Judgment-Integrity Chain-of-Custody Record

PROBLEM: Every fraud-on-the-court case that succeeded shares one feature: the fraud was discovered by reconstructing a chain — the article's drafting in Hazel-Atlas, the settlement's concealment in Bressman, the false affidavits' path in Lindsey. And every case that failed shares the opposite: the movant could not show the fraud was central to the court's decision. The difference between a judgment that stands and one that falls is the chain-of-custody of the integrity question itself — and no court keeps one. A judgment's integrity is assumed until someone proves otherwise, years later, at great cost.

SOLUTION: A judgment-integrity chain-of-custody record: from the day a judgment enters, every integrity-relevant fact — every exhibit's provenance, every affidavit's omissions, every disclosure and correction — logged in one chain tied to that judgment, so a later fraud-on-the-court claim starts from a complete record instead of from a cold reconstruction.

EVIDENCE BASIS: DOCUMENTED — Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (chain reconstructed from correspondence files, expense accounts, and antitrust-trial testimony); Bressman, 3d Cir. 2017 (settlement concealed from the affidavit); Lindsey, C.D. Cal. 2011 (false affidavits and testimony reconstructed after verdict); Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) (movant could not show the fraud was central). Sources: Cornell LII; Justia.