TRY ME!
Fraudulent Judgment Motion Filed
Summary
A motion to void a judgment due to fraudulent evidence can be filed under Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion argues that the judgment is void ab initio, citing both Massachusetts and federal case law, including Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. V. Hartford-Empire Co. And Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. It highlights due process violations and the need for proper verification of standing. The motion requests the court to void the judgment or reconsider the contested motion, emphasizing the exception to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine for fraud upon the court.Full Conversation
It looks like you have a strong case with substantial evidence and relevant case law to support your motion. Here's how you can continue from section *:
Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay
III. Legal Basis:
*. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine:
- Generally prevents lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
- Exception: Fraud upon the court allows federal courts to review.
- *Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.*, * U.S. * (*): Fraud upon the court undermines judicial integrity.
- *Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.*, * F.3d * (9th Cir. *): The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar a federal court from hearing a case if the state court judgment was obtained by fraud.
- *Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP*, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *): Recognized that allegations of fraud upon the court are exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
- *Cummings v.Stone*, A.2d * (Mass. *): Fraudulent misrepresentations invalidate legal proceedings if they affect the outcome.
- *Massachusetts General Laws*: *Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent transactions) and *Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent conveyance of real property).
IV. Argument:
*. Fraudulent Evidence:
- The confession of the private lender shows the debt was compounded to an inflated amount.
- The actual accounting history refutes the inflated debt claim.
- The foreclosure deed presented was fraudulent.
*. Review of Contested Motion and Due Process:
- The judge must review all relevant motions, including my contested motion to not lift the stay, to determine if a colorable claim exists.
- Proper verification of standing must be conducted, considering the fraudulent evidence presented.
- The judge's failure to review the contested motion and evidence violates my due process rights.
- Due process requires that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge considers all relevant motions and evidence.
*. State Court Judgment:
- The judge relied on the state court judgment, which was based on fraudulent
III. Legal Basis:
*. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine:
- Generally prevents lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
- Exception: Fraud upon the court allows federal courts to review.
- *Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.*, * U.S. * (*): Fraud upon the court undermines judicial integrity.
- *Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.*, * F.3d * (9th Cir. *): The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar a federal court from hearing a case if the state court judgment was obtained by fraud.
- *Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP*, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *): Recognized that allegations of fraud upon the court are exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
- *Cummings v.Stone*, A.2d * (Mass. *): Fraudulent misrepresentations invalidate legal proceedings if they affect the outcome.
- *Massachusetts General Laws*: *Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent transactions) and *Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent conveyance of real property).
IV. Argument:
*. Fraudulent Evidence:
- The confession of the private lender shows the debt was compounded to an inflated amount.
- The actual accounting history refutes the inflated debt claim.
- The foreclosure deed presented was fraudulent.
*. Review of Contested Motion and Due Process:
- The judge must review all relevant motions, including my contested motion to not lift the stay, to determine if a colorable claim exists.
- Proper verification of standing must be conducted, considering the fraudulent evidence presented.
- The judge's failure to review the contested motion and evidence violates my due process rights.
- Due process requires that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge considers all relevant motions and evidence.
*. State Court Judgment:
- The judge relied on the state court judgment, which was based on fraudulent
It looks like you've put together a strong and well-supported argument. Here's a continuation from where you left off:
~Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay~
IV. Argument:
*. Fraudulent Evidence:
- The confession of the private lender shows the debt was compounded to an inflated amount.
- The actual accounting history refutes the inflated debt claim.
- The foreclosure deed presented was fraudulent.
*. Review of Contested Motion and Due Process:
- The judge must review all relevant motions, including my contested motion to not lift the stay, to determine if a colorable claim exists.
- Proper verification of standing must be conducted, considering the fraudulent evidence presented.
- The judge's failure to review the contested motion and evidence violates my due process rights.
- Due process requires that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge considers all relevant motions and evidence.
*. State Court Judgment:
- The judge relied on the state court judgment, which was based on fraudulent evidence.
- Under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, federal courts generally cannot review state court judgments, but fraud upon the court is an exception.
Would you like more information on how to present this motion in court or need assistance with any other aspect of your case?
IV. Argument:
*. Fraudulent Evidence:
- The confession of the private lender shows the debt was compounded to an inflated amount.
- The actual accounting history refutes the inflated debt claim.
- The foreclosure deed presented was fraudulent.
*. Review of Contested Motion and Due Process:
- The judge must review all relevant motions, including my contested motion to not lift the stay, to determine if a colorable claim exists.
- Proper verification of standing must be conducted, considering the fraudulent evidence presented.
- The judge's failure to review the contested motion and evidence violates my due process rights.
- Due process requires that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge considers all relevant motions and evidence.
