Hello Domain,
Tuesday, October 17, 2000, 2:09:28 PM, you wrote:
>>Being aware of a problem in their billing and system, and not fixing
>>it in a timely matter, is not the same as having a specific intent to
>>fraud.
> Think again. Modern case law is changing EXACTLY that. The legal
> definition of intent is being gradually extended to include the
> combination of foreknowledge and omission of action to remedy.
> Case in point: Here, in my home town, a young child was recently
> killed by a drunk driver with a history of DUI's. The DA reasoned
Irrelevant from a legal perspective.
>>You are not the first to float this idea that NSI is committing mail
>>fraud, and you probably won't be the last. But the bottom line is
>>that it is NOT mail fraud, at least not under the law.
> The bills passed by Congress are half the story. Case law specifies
> the broad vaguarities that exist in any bill so that its remedies and
> restrictions can be applied uniformly AND, more importantly, in the
> SPIRIT in which they were intended.
References for similar cases that have resulted in actual
charges of mail fraud, please. Otherwise, this too is irrelevant.
> This case is NOT so big a stretch. NSI has been advised of what
> is happening and by direct omission of action (which, btw, is not
> differentiated legally from direct action-- omission of action
> is action) continues to do so.
Fraud cannot exist through inaction. Talk to an attorney.
Fraud requires specific intent. If you have mail fraud cases that
show otherwise, I'd sure like to see them.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
