Description
An Inexplicable Deformity Volume 3
This book has been painstakingly researched and written in hopes of enabling the basic humane treatment
for all those incarcerated in the United States today and in the future.
Mr. Tripati has specializations in Public International Law, Public Law, and European Law.
WHAT IS FRAUD UPON THE COURT?
Kupferman v Consolidated Research Mfg., Corp., 459 F.2d 1072, 1078 (2nd. Cir. 1972) (emphasis
added) fraud upon 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 cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication......while an attorney “should represent his client with singular loyalty that loyalty obviously does not demand that he act dishonestly or fraudulently; on the contrary his loyalty to the court, as an officer thereof, demands
integrity and honest dealing with the court. And when he departs from that standard in the conduct of a case he perpetrates a fraud upon the court.” .” Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 48 F.3d 1320, 1325 (2d Cir.1995) (emphasis added) (quotation omitted). Thus, consistent with the First Circuit’s observation that fraud on the court does not encompass “gardenvariety fraud,” Geo. P. Reintjes, 71 F.3d at 48, “[p]erjury constitutes fraud on the court only in special situations, such as when an officer of the court commits the perjury.” Myser v. Tangen, No. C14-0608JLR, 2015 WL 502316, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 5, 2015).
When the unsuccessful party is kept away from the court by a false promise of compromise, or such conduct as prevents a real trial upon the issues involved, or any other act or omission which procures the absence of the unsuccessful party at the trial. Further, it consists of fraud by the other party to the suit which prevents the losing party either from knowing about his rights or defenses, or from having a fair opportunity to present them upon the trial. In United States v. International Telephone & Tel. Corp., 349 F. Supp. 22, 29 (D. Conn. 1972), aff’d without opinion, 410 U.S. 919, (1973), the trial court explained: