case no.: sc17- lower tribunal no(s). - supreme court … · case no.: sc17-_____ lower tribunal...

Supreme Court of Florida

500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee, Florida

of 15

CHARLOTTE TAYLOR

Appellant(s),

VS.

GARY R NIKOLITS, et al.

Appellee(s)

CASE NO.: SC17-__________

Lower Tribunal No(s).: 4D16-542

50-2009-CA-011333-XXXX-MB

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Charlotte Taylor, pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.100 petitions this

Court for a Writ of Mandamus and/or a Writ of Certiorari within 30 days of the

May 17, 2017 order imposing sanctions , to direct the Honorable Chief Judge Cory

J. Ciklin, Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz and Judge Robert M. Gross (“the Judge”) to

comply with their duties regarding fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court,

the court issued an order of sanctions while an appeal was pending in case

number 4D16-3630 and under the Code of Judicial Conduct which applies to

justices of the supreme court and judges of the district courts of appeal, circuit

courts, and county courts to take proper action maintain the high standards of

conduct necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary by taking action to act

in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary and by applying the

standard of review when evaluating the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision

(1) whether Charlotte Taylor was afforded procedural due process when dealing

with the issue of fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court (2) whether the

Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision observed the essential requirement of

Filing # 57313109 E-Filed 06/05/2017 02:46:18 PMR

EC

EIV

ED

, 06/

05/2

017

02:4

8:26

PM

, Cle

rk, S

upre

me

Cou

rt

http://www.4dca.org/judges/ciklin.shtml

http://www.4dca.org/judges/ciklin.shtml

http://www.4dca.org/judges/Kuntz.shtml

http://www.4dca.org/judges/gross.shtml




of 15

law; (3) whether the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision is supported by

competent, substantial evidence and as grounds would show:

BASIS FOR THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION

1. This Court has original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to

the Fourth District Court Of Appeal . Fla. Const., Art. V, § 3(b)(8); Fla. R.

App. P. 9.030; a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari is the remedy

to seek for the allegations of fraud, “an evidentiary hearing was essential for

the trial court to properly determine. Robinson v. Weiland and Cetrano,

5D07-1210. The court’s duty to hold an evidentiary hearing for fraud on the

court by officer(s) of the court is mandatory. Fraud on the court occurs

where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has

sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere

with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by

improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the

presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Cox v. Burke, 706

So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).




of 15

2. Charlotte Taylor seeks a Writ of Mandamus and/or a Writ of Certiorari from

this Court, directing the Judge(s) to comply with their duties regarding

fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court, the court issued an order of

sanctions while an appeal was pending in case number 4D16-3630 and

under the Code of Judicial Conduct which applies to justices of the supreme

court and judges of the district courts of appeal, circuit courts, and county

courts to take proper action maintain the high standards of conduct necessary

to preserve the integrity of the judiciary by taking action to act in a manner

promoting public confidence in the judiciary regarding the issue of fraud-

on-the court by officer(s) of the court and by applying the standard of

review when evaluating the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision

by determining (1) whether Charlotte Taylor was afforded procedural due

process when dealing with the issue of fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of

the court and the order of sanctions issued against her (2) whether the

Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision observed the essential

requirement of law; (3) whether the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s

decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence or does the

following apply:




of 15

“… In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.

1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is

directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the

parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is

where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is

attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function -

-- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly

corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit

Court of Appeals to "embrace 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." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's

Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated

"a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a

decision at all, and never becomes final." …”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

3. The standard of review for the pure questions of law is de novo. Therefore,

no deference is given to the judgment of the lower courts. D’Angelo v.

Fitzmaurice, 863 So. 2d 311, 314 (Fla. 2003).




of 15

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

“… In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the

court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial

machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false

statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or

influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his

judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been

directly corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit

Court of Appeals to "embrace 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." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d

689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit

further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a

decision at all, and never becomes final." …”




of 15

"In Florida what constitutes 'Fraud upon the Court'." This occurs when, "...a

party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to

interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by

improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of

the opposing party's claim or defense." Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5 th

DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1 st Cir.

1989).

Extrinsic Frauds Perpetrated Upon The Court And The Appellate Court by

Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq., Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq, Michael Burke, Esq.

and Other Attorneys for the City of Lake Worth Together With Other

Governmental Attorneys

1. In essence, “Extrinsic Fraud” is conduct which is collateral to the issues tried

in a case and prevents a party from trying an issue before the Court and

occurs when the unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully exhibiting

her case, by fraud or deception practiced on her by her opponent. The basis

for the extrinsic frauds perpetrated upon the Court and Appellate Court

by Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq., Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq, Michael

Burke, Esq. and Other Attorneys for the City of Lake Worth Together

With Other Governmental Attorneys which are at the heart of

this action are as follows:




of 15

3. In case number 4D14-4027, L.T. case number 2013CA015971, the Fourth

District Court of Appeal affirmed the TAX DEED SALE and payment to the

certificate holder Richard III LLC the appeal was filed on October 24,

2014.

