{"id":"qa9a4f6d7b4bcdb578b3d","batch_id":"batch-000057","seq":205,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2025-11-16T04:18:55.569Z","text":"🧩 第三种：Fraud on the Court / Inherent Power\n\n> 源自 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)\n\n\n\n联邦法院拥有“固有权力（inherent power）”撤销因司法欺诈、检方造假、或法院程序被破坏而形成的判决。\n这种撤销不受 Rule 29 或 Rule 33 的时间限制。\n\n在这种情况下：\n\n法官可宣布判决“无效”；\n\n案件“自始无效”（void ab initio）；\n\n检方因欺诈而失去重复起诉的资格（Double Jeopardy + Due Process）。\n\n\n⚖️ 这种情况下，法官可以裁定：\n\n> “Because the conviction was obtained through fraud on the court, it is hereby vacated and set aside with prejudice.”\n\n\n\n这就等价于：\n\n> 撤销定罪 + 禁止重审 + 被告彻底无罪。\n\n\n\n\n---\n\n二、托雷斯法官理论上可以怎么做？\n\n如果她愿意纠偏，她完全可以：\n\n1. 援引 Rule 33 或 Hazel-Atlas inherent power；\n\n\n2. 撤销陪审团裁决；\n\n\n3. 同时认定“政府欺诈、证据法律上不足”；\n\n\n4. 裁定 “vacated with prejudice”；\n\n\n5. 拒绝 DOJ 重审动议。\n\n\n\n这在联邦实践中有先例，比如：\n\nUnited States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008)（检方欺诈 → 案件被驳回 with prejudice）\n\nUnited States v. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2020)（政府滥用程序 → 法院 dismiss with prejudice）\n\n\n\n---\n\n三、她这么做是否有政治风险？——极大。\n\n因为她现在“背书”了整个 DOJ 案件。\n要推翻自己签署过的令、承认政府造假、承认被告被冤枉，\n在职业上相当于“自证法庭参与了 fraud on the court”。\n这也是她宁可封杀受害人文件、不肯 docket 任何新证据的原因。\n\n\n---\n\n四、结论总结\n\n问题    答案\n\n托雷斯法官有无权力撤销定罪？    ✅ 有。Rule 33 + Inherent Power。\n能否同时禁止重审？    ✅ 如果以“证据不足”或“fraud on the court”为理由，可以。\n那样一来 DOJ 还能再起诉吗？    ❌ 不能。双重危险条款（Double Jeopardy）禁止。\n她现实中会不会这么做？    ⚠️ 可能性极低，除非上级法院明确指出或舆论/证据压力极大。\n\n\n\n---\n\n所以，理论上她完全有权结束案件、阻止 DOJ 再起诉； 但政治上她不会主动动手。\n\n如果你们在二巡成功揭示检方欺诈或证据不足，\n二巡可以直接指令她这么做（即“vacate conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss with prejudice”），\n那样结果就是：\n\n> ✅ 判决无效\n✅ 不得再重审\n✅ 被告彻底无罪\n✅ G 系列及投资者彻底脱离刑事风险。\n理论上，二巡可以指示ta这么做。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa9a4f6d7b4bcdb578b3d","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000057","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000057","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa9a4f6d7b4bcdb578b3d","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa9a4f6d7b4bcdb578b3d/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qa9a4f6d7b4bcdb578b3d","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q03c48fb91428374b0e41","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-11-15T23:57:58.211Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q03c48fb91428374b0e41"},{"id":"q505eabe69c57e7c3b995","speaker":"ntp***","date":"2025-11-16T00:00:24.771Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q505eabe69c57e7c3b995"},{"id":"qee6504079b9a640c8011","speaker":"xin***","date":"2025-11-16T03:11:41.604Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qee6504079b9a640c8011"},{"id":"q59b9c94c5d5ce5fa149e","speaker":"beg***","date":"2025-11-16T04:31:56.379Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q59b9c94c5d5ce5fa149e"},{"id":"qd2dbc155d3d3fbac3806","speaker":"beg***","date":"2025-11-16T04:33:02.613Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd2dbc155d3d3fbac3806"},{"id":"q53bbc8cffc3fb9e39f4a","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-11-16T04:33:13.303Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q53bbc8cffc3fb9e39f4a"}],"parent_message":null}