Hunt v. National Mortgage, 11th Circuit 2018-12348 (July 19, 2019). newly discovered since the trial; material; and the evidence must be such that a new trial would probably produce a new result.

Rule 60(b)(3) allows a court to grant relief from a judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. This is linked with Harry’s Nurse Registry Inc vs. Claudia Gayle case under rule 60. Fraud perpetrated by officers of the court & misinterpreted, this case should be reversed

Rule 60(b)(3) allows a court to grant relief from a judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. “To prevail on a 60(b)(3) motion, the movant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an adverse party has obtained the verdict through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct.” Cox Nuclear Pharmacy, Inc. v. CTI, Inc., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (CAll 2007). “Additionally, the moving party must show that the conduct prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case offense.”

Relief for fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3) is a narrow doctrine and constitutes only that species of fraud that defiles, or attempts to defile, 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.” see Travelers Indem. V. Gore, 761 F.2d 1649, 1551 (CA1 1 1985).

A judgment is void under this rule 60(b)(4), “if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001).

Case No. 19-143 Henry E Gossage 9421 Johnson Pt Lp NE Olympia WA 98516

2831 lack jurisdiction