Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 1 of 15
CHARLOTTE TAYLOR
Appellant(s),
VS.
GARY R NIKOLITS, et al.
Appellee(s)
CASE NO.: SC17-__________
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 4D16-542
50-2009-CA-011333-XXXX-MB
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner Charlotte Taylor, pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.100 petitions this
Court for a Writ of Mandamus and/or a Writ of Certiorari within 30 days of the
May 17, 2017 order imposing sanctions , to direct the Honorable Chief Judge Cory
J. Ciklin, Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz and Judge Robert M. Gross (“the Judge”) to
comply with their duties regarding fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court,
the court issued an order of sanctions while an appeal was pending in case
number 4D16-3630 and under the Code of Judicial Conduct which applies to
justices of the supreme court and judges of the district courts of appeal, circuit
courts, and county courts to take proper action maintain the high standards of
conduct necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary by taking action to act
in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary and by applying the
standard of review when evaluating the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision
(1) whether Charlotte Taylor was afforded procedural due process when dealing
with the issue of fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court (2) whether the
Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision observed the essential requirement of
Filing # 57313109 E-Filed 06/05/2017 02:46:18 PMR
EC
EIV
ED
, 06/
05/2
017
02:4
8:26
PM
, Cle
rk, S
upre
me
Cou
rt
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 2 of 15
law; (3) whether the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision is supported by
competent, substantial evidence and as grounds would show:
BASIS FOR THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION
1. This Court has original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to
the Fourth District Court Of Appeal . Fla. Const., Art. V, § 3(b)(8); Fla. R.
App. P. 9.030; a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari is the remedy
to seek for the allegations of fraud, “an evidentiary hearing was essential for
the trial court to properly determine. Robinson v. Weiland and Cetrano,
5D07-1210. The court’s duty to hold an evidentiary hearing for fraud on the
court by officer(s) of the court is mandatory. Fraud on the court occurs
where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has
sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere
with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by
improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the
presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Cox v. Burke, 706
So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 3 of 15
2. Charlotte Taylor seeks a Writ of Mandamus and/or a Writ of Certiorari from
this Court, directing the Judge(s) to comply with their duties regarding
fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court, the court issued an order of
sanctions while an appeal was pending in case number 4D16-3630 and
under the Code of Judicial Conduct which applies to justices of the supreme
court and judges of the district courts of appeal, circuit courts, and county
courts to take proper action maintain the high standards of conduct necessary
to preserve the integrity of the judiciary by taking action to act in a manner
promoting public confidence in the judiciary regarding the issue of fraud-
on-the court by officer(s) of the court and by applying the standard of
review when evaluating the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision
by determining (1) whether Charlotte Taylor was afforded procedural due
process when dealing with the issue of fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of
the court and the order of sanctions issued against her (2) whether the
Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision observed the essential
requirement of law; (3) whether the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s
decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence or does the
following apply:
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 4 of 15
“… In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.
1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is
directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the
parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is
where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is
attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function -
-- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly
corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or
attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers
of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual
manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for
adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's
Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated
"a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a
decision at all, and never becomes final." …”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
3. The standard of review for the pure questions of law is de novo. Therefore,
no deference is given to the judgment of the lower courts. D’Angelo v.
Fitzmaurice, 863 So. 2d 311, 314 (Fla. 2003).
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 5 of 15
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
“… In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the
court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial
machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false
statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or
influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his
judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been
directly corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to,
defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the
judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of
adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d
689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit
further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a
decision at all, and never becomes final." …”
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 6 of 15
"In Florida what constitutes 'Fraud upon the Court'." This occurs when, "...a
party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to
interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by
improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of
the opposing party's claim or defense." Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5 th
DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1 st Cir.
1989).
Extrinsic Frauds Perpetrated Upon The Court And The Appellate Court by
Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq., Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq, Michael Burke, Esq.
and Other Attorneys for the City of Lake Worth Together With Other
Governmental Attorneys
1. In essence, “Extrinsic Fraud” is conduct which is collateral to the issues tried
in a case and prevents a party from trying an issue before the Court and
occurs when the unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully exhibiting
her case, by fraud or deception practiced on her by her opponent. The basis
for the extrinsic frauds perpetrated upon the Court and Appellate Court
by Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq., Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq, Michael
Burke, Esq. and Other Attorneys for the City of Lake Worth Together
With Other Governmental Attorneys which are at the heart of
this action are as follows:
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 7 of 15
3. In case number 4D14-4027, L.T. case number 2013CA015971, the Fourth
District Court of Appeal affirmed the TAX DEED SALE and payment to the
certificate holder Richard III LLC the appeal was filed on October 24,
2014.
