“Before turning to our legal analysis of the elements necessary to establish fraud on the Court under FRCP Rule 60(d)(3), we should state that Movants do not allege Judge Gonzalez intentionally perpetrated a fraud on the Court. Regardless, we respectfully submit that the assertion wielded by Judge Gonzalez in Footnote 21 is fraudulent on its face and as such it exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth which is enough under controlling precedent to establish fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3).”
Wow! Professional gambler D’Onofrio is accusing the judge of committing a “fraud on the court” via “reckless disregard of the truth”.
Normally, as Taitz has found, it is not advisable to both insult and enrage the judge that you are asking to make a ruling a your motion. D’Onofrio is too smart for that, so I suspect that he may have deliberately put the judge in a conflict of interest position where the judge will need to recuse himself.
Judges must avoid even the appearance of conflict of interst, and if the judge rules against D’Onofrio’s client he could be seen as protecting his self-interest in his reputation. If he rules for D’Onofrio’s client, he will be admitting to having perpetrated a fraud on his own court!
I expect (not a lawyer) that the judge might feel compelled to recuse himself for this reason and that is what D’Onofrio intended. A new judge, not under the excruciating time pressure of the first judge and able to weigh with more time D’Onofrio’s arguments, might rule for D’Onofrio’s plaintiffs. I would be interested in how a lawyer thinks the judge will respond.
No surprise, but I wouldn’t be too hopeful if I were you. You said it yourself—this kind of stuff doesn’t go over well. If one want to be a professional gambler, one should try it in Vegas, not the courts.
Outside of TV, it’s very hard for a lawyer to compel a judge to recuse himself based on your interpretation of his ruling. It’s almost always foolish to try.
"Jes a-tryin' ta hep you-all out, Judge."