Peter R. Hall v. Michael J. Geoffrey Fulton, et al.

When a Delaware court has ruled that a Delaware company committed “a clear act of fraudulent concealment” on a foreign court and has also ruled there exists prima facie evidence of lawyer fraud, and the rulings result in the company’s admitting 4 misrepresentations to the foreign court and the facts of a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and in lawyers at Delaware’s largest law firm admitting 2 misrepresentations which concealed the company’s 4, do this Court’s rulings on Rule 56, and the U.S.’s treaties, allow a Delaware judge to rule sua sponte (with no notice, no opportunity to present evidence, no mention of an undisclosed $85,000 payment, no mention that 7 days earlier he had reviewed emails showing those lawyers’ organization of the “clear act of fraudulent concealment”, no mention that under Delaware law fraudulent concealment implies misrepresentation, and no mention of the 6 admitted misrepresentations), that “no misrepresentation occurred” and that there should be no “further investigation”, given that his rulings give U.S. lawyers impunity for, and deny foreigners remedy for, admitted U.S. fraud by preventing a trial at which documents would prove that the lawyers concealed their misrepresentations from French anti-money laundering i authorities by non-disclosure, in breach of the FCPA, of an $85,400 payment to an offshore court officer?