Austin, TX (PRWEB) April 18, 2012
Chris Wanken has filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Supreme Court of the United States and a Rule 60(b)(6) motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division in a vacatur case that stemmed from a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration claim against Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. and its Dallas-based branch manager, Dwight Wanken. A Rule 60(b)(6) motion allows a federal district court to set aside a final order or judgment for extraordinary circumstances when failure to do so would result in a grave miscarriage of justice.
Chris Wanken has previously alleged that the award was fraudulently procured and that Dwight Wanken and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. and their lawyers, Henry Simpson and Erin Linehan Reyes, participated in the fraudulent procurement. Chris Wanken's briefs alleged that Dwight Wanken contradicted his and Raymond James’ FINRA arbitration testimony in Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigations conducted months after the arbitration concluded and that there were unresolved issues of fact and unreviewed TWC and IRS evidence regarding the material issues of fact.
Brady Sparks and Henry Simpson, attorneys for Dwight Wanken, recently submitted a Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) final report, which is part of the evidence that Chris Wanken argued needed to be reviewed as it was relevant to the allegations of fraudulent procurement, collusion, conspiracy, perjury, subornation of perjury, fraud upon the court, obstruction of justice and spoliation of evidence.
“The TWC evidence is relevant vis-à-vis the testimony Dwight Wanken and Raymond James Financial Services and their lawyers provided to the district court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Chris Wanken said. “I believe it will support my allegations and look forward to all of the TWC and IRS evidence relevant to this case being subpoenaed and examined by the courts,” he stated.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment order despite alleged unresolved issues of material fact and unreviewed evidence that was not subpoenaed or reviewed by any court. In his petition for rehearing to the Fifth Circuit and petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, Chris Wanken argued that the appellate courts don’t have the authority to determine the contents of unreviewed evidence, only to review the lower court’s actions and remand if additional evidence needs to be subpoenaed or examined. Chris Wanken also stated in his petitions that the actions of the district court and Fifth Circuit departed from usual judicial proceedings, which constitutes grounds for certiorari and the Supreme Court of the United States’ review of the orders and proceedings from the case.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court precedent have established that Rule 60(b)(6) motions are to be granted and cases reopened to prevent the miscarriage of justice for extraordinary circumstances. When a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is granted, it allows the district court to set aside its final judgment or order, reopen a case and subpoena evidence, allow for discovery and hold hearings and legal proceedings to ensure justice is not perverted.
“I am hopeful that there will be a favorable outcome in these court filings and am confident that our judicial process will work as it is intended to, including a full review of the evidence and a thorough examination of the facts and arguments,” Chris Wanken commented.
In a separate state district court case currently before the 116th District Court in Dallas County, Texas that was filed based on Dwight Wanken’s and Raymond James’ testimony at the FINRA arbitration, Sparks and Simpson have filed a motion for summary judgment and told Chris Wanken that they would seek sanctions of more than $20,000 against him unless he agreed to withdraw the case by April 16, 2012. Chris Wanken did not respond to their communication regarding the sanctions. The causes of action listed in the petition filed in that separate case include fraudulent inducement and detrimental reliance. There will be a hearing in that case on Dwight Wanken’s summary judgment and sanctions motions in May 2012.
Wanken expects a response from the Supreme Court on the Petition for Rehearing within 30 days as well as responses from Dwight Wanken, Raymond James and their lawyers regarding the Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
Dwight Wanken is represented by Brady Sparks, Henry Simpson and Bill Dunne of Dallas, Texas. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. is represented by Tom Gregor and Linda Broocks of Houston, Texas.
“I look forward to a favorable resolution of all these issues and I firmly believe that the world’s best judicial system will do what it does best – review the evidence, seek answers to the questions and issue its judgment in these cases against Dwight Wanken and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. and their attorneys,” Chris Wanken stated.
Supreme Court of the United States Case 11-939
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Case 11-10219
Northern District of Texas Case 3:10-00556-K-BD
116th District Court of the State of Texas Case DC 11 15188
FINRA arbitration case 08-04793