October 13, 2011
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Attorney Counsel: Francisco-Javier
Think you for taking the timeout today, as to call me about my complaint to you.
As to our conversation today, I’m addressing a letter to you, as you had requested that I do about Sarah Dennis. As you know, Sarah has abandoned me as being my attorney. It has also been several months, since I have not heard from her or have received a call. And now for almost two years, as waiting to address the court by Sarah Dennis as addressing the Brief Complaint Summary for court. As you know, I did not want to file a complaint against her. But as you can see, I had no choice.
I’m filing an attorney misconduct claim against Sarah and along with theft charges as Sarah taking money from me in the amount rendered of $8,000.00 dollars, back on February 2010. As claiming, was going to help me address a fraud complaint summary for court. For fraud, theft, false claims, perjury, misleading evidence, withholding evidence, committing attorney and judicial misconduct, forgery, intrinsic fraud, and addressing a fraud upon the court claim.
As you know, I had also filed with the Florida Bar, a complaint against those involved in the case that Sarah was addressing on my behalf. As she had also noted, they had committed fraud against me too. The number under that claim is 10-4175, as pertaining to Elliott Lucas, Laura Mackle and the judge Media Shore. Who, at that time was committing fraud upon the court against me, during that time back in 2007?
As "Fraud upon the court should...embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by the 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, as should relief as should be denied in the absence of such conduct".
"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 conduct of a case, he perpetrates “fraud upon the court." As Fraud within the Court, makes “Void”
In support of the foregoing proposition, the court cites to cases which lead to distinguish intrinsic fraud from extrinsic fraud. Compare U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L. Ed 93 (1878), with Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 64 S. Ct. 997 (1944). In the later case of Hazel-Atlas, like in Mr. Weekly’s case, fraud was of an "Extrinsic nature", tantamount to fraud upon the court which corrupted the very integrity of the judicial machinery, and as such is actionable before the trial court.
A cause of action for fraud on the court may be brought at any time, and any order, judgment or decree, obtained by fraud upon the court may be recalled and set aside at any time, whether entered in a civil or criminal case. See, State v. Booker, 314 So. 2d 136 (Fla.1975) Burton stands for the proposition that an order produced by fraud upon the court, including an order denying a motion for post conviction relief, may be set aside at any time. See, Booker v. State, 503 So., 2d 888 (Fla.1987).
As I, have evidence to show they have committed those acts and to show the theft they have done against me, too. Thank you for addressing this claim, as I hope we can resolve this claim too.
Michelle M. Christensen