Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I,
k
L
i
I'
I
Comes now Defendant Larry R Bradshaw, pro se with his objection to the
arbitrary corrected order issued by Judge McHugh dated March 15, 2010 on the grounds
that Judge McHugh practiced a: Fraud on the Court" wherein he claims to have heard a
motion that was in fact heard by Judge Roberts in another hearing room at the same time
as 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 and
(Florida Rule 4-8.4( c) where the facts show the Judge knowingly issued a sham order in
violation of the Rules of the Florida Bar 4-3.3 (a)(l) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make
a false statement of material fact or law to atribunal); and 4-3.4 (a lawyer shall not
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On March 22, 2010 defendant received a corrected order dated March 15,
discovery within 20 days that had been denied by Judge Roberts, who
somehow 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 of
located at the Lee County Courthouse at 1700 Monroe St. Court Room 16, 4th.
maybe heard.
4. Judge McHugh did call the case for hearing and therefore not hear the Motion.
o
after Judge McHugh retired to his chamber, that the Motion was heard by
6. Defendant went to Judge Robert's Hearing Room after Judge McHugh retired
to chamber, wherein he found the door locked with plaintiff attorney's still
inside.
7. Judge McHugh did not call the case number 36-2008-CA-055974 for hearing.
I
I
I
• __________________________
I
I
----------.-----------~
8. Judge McHugh did not review the documents or hear from defendant on said
motion.
9. Judge McHugh could not have been fully advised in the premises as stated in
OBJECTION
Judge McHugh and possibly Judge Roberts, is noticing the hearing for McHugh's court
where defendant was directed by the Notice of Hearing, dated January 14,2010, while
holding an ex parte hearing in Judge Roberts court on the 1st floor. Defendant further
objects to the corrected order issued by Judge McHugh who knew that he did not hear the
Motion. Judge McHugh knew or should have known that he did not have the power to
modify the interlocutory order of a predecessor judge until final judgment, which was not
the 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 the
defendant, and was :fully advised in the premises. Judge McHugh order is palpably or
inherently false, and from the plain facts in the case, must have been known by the judge
of the court, established due process, adversarial practice, and evidentiary rules.
"fraud on the court" where it can be demonstrated, clearly, and convincingly, that a
scheme was calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially
adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the Trier of fact, or unfairly hampering the
presentation of the opposing party's claim, or defense. See Granados \1'. Zehr, 5DO&-515
Judge McHugh without just cause, simply fabricated an order void of material
facts, and in so doing has compromised the impartiality, and integrity of the court. SUch
disregard for honesty confirms defendant's position that Judge McHugh holds an
egregious prejudice toward the plaintiff wherein he conspired, or colluded with plaintiff
RELIEF REQUESTED
defendant of his right to due process oflaw, defendant request that the court Strike the
arbitrary order as fraudulent, quash plaintiff's Motion to Compel as out of time, being
defendant has challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, which demands an
evidentiary hearing to be held before the court can move forward. And where the record
clearly shows that no evidentiary hearing has been properly conducted, therefore the
court as previously briefed, has not jurisdiction to hear any discovery motions until such
subpoenaed witness.
granted, and that the case be re-assigned to a new judge who has due regard for the
integrity of the judicial system, and the litigants rights to a full, and fair opportunity to be
against plaintiff and plaintiff counsel for chicanery in issuing a Notice of Hearing for
Judge Mclfugh's court apparently knowing the Motion would be heard in Judge Roberts
Court based on the fact that they were in Judge Roberts Court, and not in Judge
McHugh's court where defendant was during the 11:00AMcalendar call, and any other
~~~
~J3radshaw
18291 UseppaRoad
Ft Myers,Florida 33912
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, 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.