I'm only licensed in CA and you shouldn't rely on this answer, since each state has different laws, each situation is fact specific, and it's impossible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and documents at issue. We need an actual written agreement to form an attorney-client relationship. Otherwise, please don't expect a further response. If you want to hire me, please contact me. If it's not credible evidence, then the opposing party can offer their own evidence in rebuttal.Īsk our own lawyer how to deal wtih this evidence.Īvvo doesn't pay us for these responses, and I'm not your lawyer just because I answer this question or respond to any follow-up comments. If it's a forgery, a professional document examiner can examine it and provide evidence of forgery. What you're referring to as a "fraudulent document" is presumably one who the opposing party can cross-examine and/or impeach its author. Nothing a lawyer says or does is evidence. Just because the lawyer filed something that's false doesn't mean it's "fraud on the court." And remember, lawyers don't testify or give evidence, they only argue their client's position through the client and witnesses. Pro pers don't understand that that the function of litigation is to test the parties' positions, and weigh who's got the more credible supporting evidence. Pro per litigants don't realize how common this is and seem to think there's some huge penalty for this. Litigation is based on conflicting claims and evidence, so a party frequently will be confronted by the other party's evidence which they'll consider false (and/or fraudulent). If you need legal advice, please consult a lawyer who holds Virginia licensure. It's just my two cents on your question in light of general principles of law. Not legal advice as I don't practice law in Virginia. Fortunately, it is quite rare its discovery justifies extraordinary relief, such as the setting aside of judgements and the reopening of controversies long after they ordinarily would have become final. Not so "fraud on the court" such fraud goes to the integrity of the system itself. Fraud on the court is not merely the false statement of a party the law presumes that falsehoods of that nature may be flushed out by the truth-testing methods of the adversary system such as skillful cross-examination. Fraud on the court occurs when officers of the court intentionally deceive the court, as, for example, when a lawyer manufactures false evidence and passes it off as genuine. They are ethically prohibited from engaging in deliberate deception.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |