lee county defendants objection to arbitrary corrected order issued by judge mchugh dated march 15,...

8/8/2019 Lee County Defendants Objection to Arbitrary Corrected Order Issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on gr

1/5

WI ,kLiI'I

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT INAND FOR LEE COUNTY; FLORIDA

CIVIL ACTIONUS BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,AS TRUSTEE FOR GSMPS 2004-4Plaintiff,vs.

CASE NO: 08-CA.:055974Judge: Richards/Mcflugh

LARRY R. BRADSHAW, et al,Defendant( s).- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO ARBITRARY CORRECTED ISSUED BYJUDGE MCHUGH DATED MARCIl 15, 2010 ON GROUNDS OF

"FRAUD ON THE COURT"&

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE MCHUGHComes now Defendant Larry RBradshaw, pro se with his objection to the

arbitrary corrected order issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on the groundsthat Judge McHugh practiced a: Fraud on the Court" wherein he claims to have heard amotion that was in fact heard by Judge Roberts in another hearing room at the same timeas Judge McHugh was in session in hearing room 16, on the 4th Floor. Where defendant

was present in response to plaintiff notice of hearing (See attached as exhibit D-I).Defendant Moves to disqualify Judge McHugh for egregiousbias against Defendant andknowingly engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation(Florida Rule 4-8.4( c) where the facts show the Judge knowingly issued a sham order inviolation of the Rules of the Florida Bar 4-3.3 (a)(l) (a lawyer shall not knowingly makea false statement of material fact or law to atribunal); and 4-3.4 (a lawyer shall notunlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter,destroy, or conceal a document, or other material that a lawyer knows, or reasonably


2/5

....II :! I : should know is relevant to a pending proceeding, or counsel, or assist a witness to testifyi'I : falsely. Florida Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 231 (pIa. 2003), and states in support:

STATEMENT OF FACTS1. On March 22, 2010 defendant received a corrected order dated March 15,

2010, from Judge McHugh who granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compeldiscovery within 20 days that had been denied by Judge Roberts, whosomehow 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 ofhearing See Exhibit D~1).

3. Plaintiff's Notice of Hearing set the hearing in Judge McHugh's Courtlocated at the Lee County Courthouse at 1700 Monroe St. Court Room 16, 4th.Floor, Fort Myers, FL 33901 at 11: AM EST, or as soon thereafter as counselmaybe heard.

4. Judge McHugh did call the case for hearing and therefore not hear the Motion.5. Defendant present in Judge McHugh's court room at 11:OOAM,discovered

after Judge McHugh retired to his chamber, that the Motion was heard byJudge Roberts in Robert's hearing room on the 1st floor.

6. Defendant went to Judge Robert's Hearing Room after Judge McHugh retiredto chamber, wherein he found the door locked with plaintiff attorney's stillinside.

7. Judge McHugh did not call the case number 36-2008-CA-055974 for hearing. IIII__________________________ I

----------.-----------~


3/5

8. Judge McHugh did not review the documents or hear from defendant on saidmotion.

9. Judge McHugh could not have been fully advised in the premises as stated inhis corrected order.

OBJECTIONDefendant objects to the legal chicanery machinated by the Plaintiffs Counsel,

Judge McHugh and possibly Judge Roberts, is noticing the hearing for McHugh's courtwhere defendant was directed by the Notice of Hearing, dated January 14,2010, whileholding an ex parte hearing in Judge Roberts court on the 1st floor. Defendant furtherobjects to the corrected order issued by Judge McHugh who knew that he did not hear theMotion. Judge McHugh knew or should have known that he did not have the power tomodify the interlocutory order of a predecessor judge until final judgment, which was notthe case here (Pinellas Cty School BD. V Suncam, 829 So. 2d 989 (Fla. App, 2 Dist.2002) Citing Russ v. City of Jacksonville, 734 So.2d 508, 511 (Fla. 1st . DCA 1099).

Judge McHugh'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 thedefendant, and was :fully advised in the premises. Judge McHugh order is palpably orinherently false, and from the plain facts in the case, must have been known by the judgeto be untrue. Such unethical practice by Judge McHugh is an affront to the impartialityof the court, established due process, adversarial practice, and evidentiary rules.

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


4/5

adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the Trier of fact, or unfairly hampering thepresentation of the opposing party's claim, or defense. See Granados \1 '. Zehr, 5DO&-515(Fla.App. 5 Dist. 4-18..2008).

Judge McHugh without just cause, simply fabricated an order void of materialfacts, and in so doing has compromised the impartiality, and integrity of the court. SUchdisregard for honesty confirms defendant's position that Judge McHugh holds anegregious prejudice toward the plaintiff wherein he conspired, or colluded with plaintiffcounsel ex parte to falsify a court order in favor of the plaintiff.

RELIEF REQUESTEDWherefore, plaintiff counsel, and Judge McHugh have colluded to deprive

defendant of his right to due process oflaw, defendant request that the court Strike thearbitrary order as fraudulent, quash plaintiff's Motion to Compel as out of time, beingdefendant has challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, which demands anevidentiary hearing to be held before the court can move forward. And where the recordclearly shows that no evidentiary hearing has been properly conducted, therefore thecourt as previously briefed, has not jurisdiction to hear any discovery motions until suchevidentiary hearing has been fully conducted including testimony of defendant'ssubpoenaed witness.

Defendant further request that his Motion to Disqualify Judge McHugh begranted, and that the case be re-assigned to a new judge who has due regard for theintegrity of the judicial system, and the litigants rights to a full, and fair opportunity to be

heard which is due process.


5/5

.'

Defendant further request sanctions sufficient to cover reasonable attorneyfeesagainst plaintiff and plaintiff counsel for chicanery in issuing a Notice of Hearing forJudge Mclfugh's court apparently knowing the Motion would be heard in Judge RobertsCourt based on the fact that they were in Judge Roberts Court, and not in JudgeMcHugh's court where defendant was during the 11:00AMcalendar call, and any other

~~~~J3radshaw18291 UseppaRoad

Ft Myers,Florida 33912

relief just due and owing.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, 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,Florida 33622-5018 March, ;is; 2010.

lee county defendants objection to arbitrary corrected order issued by judge mchugh dated march 15,...

Documents