Extrinsic Fraud and Legislative Intent
Channel: Jose Melendez
Date: 2019-08-17

//North Carolina Law
""`It is a well-settled general rule that whenever the rights of third persons are affected they may collaterally attack a judgment for fraud committed by one party, or for collusion of both parties.'" Strickland v. Hughes, 273 N.C. 481, 488, 160 S.E.2d 313, 318 (1968). "`However, to make a successful attack upon a foreign judgment on the basis of fraud, it is necessary that extrinsic fraud be alleged.'" Lang, 108 N.C. App. at 450, 424 S.E.2d at 195 (citation omitted). Extrinsic fraud is that "`which is collateral to the foreign proceeding, and not that which arises within the proceeding itself and concerns some matter necessarily under the consideration of the foreign court upon the merits.'" Id. (citation omitted). Our Supreme Court has noted that fraud is extrinsic "`when it deprives the unsuccessful party of an opportunity to present his case to the court. If an unsuccessful party to an action has been prevented from fully participating therein there has been no true adversary proceeding, and the judgment is open to attack at any time.'" Smith v. Smith, 334 N.C. 81, 86, 431 S.E.2d 196, 199 (1993) (citation omitted). . . ."

//South Carolina Law
"There is no statute of limitations when a party seeks to set aside a judgment due to fraud upon the court. Rule 60(b), SCRCP; see Hagy v. Pruitt, supra (court has the inherent authority to set aside a judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud in spite of any facially applicable statute of limitations). In order to secure equitable relief on the basis of fraud, the fraud must be extrinsic. Bryan v. Bryan, 220 S.C. 164, 66 S.E.2d 609 (1951). (extrinsic fraud is necessary in order to secure equitable relief vacating a prior judgment).

Extrinsic fraud is "fraud that induces a person not to present a case or deprives a person of the opportunity to be heard. Relief is granted for extrinsic fraud on the theory that because the fraud prevented a party from fully exhibiting and trying his case, there has never been a real contest before the court on the subject matter of the action." Hilton Head Ctr. of South Carolina v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 294 S.C. 9, 11, 362 S.E.2d 176, 177 (1987).

Intrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is fraud which was presented and considered in the trial. Hagy v. Pruitt, 339 S.C. 425, 529 S.E.2d 714 (2000). It is fraud which misleads a court in determining issues and induces the court to find for the party perpetrating the fraud. Hilton Head Ctr. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Comm'n, supra . . ." 

//evidence 
"Rep. Jimmy Dixon, R-Duplin, is adamant that smokable hemp, which looks and smells like marijuana but lacks the THC potency to get anyone high, needs to be banned in North Carolina, or else marijuana prosecutions will be next to impossible to pursue. So, he has inserted the ban into the annual Farm Act, and he also rewrote a Senate bill on controlled substances to define smokable hemp as marijuana. Both bills cleared committees Wednesday.

Here’s the truly amazing part of the first story though:

    Law enforcement isn’t just worried about it being harder to enforce marijuana laws but about losing probable cause for searches based on the smell of marijuana smoke, or when a drug dog keys in on a vehicle.

    “If this bill passes without the ban, we will put 800 of our law enforcement dogs and their handlers out of business,” Dixon said.

Did you get that? The reason Dixon and company want to keep smokable hemp and marijuana illegal is to protect law enforcement jobs and to continue to provide an excuse for police searches!

To which, all a body can say in response is: Hello! Those are not legitimate reasons for something to be illegal and for government to be imprisoning people. Marijuana is already effectively legal for the majority of Americans — a reality supported by nearly two-thirds of the population.

The bottom line: It’s absurd that North Carolina continues to criminalize this substance, doubly absurd that we would extend the prohibition to smokable hemp and triply absurd that the rationale behind the policy would be based on something as irrelevant as its impact on law enforcement or the ability of law enforcement officers to investigate other offenses. As one observer noted yesterday, if they’re really so concerned about law enforcement jobs, Dixon and his allies would do well to redirect their time and energy toward retraining the dogs and their trainers to sniff out white collar crime . . ."
//source: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/07/18/lawmakers-unwittingly-sums-up-the-insanity-of-nc-marijuana-hemp-laws-in-a-single-quote/ 

//video: https://www.wral.com/house-looks-to-define-smokable-hemp-as-marijuana/18515437/

//evidence
The U.S. Department of Justice adopted the Hampton County case, kept part of the money and sent the rural Sheriff's Office a check for $1,252,731. The department bought seven new cars and trucks, and a building, among other things . . ."