4. In case number 4D16-542, L.T. case number 2009CA011333, the Fourth

District Court of Appeal affirmed that a tax case was pending AFTER the

TAX DEED SALE and payment to the certificate holder Richard III LLC

had been paid approximately 3 years earlier.

5. In case number 4D14-2736, L.T. case number 2004CA004084, this court

affirmed the City of Lake Worth’s purchase of the TAX DEED together

with a Final Order of Dismal based on the purchase of the tax deed with the

appeal being filed on July 21, 2014.

6. Florida Statute 194.211 is the statute authorizing issuing an order

enjoining an injunction against tax sales.

7. In Clark v. Frontier Federal, 563 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990),we held

that the trial court could properly enjoin the tax collector from selling tax

certificates or taking other action to collect the balance of taxes allegedly

due, during the pendency of a taxpayer's action challenging its property tax




of 15

assessment for a particular year.

8. Based upon the foregoing, the issue of whether a tax case was pending was

a material misreprensation.

9. Appellant, Charlotte Taylor obtained judgment Michael M. Phillips.

10. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq., Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq, Michael Burke,

Esq. and Other Attorneys for the City of Lake Worth Together With

Other Governmental Attorneys are officer(s) of the court.

11. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq.is an attorney with Breton,Lynch,Eubanks &

Suarez-Murias PA, employed by the Palm Beach County Tax Collector as

Attorney for Defendants.

12. The tax collector, the property appraiser and their attorney(s) told the court

that ALL the case(s) had been dismissed and/or adjudicated in prior

case(s) including but limited to 4D14-4027, L.T. case number

2013CA015971 which is collateral to the issues tried in a case and prevents

a party from trying an issue before the Court and occurs when the

unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully exhibiting her case, by

fraud or deception practiced on her by her opponent.




of 15

13. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq. is an officer of the court and represents the

Tax Collector of Palm Beach County as Attorney for Defendants.

14. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq. represents the Tax Collector of Palm Beach

County as Attorney for Defendants.

15. Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq is or was an attorney with the Palm Beach County

Property Appraiser’s Office as Attorney for Defendants.

16. Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq is an officer of the court.

17. Michael Burke, Esq. and other members of his firm are an attorney(s)

with Johnson,Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper Johnson Anselmo Murdoch

Et Al as Attorney(s) for the City of Lake Worth, Florida.

18. Michael Burke, Esq. and other members of his firm are or was an

officer(s) of the court.

16. Andrew Degraffenreidt, III is an attorney(s) with Law Office of Andrew

Degraffenreidt, III as Attorney(s) for the City of Lake Worth, Florida.

17. Andrew Degraffenreidt, III is an officer of the court.

18. There are other governmental attorneys which are listed in the various

appeals.




of 15

19. The statements made through its officer(s) of the court were a false

representation(s) of fact(s), known or should have been known by the party

making it to be false at the time they were made.

20. The representations were made for the purpose of inducing the court to act in

reliance on the statements.

21. The court actual relied on the representation.

22. The court actual relied on the representation made.

23. The foregoing have a duty to the Court against concealment, nondisclosure

and suppression of information as coextensive with the duty not to allow

fraud to be committed upon the court.

24. The foregoing breaches their duty against concealment, nondisclosure and

suppression of information and allowed to commit fraud on the court.

25. The actions of the foregoing were calculated to interfere with the judicial

system’s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter by EITHER (a)

improperly influence the trier of fact, OR (b) unfairly hampering the

presentation of the plaintiff’s claim or defense.

26. The actions of the foregoing through its officer(s) of the court made it

virtually impossible for an appellant/plaintiff to present a prevailing claim to

the appellate court.




of 15

27. The plaintiff has been prejudice by the foregoing entries of the judgment(s).

28. Plaintiff was substantially damaged by the foregoing entries of the

judgment(s).

29. Law supporting the foregoing:

Nearly all of the principles that govern a claim of fraud on the court

come from the Hazel-Atlas case. First, the power to set aside a

judgment exists in every court. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v.

HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (citing Universal Oil

Prods. Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575 (1946) (other citations

omitted)).

Second, in whichever court the fraud was committed, that court

should consider the matter. (citing Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root

Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575 (1946) (other citations omitted)).

