Exposing Fraud

Fraud upon the court is not just rare   it’s institutionally uncomfortable. The very system you are asking to correct is the same system that made the error.

When the person bringing the truth is a pro se litigant (someone without a lawyer), every barrier multiplies. When he is labeled and his disabilities weponised it becomes survival.

Judges and attorneys are trained to see “pro se” as “untrained.” When a self-represented party identifies complex misconduct, it is often dismissed as misunderstanding or “harassment.” 

This is not because judges are malicious it’s because the claim itself threatens the credibility of their colleagues, and the messenger does not look like the usual advocate.

Fraud upon the court is so extraordinary that the instinct is to protect the institution first, not the truth

“It is human nature to defend the familiar, to distrust the extraordinary.”

A represented party has counsel to navigate forms, deadlines, and phrasing.

A pro se litigant has to meet the same technical standards while fighting against attorneys who know how to weaponize procedure.

Filings that expose misconduct are re-labeled as “motions,” rejected for “form,” or buried in the docket before any judge ever reviews the evidence.

Yet Rule 60(b), final paragraph was written precisely to bypass that kind of procedural blockage

.

Opposing parties often have entire firms to craft narratives, file objections, and manage perception.

A pro se litigant must research, write, serve, and argue alone often under financial or psychological stress, sometimes with disabilities.

Meanwhile, those accused of misconduct use delay, ridicule, and gaslighting to maintain control.

Courts hesitate to acknowledge fraud upon the court because doing so means admitting the system was deceived.

For an institution built on authority, that admission feels like collapse so the reaction is denial or deflection.

Despite all of this, one person telling the truth can still move the law.

The rule exists C.R.C.P. 60(b), final paragraph  because the framers of justice knew there would always be rare cases where formality itself becomes the shield for deception.

A pro se litigant can be the one voice that re-anchors the process in honesty.

A lawyer defends a client.

A judge defends the law.

A pro se litigant defending the truth is forced to defend both.

That’s why it’s so hard and also why it matters more when they succeed.