"Jes a-tryin' ta hep you-all out, Judge."
Leo is not accusing the judge of _intentional_ fraud, but with what amounts to fraud. The judge himself acted with such “reckless disregard for the truth” that it amounted to the judge committing a fraud on his own court! The judge's reckless disregard was to characterize in a footnote testimony of a witness as having the exact opposite meaning of what the witness intended, which Leo says is clear from the record.
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).