Third, while parties have the right to file a motion requesting the court

to set aside a judgment procured by fraud, the court may also

proceed on its own motion. (citing Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root

Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575 (1946) (other citations omitted)).

Indeed, one court stated that the facts that had come to its attention

“not only justify the inquiry but impose upon us the duty to make it,

even if no party to the original cause should be willing to

cooperate, to the end that the records of the court might be

purged of fraud, if any should be found to exist.” Root Refining

Co. v. Universal Oil Prods. Co., 169 F.2d 514, 521–23 (3d Cir. 1948)

(emphasis added).




of 15

Fourth, unlike just about every other remedy or claim existing under

the rules of civil procedure or common law, there is no time limit on

setting aside a judgment obtained by fraud, nor can laches bar

consideration of the matter. See WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 151.

The logic is clear: “[T]he law favors discovery and correction of

corruption of the judicial process even more than it requires an end to

lawsuits.” Lockwood v. Bowles, 46 F.R.D. 625, 634 (D.D.C. 1969).

Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Prods. Co., 169 F.2d 514, 521–23

(3d Cir. 1948) (emphasis added). 171 See WRIGHT ET AL., supra

note 151. 172 Lockwood v. Bowles, 46 F.R.D. 625, 634 (D.D.C.

1969). 173 Universal Oil, 328 U.S. at 580. 174 Aoude v. Mobil Oil

Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (citing

Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1989)); Pfizer

Inc. v. Int’l Rectifier Corp., 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir. 1976);

England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960); United Bus.

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Racal-Milgo, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 1172, 1186–87 (D.

Kan. 1984); United States v. ITT Corp., 349 F. Supp. 22, 29 (D. Conn.

1972), aff’d mem., 410 U.S. 919 (1973). 175 Robinson v. Audi

Aktiengesellschaft, 56 F.3d 1259, 1266 (10th Cir. 1995) (emphasis

added). 176 Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir.

1978).

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision (1) whether Charlotte Taylor

was afforded procedural due process when dealing with the issue of fraud-on-the

court by officer(s) of the court (2) whether the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s

decision observed the essential requirement of law; (3) whether the Fourth District

Court of Appeal’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence and as

grounds would show:




of 15

CONCLUSIONS

Charlotte Taylor was NOT afforded procedural due process when

dealing with the issue of fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court

because the issue was NOT addressed by the court.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision DID NOT observed

the essential requirement of law because the failed to address fraud-on-

the court by officer(s) of the court.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision is NOT supported by

competent, substantial evidence The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision

produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and

never becomes final." …” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7

Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23 defines this crime as one

that prevents the court from working in an impartial manner. A similar case,

Bullock v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) held that this

kind of fraud is aimed at how the justice system works and is not a fraud

between parties, etc. It is deliberately intended to influence the system

and the judge and the impartial rendering of a judgment.

The Fourth District issued an order of sanctions while an appeal was

pending in case number 4D16-3630 and NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH




of 15

the Code of Judicial Conduct which applies to justices of the supreme court and

judges of the district courts of appeal, circuit courts, and county courts to take

proper action maintain the high standards of conduct necessary to preserve the

integrity of the judiciary by taking action to act in a manner promoting public

confidence in the judiciary’

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this Court to enter an Order directing that

the Fourth District Court of Appeal take proper action to comply with their duties

regarding fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court, the court’s issuing of

order(s) of sanctions while an appeal was pending is pending before the court in

case number 4D16-3630, acting in compliance with the court’s duties to comply

with the Florida Supreme Court’s Rules and in compliance with the Code of

Judicial Conduct .

Dated: June 5, 2017.

s/ Charlotte Taylor

Charlotte Taylor, Pro Se, 1121 South Federal Hwy., Lake Worth, Florida 33460

[email protected]




of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by

electronic mail to the following:

Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq.

1209 North Olive Ave.

West Palm Beach, Fl 33401

([email protected]

[email protected] )

Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq.

Property Appraiser’s Office

301 N. Olive Ave., 5th Floor

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

([email protected]

[email protected])

Michael Burke, Esq.

2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304

John J. Bajger

Assistant Attorney General

1515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 900

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Andrew Pelino, Esq.

Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office

301 North Olive Avenue

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

([email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected] )

Joseph C. Mellichamp III, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Revenue Litigation Section

PL-01, The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

[email protected]

Barry S. Balmuth, P.A.

11770 US Highway 1 Ste 406

North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3054

([email protected]

[email protected])

Dated: June 5, 2017.

s/ Charlotte Taylor

Charlotte Taylor, Pro Se, 1121 South Federal Hwy., Lake Worth, Florida 33460

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]









case no.: sc17- lower tribunal no(s). - supreme court … · case no.: sc17-_____ lower tribunal...

Documents