HTTPS://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/ETHICS/FL/CODE/FL_CODE.HTM#RULE_4-1.6

RULE 4-3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

(a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose.

A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(4) permit any witness, including a criminal defendant, to offer testimony or other evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and thereafter comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

(b) Extent of Lawyer's Duties.

The duties stated in subdivision (a) continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by rule 4-1.6.

(c) Evidence Believed to Be False.

A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(d) Ex Parte Proceedings.

In an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

[Comment][Narrative].

§ 112.313(8), Fla. Stat.

Civil contempt is conduct directed against the rights of the opposing party.

law-imposed obligation ;"an act or omission tending to obstruct or
interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the
dignity of the court or respect for its authority. There are two
kinds, direct and constructive." 249 S. 2d 127, 128. direct contempt
openly and in the presence of the court, resists the power of the
court, 102 A. 400, 406; and consequential, or constructive contempt
results from matters outside the court, such as failure to comply with
orders.

The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As set forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):

The requisite 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.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) . . . . The trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where 



a party refuses to comply with court orders. Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

Shayan Elahi Esq 741221 Heather Morcroft 709859Wayne Starr Anthony Sos Guardia Ad Litem Claudia Hernandez 667498 Amanda Etzkorn 25942 Cedric Tibon 21311