Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

ninth circuit. fraud on the court.

fraud on the court embraces "only 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." Intermagnetics America, Inc., In re, 926 F.2d 912, 916 (1991) emphasis added

Truth needs no disguise Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 247 (1944) overruled on other grounds by Standard Oil v. United States, 429 U.S. 17,18 (1976)

RULE 60. RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court's power to: (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;

if the fraud harms the integrity of the judicial process and arises to the level of an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decisions, we not only can act, we should. Dixon v. IRS 316 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) citing England, 281 F.2d at 309; Levander v. Prober, 180 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.1999) empahsis added

that power is narrowly construed, applying only to fraud that defiles the court or is perpetrated by officers of the court Dixon v. IRS 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) corrupt(s) the legitimacy of the truth-seeking process Dixon v. IRS 316 F.3d 1041,1046 (9th Cir. 2003) fraud corrupts the adversarial nature of the proceeding, the integrity of witnesses, and the ability of the trial court to judge impartially. Dixon v. IRS 316 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision. England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir., 1960) "tampering with the administration of justice... involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public." Chambers v. Nasco, Inc, 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) fraud... the very temple of justice has been defiled Universal Oil Products Co v. Root Refining Co, 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946) if the court finds... that fraud has been practiced upon it...the entire cost of the proceedings could justly be assessed against the guilty parties. Universal Oil Products Co v. Root Refining Co, 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946)

Courts possess the inherent power to vacate or amend a judgment obtained by fraud on the court, Toscano v. CIR, 441 F.2d 930, 933 (9th Cir.1971)

Is prejudice required? Fraud on the court occurs when the misconduct harms the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of whether the opposing party is prejudiced. Dixon v. IRS 316 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) citing Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1989).

What is the burden on the moving party? the burden is on the moving party to establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir.1960)

how it is reviewed on appeal? abuse of discretion. Abatti v. Comm'r, 859 F.2d 115, 117 (9th Cir.1988); England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir.1960)