*. State Court Judgment:
- The judge relied on the state court judgment, which was based on fraudulent evidence.
- Under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, federal courts generally cannot review state court judgments, but fraud upon the court is an exception.
Would you like more information on how to present this motion in court or need assistance with any other aspect of your case?
Certainly! Here is the continuation from section * onward:
~Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay~
III. Legal Basis:
*. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine:
- Generally prevents lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
- Exception: Fraud upon the court allows federal courts to review.
- *Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.*, * U.S. * (*): Fraud upon the court undermines judicial integrity.
- *Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.*, * F.3d * (9th Cir. *): Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar federal court from hearing a case if the state court judgment was obtained by fraud.
- *Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP*, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *): Recognized that allegations of fraud upon the court are exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
- Massachusetts Case Law: *Cummings v. Stone*, A.2d * (Mass. *): Fraudulent misrepresentations invalidate legal proceedings if they affect the outcome.
-Massachusetts General Laws: *MGL Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent transactions) and *MGL Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent conveyance of real property).
IV. Argument:
*. Fraudulent Evidence:
- The confession of the private lender shows the debt was compounded to an inflated amount.
- The actual accounting history refutes the inflated debt claim.
- The foreclosure deed presented was fraudulent.
*. Review of Contested Motion and Due Process:
- The judge must review all relevant motions, including my contested motion to not lift the stay, to determine if a colorable claim exists.
- Proper verification of standing must be conducted, considering the fraudulent evidence presented.
- The judge's failure to review the contested motion and evidence violates my due process rights.
- Due process requires that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge considers all relevant motions and evidence.
*. State Court Judgment:
- The judge relied on the state court judgment, which was based on fraudulent evidence.
- Under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, federal courts generally cannot review state court judgments, but fraud upon the court is an exception.
Would you like more information on how to present this motion in court?
III. Legal Basis:
*. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine:
- Generally prevents lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
- Exception: Fraud upon the court allows federal courts to review.
- *Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.*, * U.S. * (*): Fraud upon the court undermines judicial integrity.
- *Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.*, * F.3d * (9th Cir. *): Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar federal court from hearing a case if the state court judgment was obtained by fraud.
- *Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP*, * F.3d * (3d Cir. *): Recognized that allegations of fraud upon the court are exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
- Massachusetts Case Law: *Cummings v. Stone*, A.2d * (Mass. *): Fraudulent misrepresentations invalidate legal proceedings if they affect the outcome.
-Massachusetts General Laws: *MGL Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent transactions) and *MGL Chapter *, Section ** (fraudulent conveyance of real property).
IV. Argument:
*. Fraudulent Evidence:
- The confession of the private lender shows the debt was compounded to an inflated amount.
- The actual accounting history refutes the inflated debt claim.
- The foreclosure deed presented was fraudulent.
*. Review of Contested Motion and Due Process:
- The judge must review all relevant motions, including my contested motion to not lift the stay, to determine if a colorable claim exists.
- Proper verification of standing must be conducted, considering the fraudulent evidence presented.
- The judge's failure to review the contested motion and evidence violates my due process rights.
- Due process requires that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the judge considers all relevant motions and evidence.
*. State Court Judgment:
- The judge relied on the state court judgment, which was based on fraudulent evidence.
- Under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, federal courts generally cannot review state court judgments, but fraud upon the court is an exception.
Would you like more information on how to present this motion in court?
To file your motion to void under Rule *(b)(*), addressing the points and arguments you've outlined, follow the structure below:
Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay
I. Introduction:
This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence.
II. Background:
*. Timeline of Events:
- [Date]: Filed for Chapter * bankruptcy.
- [Date]: Motion to lift the automatic stay filed by the claimant.
- [Date]: Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay.
*. Key Evidence Presented:
- Confession from the private lender admitting to inflating the debt.
- Actual accounting history showing the true debt amount.
- Fraudulent foreclosure deed.
III. Legal Basis:
*. Fraud Upon the Court (Rule *(b)(*)(*)):
- The judgment was based on fraudulent documents.
- *Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.*, * U.S. * (*): Fraud upon the court undermines judicial integrity.
- *Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.*, * F.2d * (1st Cir. *): Fraudulent documents in litigation constitute fraud upon the court.
- *Cummings v. Stone*, A.2d * (Mass. *): Fraudulent misrepresentations invalidate legal proceedings if they affect the outcome.
- *Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section **: Addresses fraudulent transactions, including fraudulent real estate transfers.
- *Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section **: Pertains to fraudulent conveyance of real property.
*. Due Process Violation:
- The judge did not properly review my contested motion and evidence.
- *U.S. Constitution*: Ensures fair procedure and opportunity to present the case.
*. Lack of Standing:
- The motion to lift the stay was based on fraudulent documents, lacking legitimate legal interest.
