FRAUD is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also by made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an existing fact’, not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Promises to do something in the future or a mere expression of opinion cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made. Sometimes, it must be shown that the plaintiff’s reliance was justifiable, and that upon reasonable inquiry would not have discovered the truth of the matter. For injury or damage to be the result of fraud, it must be shown that, except for the fraud, the injury or damage would not have occurred.

- See more at: http://torts.uslegal.com/intentional-torts/fraud/#sthash.IJSFSCcc.dpuf

The FFCA authorizes private individuals to bring “qui tam” suits in the name of the state against persons or entities who have defrauded the state in contracting or other matters.

Florida Updates Qui Tam Whistleblower Statute

The FFCA authorizes private individuals to bring “qui tam” suits in the name of the state against persons or entities who have defrauded the state in contracting or other matters.2 As an incentive to bring these suits, the FFCA allows successful plaintiffs, sometimes called whistleblowers or relators, to share in the damages recovered.

REGARDING COMPLAINT § 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