"Fraud upon the Court" that was practiced on the court in The Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, involving two Dade County Assistant State Attorney's and a private Attorney, who colluded together in a deliberately planned scheme to cover-up new substantial evidence that required a new trial. In this instant case these attorney's conspired together to introduce false testimony at a hearing for post-conviction relief on February 10, 1993. The false testimony introduced by the Assistant State Attorney's constituted a fraud practiced on the court.
This is an important case that should be pursued without concern for the Dade County State Attorney's office position, because the accused Assistant State Attorney's and private attorney have become involved in a long running conspiracy.
I am writing at this time in an attempt to procure assistance in bringing the attorney's involved in the above referenced matter to heel.
Most American lawyers are fascinated by constitutional questions and regard the successful argument of a constitutional principal to be the ultimate in a lawyers career.
In this extremely unusual case, a fraud upon the court was practiced on the court by Mr. Robert Hertzberg (private attorney) and Mr. Paul Mendelson, and Mr. Howard Pohl (Assistant State Attorney's). These attorneys did perpetrate a fraud upon the court. To maintain the integrity and credibility of the judicial process, this instant case is one where the fraud on the court did in fact actually subvert the judicial process.
"Fraud on the court is a somewhat nebulous concept usually discussed in civil cases. No court system can function without safeguards against actions that interfere with it's administration of justice. This concern must be balanced against the necessity for finality of court judgments; thus only actions that actually subvert the judicial process can be the basis for upsetting otherwise settled decrees."
In Demjanjule v. Petrovsky, 10 F. 3d 338 at 352 (6th Cir 1993), the court relying upon Professor Moore's frequently cited definition of fraud upon the court. Professor Moore explained fraud upon the court as follows:
"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 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, and relief should be denied in the absence of such conduct."
"While an attorney should represent his client wiith 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."
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. Weekley'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 postconviction relief, may be set aside at any time. See, Booker v. State, 503 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1987).
The Dade County State Attorney's office and the Assistant State Attorney's involved along with the private attorney do not want a hearing on this matter because they know for a fact that their testimony at the 1993 hearing was false and they know that at a hearing on the face of the records and with the new evidence which they covered up by their false testimony that beyond a shadow of a doubt it can be proved crystal clear that they conspired together to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.
It is indispensable to justice in our society that Assistant State Attorney's and private attorneys cannot join together in a deliberate scheme of dishonesty and misconduct to keep a man incarcerated for life. The integrity of the judicial machinery must be preserved.
Mr. Weekley was arrested in 1987 and allegedly mane an inculpatory statement to one City of Miami Beach Police Detective, Sergeant Joseph Matthew, after he misrepresented himself as a mental health worker. When it was only my word against his, he was assigned more weight and credibility. There were however, multiple other cases wherein he misidentified himself to procure confessions from an accused. At least three other cases during the same time in which he personally deceived the accused in order to extract inculpatory statements. See: State v. Benjamin Siegal, Dade County Case Number 87-19734; State v. Thomas Spoerri, Dade County Case Number 87-34811; and State v. Riechman, Case Number 87-42355. Mr. Siegel's criminal case was dismissed while Mr. Spoerri was for all intent and purpose 'released' in order to avoid further publication of Det. Matthews illegal misconduct in his case.
All three cases, including State v. Weekley, Case No. 87-32288, were investigated and prosecuted by the Dade County State Attorney office. None of us were aware of each other during the trial court proceedings, and the State Attorneys neglected to provide any of us with the information of Det. Matthews misconduct in each other's cases. This is a clear violation of well established law regarding discovery.
When I eventually became aware of the circumstances in Mr. Siegel's and Mr. Spoerri's cases, I hired Mr. Siegel's private attorney, Mr. Robert Hertzberg. Mr. Hertzberg filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging newly discovered evidence from the other two state cases (Siegel and Spoerri). It is important to note that Mr. Hertzberg filed a highly acclaimed 34-page motion to suppress in the Siegel case, which detailed Det. Matthews misconduct and actions therein. The Dade County State Attorney's officenolle processed the Siegel case shortly thereafter, however, did not come forward with the 4-page Siegel case disposition until the Weekley, Spoerri, and Riechmann cases were concluded.
Prior to the scheduled evidentiary hearing Mr. Hertzberg and the two Assistant State Attorneys, Mr. Paul Mendelson and Howard Pohl colluded to suppress the import of Det. Matthews identical misconduct in all three cases. This conspiracy assumed the form of an agreed to stipulation that was false and perjurous and constituted a fraud upon the court. The context of the stipulation was that if Det. Matthews was called to testify that he would state that he had readily admitted to his misconduct in the other previous cases (Siegel and Spoerri) but that he did not commit the same in Mr. Weekley's case. I was unaware at the time of whether he had "freely and readily admitted" his misidentification in those cases and therefore I did not contest the stipulation. I also assumed that the State Attorneys were being truthful and that privately retained defense counsel was on my side. The Attorneys were, however, well aware that Det. Matthews had not freely and readily admitted his misconduct in those two prior cases. The stipulation operated to restore credibility to Det. Matthews testimony and want to diminish the effect of the substantial competent evidence which showed that Det. Matthews had used the same illegal methods and had been dishonest in all three cases, and which showed he had never been candid, open or honest about using illegal police practices in any case. The Attorneys conduct at the evidentiary hearing was merely a continuation of the unlawful suppression of known impeachment evidence. The conduct of the attorneys in this case is no worse then exemplified by Det. Matthews and not what the public or society expect from officers of the court.
I have been unable to rectify the perpetual cover-up of Det. Matthews misconduct, or the Attorneys continued efforts in their conspiracy and fraud perpetrated on the court. I am currently attempting to motivate the trial court to hold a hearing on this matter, but I need assistance from an honest lawyer willing to seek justice and bring these Attorney's actions and conduct to light.
Graceville Correctional Institution
5168 Ezell Rd
Graceville, FL 32440-2402