FRCP 60(b)3,​ 18 U.S. Code​ § 1001, and “fraud upon the Court” –Part 1 // Phil Bellfy

Phil Bellfy
“Abott Road Project” Qui Tam Relator

The three elements in the title of this post might be considered​the three legs of​the legal “truthfulness” stool.

Rule 60(b)(3) states that a judgment may be set aside if an “opposing party” lies to a federal official (which clearly includes federal judges) “fraud,​misrepresentation, or misconduct.”

§ 1001 might be called the “Don’t Lie to a Federal Official”​Act.

And the charges of committing a “fraud upon the Court” strictly deal with lawyers who lie to the court itself.

So, at least as I see it (and I hope Judge Maloney agrees), if you lie (“misrepresent” some facts in a case) in any statement, pleading, answer, or Exhibit in any case before the court, the ensuing Order can be set aside –which is what we’re asking the judge to do in this most recent filing in our “Retaining-Wall-Gate” 60(b)(3) Motion.

And, again, as it looks to me (and my lawyer) that a “60(b)(3) “misrepresentation” is also a violation of § 1001 (this is a biggie in the Mueller investigation/indictments, as you probably know), that is, it too deals with “misrepresentations” that may be part of ​interviews, pleadings, Exhibits, etc.

And, the third leg of the “truthfulness” stool, relates directly to “officers of the court” making “misrepresentations” to a Court.  In this Qui-Tam-Whistleblower case, we are alleging that seven lawyers –Townshend (DoJ), Shaughnessy (HUD), Hillman (representing EL), Meadows (Mayor of EL), Yeadon, Hitch, and McGinty (Co-Owners of Woodland Pass Equity, the true “recipient” of CDBG funding)– all conspired to perpetrate a “fraud upon the court”  –bluntly stated, they lied to the court on more than one occasion.

In order to understand this kind of “fraud,” it needs to be noted one of the “badges of fraud” is the “sophistication” of the “fraudster.”  For example, you go to a CPA to help you prepare your income tax filings, and the CPA says, “well, I’m the expert in all of this, and I’m telling you that you don’t have to pay your taxes on income from source X.”  Well, ​if ​the IRS doesn’t agree, they will require ​you ​to pay your “back-taxes”  ​–but it’s very doubtful that you will go to jail.  But the CPA may very well be sent to prison, simply because she is supposed to be “sophisticated” about tax-law​and know what she’s doing​.

The same may be true about this Qui Tam.  City Manager Lahanas signed his name to a great number of “misrepresentations” in regards to this “CDBG Fraud” case, but, with all due respect, he’s not very “sophisticated” in the law –that’s why the Council hires a “City Attorney,” who, very clearly is the “expert in municipal law.”

So in this case, just to take one example (with more to come), Lahanas “misrepresented” to the court (several times) that lawyers in the “McGinty law-firm” recused themselves from working on the Easements.  Look at the attached pdf —this is simply not true.

The documents clearly show that the Easements were initially “Drafted by Dennis McGinty,” then, later in this process, the Easements that were presented to the Council for their acceptance were “Drafted by Thomas Yeadon” (and Notarized with this “jurat”).  Finally, the Easements that were filed with the Register of Deeds, state, under oath, that the Easements were “Drafted by Ron Lacasse.”

“Drafted By” is “Number One” ​in my list of “misrepresentations” in this case –with more posts to follow.



Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Get notified when a new PR essay is published:
Subscribe Now
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime.
Send this to a friend