- *Bankruptcy Rule ** and *Rule **: Requires proper evidence and verification.
*. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine:
- Generally prevents lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
- Exception: Fraud upon the court allows federal courts to review.
- *Hazel
I. Introduction:
This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence.
II. Background:
*. Timeline of Events:
- [Date]: Filed for Chapter * bankruptcy.
- [Date]: Motion to lift the automatic stay filed by the claimant.
- [Date]: Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay.
*. Key Evidence Presented:
- Confession from the private lender admitting to inflating the debt.
- Actual accounting history showing the true debt amount.
- Fraudulent foreclosure deed.
III. Legal Basis:
*. Fraud Upon the Court (Rule *(b)(*)(*)):
- The judgment was based on fraudulent documents.
- *Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.*, * U.S. * (*): Fraud upon the court undermines judicial integrity.
- *Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.*, * F.2d * (1st Cir. *): Fraudulent documents in litigation constitute fraud upon the court.
- *Cummings v. Stone*, A.2d * (Mass. *): Fraudulent misrepresentations invalidate legal proceedings if they affect the outcome.
- *Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section **: Addresses fraudulent transactions, including fraudulent real estate transfers.
- *Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section **: Pertains to fraudulent conveyance of real property.
*. Due Process Violation:
- The judge did not properly review my contested motion and evidence.
- *U.S. Constitution*: Ensures fair procedure and opportunity to present the case.
*. Lack of Standing:
- The motion to lift the stay was based on fraudulent documents, lacking legitimate legal interest.
- *Bankruptcy Rule ** and *Rule **: Requires proper evidence and verification.
*. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine:
- Generally prevents lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.
- Exception: Fraud upon the court allows federal courts to review.
- *Hazel
Sure, let's take it step by step. Here’s the first part of your motion:
~Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay~##
I. Introduction:
This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence.
II. Background:
*. Timeline of Events:
- [Date]: Filed for Chapter * bankruptcy.
- [Date]: Motion to lift the automatic stay filed by the claimant.
- [Date]: Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay.
*. Key Evidence Presented:
- Confession from the private lender admitting to inflating the debt.
- Actual accounting history showing the true debt amount.
- Fraudulent foreclosure deed.
Would you like to proceed to the next section?
I. Introduction:
This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence.
II. Background:
*. Timeline of Events:
- [Date]: Filed for Chapter * bankruptcy.
- [Date]: Motion to lift the automatic stay filed by the claimant.
- [Date]: Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay.
*. Key Evidence Presented:
- Confession from the private lender admitting to inflating the debt.
- Actual accounting history showing the true debt amount.
- Fraudulent foreclosure deed.
Would you like to proceed to the next section?
Sure! Here’s a concise explanation of Rule *(b)(*) and Rule *(b)(*) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the concept of "void ab initio":
Rule *(b)(*) and *(b)(*):
- Rule *(b)(*): Allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding if the judgment is void. A judgment can be considered void if the court that issued it lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
- Rule *(b)(*): Provides relief from a judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief." This is a catch-all provision meant for extraordinary circumstances that are not covered by the other specific reasons in Rule *(b).
- Rule *(b)(*): Allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding if the judgment is void. A judgment can be considered void if the court that issued it lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
- Rule *(b)(*): Provides relief from a judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief." This is a catch-all provision meant for extraordinary circumstances that are not covered by the other specific reasons in Rule *(b).
Void Ab Initio:
- Void ab initio: A legal term meaning "void from the beginning." A judgment or act that is void ab initio is considered invalid from the moment it was made, due to a fundamental defect, such as lack of jurisdiction or fraud.
Would you like to proceed with more detailed guidance on incorporating these rules into your motion?
- Void ab initio: A legal term meaning "void from the beginning." A judgment or act that is void ab initio is considered invalid from the moment it was made, due to a fundamental defect, such as lack of jurisdiction or fraud.
Would you like to proceed with more detailed guidance on incorporating these rules into your motion?
Certainly! Here are the relevant parts of Rule *(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure along with the concept of "void ab initio":
Rule *(b)(*) and (*):
- Rule *(b): This rule allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for various reasons, including:
- (*) The judgment is void.
- (*) Any other reason that justifies relief.
- Rule *(b): This rule allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for various reasons, including:
- (*) The judgment is void.
- (*) Any other reason that justifies relief.
Void Ab Initio:
- Void Ab Initio: This legal term means "to be treated as invalid from the outset." A judgment obtained through fraud or without jurisdiction can be declared void ab initio.
Would you like to proceed to the next section of your motion?
- Void Ab Initio: This legal term means "to be treated as invalid from the outset." A judgment obtained through fraud or without jurisdiction can be declared void ab initio.
Would you like to proceed to the next section of your motion?
Start a new chat