brief Filed

On March 6, 2014, Jason Halle pro se filed a Reply Brief to answer the Answer Brief filed by Michael Napoleone and John G. White of the law firm of Richman Greer on February 21, 2014. The Answer Brief was prepared on behalf of Richman Greer client, Peter Halle of Morgan Lewis in Washington.

Jason Halle wrote the Reply Brief himself.

Fourth District Court of Appeal

Now that the Reply Brief is filed with the Court, there is nothing to do but wait for the ruling of the Honorable Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida.

 I’ve answered Richman Greer

Leave and Read Comments

Richman Greer Reply Brief
avatar

Richman Greer Attorneys

Michael Napoleone and John G. White

File Answer Brief for Peter Halle of Morgan Lewis

Reply brief by Richman Greer

Richman Greer Answer Brief by Michael Napoleone and John G. White for Peter Halle of Morgan Lewis

Michael Napoleone of Richman Greer and John G. White of Richman Greer filed an Answer Brief with the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida on behalf of their client Peter Halle of Morgan Lewis.

It consists of 35 pages and was filed on February 21, 2014. The case number with the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida is: 4D13-3796.

Jason Halle, the brother of the Defendant is still waiting for Peter Halle, the Trustee of the Edward Halle Trust to disburse the money that was left to Jason Halle more than 6 years ago.

Peter Halle has already spent more than $100,000.00 in legal fees with Richman Greer in an attempt to avoid disbursing the money.

Peter Halle requests extension for Answer Brief
avatar

Micheal J. Napoleone

of Richman Greer needs more time

Peter Halle & Jason Halle

Peter Halle & Jason Halle
at summer camp in the 1950’s

Peter Halle’s attorney, Michael J. Napoleone, has requested an extension of several weeks to file his Answer Brief in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. This is Peter Halle’s response to Jason Halle’s Pro Se Initial Brief filed on January 8, 2014.

The Answer Brief was originally due to be filed Michael J. Napoleone on January 28, 2014. With the extension that was agreed to by Jason Halle the Answer Brief is now due on Friday, February 21, 2014.

The progress of this appeal can be followed at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, Jason Halle vs. Peter Halle, Case Number 4D13-3796.

As of Sunday, February 16, 2014, Michael J. Napoleone still has not filed a motion with the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida for the extension.

Initial Brief filed in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
avatar

Peter Halle

I filed a pro se brief in the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida today, Case Number: 4D13-3796. I have been in court for more than two years trying to get my brother Peter Halle  who works at the law firm of Morgan Lewis, to give me the funds he has been withholding from me for more than 6 years from my father’s estate.

Michael J. Napoleone of Richman Greer

Peter Halle has hired the law firm of Richman Greer and Michael J. Napoleone. They have been making me work very hard to get my money.

The Initial Brief filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal is 23 pages long and it might take a little while to download.

I Won the Appeal on Jurisdiction
avatar

Peter Halle lost the Appeal on Jurisdiction.

I Won the Appeal on Jurisdiction

On November 27, 2013, I won the Appeal that my brother Peter Halle filed through one of his attorneys, Charles H. Johnson of Richman Greer with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. It was filed on April 23, 2013. It gave me hope. After filing an appeal of my own, again as a pro se litigant, on October 15, 2013, and having a heart attack four days later, I needed some good news.

The ordeal of trying to get my brother, Peter Halle, a Washington attorney, to disburse the funds my father left to me had seemed to become an impossible task. He was spending so much money to defend not giving me my inheritance. It was not making any sense to me.

At least the matter of jurisdiction was resolved. Now I had encouragement to write the appellate brief to kick off the next round in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

I was urged by loved ones to just forget all that money and let my brother keep it because of my deteriorating health. I decided that my health would deteriorate faster knowing that I gave up and let Peter Halle get away with the outrageous behavior he was engaging in as my fiduciary. It certainly is not what our father, Edward Halle, had anticipated when he put his last wishes on paper.

Jason Halle files Appeal against Peter Halle
avatar

Jason Halle v. Peter Halle Intial Brief

Jason Halle v. Peter Halle

On October 15, 2013, Jason Halle filed a Notice of Appeal against his brother Peter Halle in the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida.

I am a pro se litigant, which means I am acting as my own lawyer. It is not the position I wish to be in, but my brother, Peter Halle, has spent such a huge sum of money on lawyers that I cannot afford to compete with him. I am forced to act pro se and hope that my rudimentary skills and justice will prevail.

I am always looking for a Florida attorney that can give me some help and guidance on a pro bono basis.

On August 28, 2013, I was basically shut down when the Honorable Judge David E. French granted my brother’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.

I went to the Sheppard Broad Law Library at Nova University. It is a very benevolent institution and allows pro se litigants to use their facilities.

After many hours of research it became apparent that the Florida Courts of Appeal have ruled that a Plaintiff (attorney or pro se litigant) must have the opportunity to amend a minimum of three times each time a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. I was not given one opportunity.

I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida. This truly does seem to be the never-ending law suit.

John G. White III, represents Peter Halle.
avatar

Motion to Dismiss is Granted with Prejudice.

Motion to Dismiss is Granted with Prejudice

On August 28, 2013, the Honorable Court held a hearing on Defendant Peter Halle’s Motion to Dismiss Jason Halle’s Fourth Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action. John G. White III, of the law firm of Richman Greer was representing my brother, Peter Halle. I was representing myself. Judge David E. French Granted the motion to dismiss with Prejudice. This basically means the law suit is over!

I was expecting that the Judge would give me the opportunity to amend my complaint and correct the problems with it. But I was not given one opportunity to amend my Complaint as a result of any complaint of mine being dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

I was totally  depressed and in a state of disbelief that this case was shut down by the Judge. I could not imagine why he made such a ruling. It certainly did not seem fair to me or in the interests of justice.