Charles D. Newton v. Kimberly Kardashian, et al.

Whether extraordinary circumstances exist under Rule 60(b)(6) when a court’s misapplication of Federal Rules of Evidence 801(a) and 801(d)(2)(B) causes it to disregard captions and nonverbal conduct in digital exhibits that constitute statements and adoptive admissions revealing concealed ’criminal misconduct. This stance conflicts with this Court’s decisions in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. and its progeny holding that fraud corrupting the judicial process constitutes the type of extraordinary circumstance requiring relief.

This (whistleblower) case arises from a judgment fundamentally distorted by the lower courts’ refusal to treat the captions and nonverbal digital conduct in the record as “statements” and “adoptive admissions” under Federal Rules of Evidence 801(a) and 801(d)(2)(B). Those exhibits—on their face—document coordinated misconduct and contain the high profile actors’ own written and nonverbal confirmations of what occurred.