Listen in On a Chat with My new Best Friend, ChatGPT: What to do about judge Susan Weaver

http://www.chatGPT.com My questions, their answers.

A plaintiff committed fraud upon the court. The defendant suspected the fraud, but took a year to find evidence. The plaintiff slipped up and put a handwritten note describing the intended fraud, written before the case was filed, into a discovery production. When the defendant presented the evidence to the court in a motion for contempt, the court dismissed the defendant, but gave default judgment against a common defense doctrine defendant, and took rights to the property away from the dismissed with prejudice defendant. Is it still fraud upon the court if the court is complicit? What can the dismissed defendant do to rectify the situation?

This situation involves a complex set of legal issues, including fraud upon the court, the court’s potential complicity, and remedies available to the dismissed defendant. Let’s break it down:

1. Is it still fraud upon the court if the court is complicit?

Yes, it can still be considered fraud upon the court, even if the court appears complicit. “Fraud upon the court” refers to fraud that directly interferes with the administration of justice and affects the integrity of the judicial process. It typically involves egregious conduct, such as fabricating evidence, bribing a judge, or other deceit that taints the proceedings in a way that prevents the court from performing its impartial role.

If a party has engaged in deliberate misconduct, and the court is either unaware or knowingly allows it to proceed, the fraud itself remains. The court’s involvement or negligence doesn’t erase the fraudulent act; it may just complicate efforts to rectify it.

2. What can the dismissed defendant do to rectify the situation?

The dismissed defendant still has potential avenues to challenge the judgment, particularly if they believe fraud upon the court was involved:

• Motion to Vacate Judgment: Under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or similar state law), a party can file a motion to vacate the judgment if there was fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party. There is a one-year time limit from the judgment, but for fraud upon the court (which is a more serious offense), there is no time limit under Rule 60(d)(3).
• Appeal the Court’s Decision: If the defendant was dismissed, and the court made adverse rulings that affected their property rights, they may be able to appeal the dismissal or the court’s treatment of their rights. The appeal could argue that the court’s actions were improper based on the newly discovered evidence of fraud.
• Request an Investigation or File an Ethics Complaint: If the defendant believes the court acted improperly or was complicit in the fraud, they may also consider filing a judicial misconduct complaint. This would be a separate process from the case itself but could bring attention to any inappropriate actions by the court.
• Reopen the Case on Grounds of Fraud: If the defendant was dismissed with prejudice but their property rights were affected by the fraud, they could argue that the dismissal was based on a fraudulent proceeding. This could lead to reopening the case or filing a new case seeking relief.

3. Next Steps for the Dismissed Defendant

• Legal Strategy: The defendant should consult with a lawyer to develop a clear strategy to bring a Rule 60 motion, reopen the case, or file an appeal. The discovery of the handwritten note suggesting fraud could be key evidence.
• Timing: Since time is often a factor in these motions, especially under Rule 60(b), the defendant should act quickly if they are still within the allowable time frame.
• Fraud Upon the Court Arguments: The defendant could make strong arguments that the plaintiff’s behavior constituted fraud upon the court, which justifies setting aside the prior rulings or judgments. If successful, this could result in the reinstatement of the defendant’s rights or even a new trial.

Ultimately, if a court is truly complicit in the fraud, it makes the situation more difficult but not impossible to rectify. Higher courts or disciplinary bodies may provide the checks and balances necessary to correct the injustice.