4. In case number 4D16-542, L.T. case number 2009CA011333, the Fourth
District Court of Appeal affirmed that a tax case was pending AFTER the
TAX DEED SALE and payment to the certificate holder Richard III LLC
had been paid approximately 3 years earlier.
5. In case number 4D14-2736, L.T. case number 2004CA004084, this court
affirmed the City of Lake Worth’s purchase of the TAX DEED together
with a Final Order of Dismal based on the purchase of the tax deed with the
appeal being filed on July 21, 2014.
6. Florida Statute 194.211 is the statute authorizing issuing an order
enjoining an injunction against tax sales.
7. In Clark v. Frontier Federal, 563 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990),we held
that the trial court could properly enjoin the tax collector from selling tax
certificates or taking other action to collect the balance of taxes allegedly
due, during the pendency of a taxpayer's action challenging its property tax
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 8 of 15
assessment for a particular year.
8. Based upon the foregoing, the issue of whether a tax case was pending was
a material misreprensation.
9. Appellant, Charlotte Taylor obtained judgment Michael M. Phillips.
10. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq., Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq, Michael Burke,
Esq. and Other Attorneys for the City of Lake Worth Together With
Other Governmental Attorneys are officer(s) of the court.
11. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq.is an attorney with Breton,Lynch,Eubanks &
Suarez-Murias PA, employed by the Palm Beach County Tax Collector as
Attorney for Defendants.
12. The tax collector, the property appraiser and their attorney(s) told the court
that ALL the case(s) had been dismissed and/or adjudicated in prior
case(s) including but limited to 4D14-4027, L.T. case number
2013CA015971 which is collateral to the issues tried in a case and prevents
a party from trying an issue before the Court and occurs when the
unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully exhibiting her case, by
fraud or deception practiced on her by her opponent.
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 9 of 15
13. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq. is an officer of the court and represents the
Tax Collector of Palm Beach County as Attorney for Defendants.
14. Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq. represents the Tax Collector of Palm Beach
County as Attorney for Defendants.
15. Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq is or was an attorney with the Palm Beach County
Property Appraiser’s Office as Attorney for Defendants.
16. Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq is an officer of the court.
17. Michael Burke, Esq. and other members of his firm are an attorney(s)
with Johnson,Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper Johnson Anselmo Murdoch
Et Al as Attorney(s) for the City of Lake Worth, Florida.
18. Michael Burke, Esq. and other members of his firm are or was an
officer(s) of the court.
16. Andrew Degraffenreidt, III is an attorney(s) with Law Office of Andrew
Degraffenreidt, III as Attorney(s) for the City of Lake Worth, Florida.
17. Andrew Degraffenreidt, III is an officer of the court.
18. There are other governmental attorneys which are listed in the various
appeals.
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 10 of 15
19. The statements made through its officer(s) of the court were a false
representation(s) of fact(s), known or should have been known by the party
making it to be false at the time they were made.
20. The representations were made for the purpose of inducing the court to act in
reliance on the statements.
21. The court actual relied on the representation.
22. The court actual relied on the representation made.
23. The foregoing have a duty to the Court against concealment, nondisclosure
and suppression of information as coextensive with the duty not to allow
fraud to be committed upon the court.
24. The foregoing breaches their duty against concealment, nondisclosure and
suppression of information and allowed to commit fraud on the court.
25. The actions of the foregoing were calculated to interfere with the judicial
system’s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter by EITHER (a)
improperly influence the trier of fact, OR (b) unfairly hampering the
presentation of the plaintiff’s claim or defense.
26. The actions of the foregoing through its officer(s) of the court made it
virtually impossible for an appellant/plaintiff to present a prevailing claim to
the appellate court.
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 11 of 15
27. The plaintiff has been prejudice by the foregoing entries of the judgment(s).
28. Plaintiff was substantially damaged by the foregoing entries of the
judgment(s).
29. Law supporting the foregoing:
Nearly all of the principles that govern a claim of fraud on the court
come from the Hazel-Atlas case. First, the power to set aside a
judgment exists in every court. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v.
HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (citing Universal Oil
Prods. Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575 (1946) (other citations
omitted)).
Second, in whichever court the fraud was committed, that court
should consider the matter. (citing Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root
Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575 (1946) (other citations omitted)).
