Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/144876325/Bens-MOTION-to-Reconsider-Ruling
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:36:40+00:00

Document:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA J. MARK OGLE,and MARI-JEAN OGLE Plaintiff's Vs.
Reversing/Vacating Summary Judgment/defaults in favor of reaching the merits of a cause.
merits of the cause would be in the interest of justice, in that this ruling is in direct contradiction to the Oklahoma Supreme Court recent holdings and consistent case law. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF FACT 18. The Defendants hereby request the following questions to be certified: a. Whether in a foreclosure action, meritorious Affirmative defenses have been sufficiently established to set aside a Summary judgment when the Defendants' affidavit in Support of their Motions to reconsider and proposed Answer and Affirmative Defenses, assert defenses including RESPA, TILA, and statutory violations, lack of standing, failure to demonstrate a cause, unclean hands and fraud.
supporting document proffered by the attorney Dwight Smith was attached to his naked petition, including the very documentation upon which the alleged plaintiffs case was grounded, rendering absolutly nothing on the record to qualify as summary judgment evidence as the only document addressing alleged plaintiffs claim or accusation of any default by defendants was a single un verified petition to foreclose signed by a third party, (attorney Dwight Smith) who had no personal knowledge of the matters to which he attested and whose authority to act on behalf of the alleged Plaintiff was at best unproven and unclear.
Defendants Un Contested Affirmative Defenses, alleged plaintiff adduced no evidence to disprove them. Alleged plaintiff and attorney Dwight Smith as a result of Actual and Constructive Fraud and Fraud on the court, have Unclean Hands and as a Restrictive Maxim of Equity are Collaterally Estopped from invoking Equity Jurisdiction and Jurisprudence. PLAINTIFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS IN WANT OF ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 13 OF THE OF DISTRICT COURTS RULES 20. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma has held: All inferences and conclusions are to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the record and are to be considered in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment. Rose v. Sapulpa Rural Water Co., 1981 OK 85, 631 P.2d 752. Summary judgment is improper if, under the evidentiary materials, reasonable individuals could reach different factual conclusions. Gaines v. Comanche County Medical Hospital, 2006 OK 39, 4, 143 P.3d 203, 205 [emphasis added] Summary judgment is improper if, under the evidentiary materials, reasonable individuals could reach different factual conclusions. Gaines v. Comanche County Medical Hospital, 2006 OK 39, 4, 143 P.3d 203, 205.Because litigants are entitled to a fair day in court, the policy in this State favors resolution of actions on their merits. Nelson v. Nelson, 1998 OK 10, 23, 954 P.2d 1219, 1228. [emphasis added] The burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact is upon the moving party. Palm Beach Pain Management, Inc. v. Carroll, 7 So. 3d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). [emphasis added] Unsupported contentions of material fact are not sufficient on motion for summary judgment, but rather, material facts must be supported by affidavits and other testimony and documents that would be admissible in evidence at trial, Cinco Enterprises, Inc. V. Benso, Okla., 890 P.2d 866 (1994).
Where there are no depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, or affidavits in support of motion for summary conclusion, the motion can not be considered.See O.S. title 12, Chapter 12, Rule 13.
S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970), the burden on the nonmovant to respond arises only if the summary judgment motion is properly "supported" as required by Rule 56(c). Accordingly, summary judgment is "appropriate" under Rule 56(e) only when the moving party has met its initial burden of production under Rule 56(c). If the evidence produced in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet this burden, "summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented." Id. at 160, 90 S.Ct. 1598 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 advisory committee notes to the 1963 amendments) (emphasis added).
"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 required 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." [ emphasis added ] 35. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
b. Under Oklahoma and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. Prima facie tort. The infliction of intentional harm, resulting in damage, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful. Cartwright v. Golub Corp., 51 A.D.2d 407, 381 N.Y.S.2d 901, 902. See also Strict liability. Fraud on court. A scheme to interfere with judicial machinery performing task of impartial adjudication, as by preventing opposing party from fairly presenting his case or defense. Finding of fraud on the court is justified only by most egregious misconduct directed to the court itself such as bribery of a judge or jury to fabrication of evidence by counsel and must be supported by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, C.A.Minn., 538 F.2d 180, 195. It consists of conduct so egregious that it undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Stone v. Stone, Alaska, 647 P.2d 582, 586.
vacate certain judgments where justice would better be served by permitting a litigant to have his or her day in court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.