Should lawyers be allowed to commit fraud upon the court?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) Should Lawyers be allowed to commit fraud upon the court by intentionally and knowingly submitting false and fabricated documents as evidence in the court of law to obtain judgment to deprive homeowners of their real property of many years? 2) Whether, the Ninth Circuit erred when it held, that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kramers’ motion for reconsideration under Rules 60(b) and 60(d)(3) when there is clear and convincing evidence which demonstrates that Kent F. Larsen Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3468, an Officer of the Court submitted fabricated Assignment of Deed of Trust and fabricated purchase and assumption agreement and EXPIRED VOID Limited Power of Attorney in the United States District Court to obtain judgement in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to deprive Petitioners of their rights to their real property which they held in Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship? 3) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that the Kramers’ arguments or allegations were raised for the first time on appeal when there is clear and convincing evidence that shows that the Kramers had already raised the facts concerning the false and fabricated documents in the United States District Court? ii 4) Whether in deciding the District Court’s denial of the Petitioners’ Fed, R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed, R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion, did the Ninth Circuit err when it upheld the US District Court’s decision to dismiss Petitioners’ claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank based on the false assertion to the US District Court that Petitioners, Leo Kramer and Audrey Kramer were both judicially estopped, when Audrey Kramer NEVER filed bankruptcy and when Chase Bank never filed proof of claim in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case # 10-43951, which was fully adjudicated June 2011? Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) provides six bases for relief from a judgment and authorizes a court to grant relief on account of “fraud... . misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. Rule 60(d)(3) allows for relief from a judgment if there is Fraud on the Court. In Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946), the United States Supreme Court specifically recognized that the “inherent power of a Federal Court to investigate whether a judgment was obtained by fraud, is beyond question.” In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court held that “[S]ome form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property [or liberty] interest.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard.” Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863). ili Fraud on the court is narrowly defined by the Rule as "that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court ... ." Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1989)).Suchn fraud must involve an "unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision." Abatti v. Comm'r, 859 F.2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988). PARTIES TO PROCEEDING Petitioners are Leo Kramer and Audrey Kramer. Petitioners hold Title to the real property that is the subject of this litigation in Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship. Petitioners are residence of California. Respondents are JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., National Default Servicing Corporation; Kent F. Larsen, an Officer of Court, and Smith Larsen & Wixom, Chartered, law organization, or law firm. iv