Third, while parties have the right to file a motion requesting the court
to set aside a judgment procured by fraud, the court may also
proceed on its own motion. (citing Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root
Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575 (1946) (other citations omitted)).
Indeed, one court stated that the facts that had come to its attention
“not only justify the inquiry but impose upon us the duty to make it,
even if no party to the original cause should be willing to
cooperate, to the end that the records of the court might be
purged of fraud, if any should be found to exist.” Root Refining
Co. v. Universal Oil Prods. Co., 169 F.2d 514, 521–23 (3d Cir. 1948)
(emphasis added).
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 12 of 15
Fourth, unlike just about every other remedy or claim existing under
the rules of civil procedure or common law, there is no time limit on
setting aside a judgment obtained by fraud, nor can laches bar
consideration of the matter. See WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 151.
The logic is clear: “[T]he law favors discovery and correction of
corruption of the judicial process even more than it requires an end to
lawsuits.” Lockwood v. Bowles, 46 F.R.D. 625, 634 (D.D.C. 1969).
Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Prods. Co., 169 F.2d 514, 521–23
(3d Cir. 1948) (emphasis added). 171 See WRIGHT ET AL., supra
note 151. 172 Lockwood v. Bowles, 46 F.R.D. 625, 634 (D.D.C.
1969). 173 Universal Oil, 328 U.S. at 580. 174 Aoude v. Mobil Oil
Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (citing
Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1989)); Pfizer
Inc. v. Int’l Rectifier Corp., 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir. 1976);
England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960); United Bus.
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Racal-Milgo, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 1172, 1186–87 (D.
Kan. 1984); United States v. ITT Corp., 349 F. Supp. 22, 29 (D. Conn.
1972), aff’d mem., 410 U.S. 919 (1973). 175 Robinson v. Audi
Aktiengesellschaft, 56 F.3d 1259, 1266 (10th Cir. 1995) (emphasis
added). 176 Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir.
1978).
The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision (1) whether Charlotte Taylor
was afforded procedural due process when dealing with the issue of fraud-on-the
court by officer(s) of the court (2) whether the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s
decision observed the essential requirement of law; (3) whether the Fourth District
Court of Appeal’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence and as
grounds would show:
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 13 of 15
CONCLUSIONS
Charlotte Taylor was NOT afforded procedural due process when
dealing with the issue of fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court
because the issue was NOT addressed by the court.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision DID NOT observed
the essential requirement of law because the failed to address fraud-on-
the court by officer(s) of the court.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision is NOT supported by
competent, substantial evidence The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision
produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and
never becomes final." …” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7
Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23 defines this crime as one
that prevents the court from working in an impartial manner. A similar case,
Bullock v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) held that this
kind of fraud is aimed at how the justice system works and is not a fraud
between parties, etc. It is deliberately intended to influence the system
and the judge and the impartial rendering of a judgment.
The Fourth District issued an order of sanctions while an appeal was
pending in case number 4D16-3630 and NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 14 of 15
the Code of Judicial Conduct which applies to justices of the supreme court and
judges of the district courts of appeal, circuit courts, and county courts to take
proper action maintain the high standards of conduct necessary to preserve the
integrity of the judiciary by taking action to act in a manner promoting public
confidence in the judiciary’
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this Court to enter an Order directing that
the Fourth District Court of Appeal take proper action to comply with their duties
regarding fraud-on-the court by officer(s) of the court, the court’s issuing of
order(s) of sanctions while an appeal was pending is pending before the court in
case number 4D16-3630, acting in compliance with the court’s duties to comply
with the Florida Supreme Court’s Rules and in compliance with the Code of
Judicial Conduct .
Dated: June 5, 2017.
s/ Charlotte Taylor
Charlotte Taylor, Pro Se, 1121 South Federal Hwy., Lake Worth, Florida 33460
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Page 15 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by
electronic mail to the following:
Marta M. Suarez-Murias Esq.
1209 North Olive Ave.
West Palm Beach, Fl 33401
Jeffrey C. Clyman, Esq.
Property Appraiser’s Office
301 N. Olive Ave., 5th Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Michael Burke, Esq.
2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
John J. Bajger
Assistant Attorney General
1515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 900
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Andrew Pelino, Esq.
Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office
301 North Olive Avenue
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Joseph C. Mellichamp III, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Revenue Litigation Section
PL-01, The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Barry S. Balmuth, P.A.
11770 US Highway 1 Ste 406
North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3054
Dated: June 5, 2017.
s/ Charlotte Taylor
Charlotte Taylor, Pro Se, 1121 South Federal Hwy., Lake Worth, Florida 33460