Although the mantra differs from state to state there is considerable proof
necessary to make out a case for fraud. Here is a typical list:
(1) Representation of an existing fact;
(2) Materiality of the representation;
(3) Falsity of the representation;
(4) The speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
(5) The speaker's intent that it be acted upon by the plaintiff;
(6) Plaintiff's ignorance of the falsity;
(7) Plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
(8) Plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
(9) Resulting damages.
These elements are conjunctive, meaning that you have to prove each one.
Miss any one and the case fails.
Although I could spend some time discussing each element, I think any LP
member would have a significant problem with items (8) and (9). The LP is,
after all, a poltiical party (and despite some claims to the contrary, that is
how it has historically held itself out to the public), and political parties
are known to change platform planks, programs and what-have-you with the wind.
That is, after all, the whole point of conventions. So I think any plaintiff
would be hard pressed to prove it had any "right" to rely on the LP to stand
for much of anything.
Even if one could get over that hurdle, there is still the problem of
damages. Emotional distress simply isn't going to cut it. To prevail a
plaintiff is going to have to show a palpable loss, whether in money, business
prestige, property interests or something objectively demonstrable.
I can not think of any way that could happen here.
Richard Shepard
terry12622000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure it would ever make a case but if paty officals told
donors that the party was against intiation of force and the donors
could read that it was a national membership requirement to pledge
not to advocate intiation of force, the donors would expect the
leadership and party to do what it said it
would.
Yes the donors can also read the bylaws and find out with enough
votes the party can change or do away with the pledge but if the
leadership, candiadtes and party advocates intiation of force before
getting enough votes to change or delete the pledge would that not
be fraud?--- In [email protected], Richard Shepard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And the cause of action would be...what?
>
> And the palpable injury would be...what?
>
> terry12622000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could the National Party and the Reformist leadership
members be
> setting themselves up for a big law suit, even possibly a class
> action law suit for fraud by large donor members, including small
> donor members in a class action. With trial lawyer fees going as
high
> as 40% one or more effective law firms might be willing to take on
a
> case?--- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> >
> > The LP is supposed to be a political party that gets people
elected
> > without sacrificing our principles. It was wrecked by those who
> have
> > no principles.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Richard Shepard
> > <shepardelectionlaw@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have now heard several times over the last week or so that the
> > founders of the LP never really expected the LP to be a "political
> > party," and that the fundamental purpose in forming the party was
to
> > educate the public in matters of liberty.
> > >
> > > First, isn't that what CATO, Reason, Heartland and several
> others do?
> > >
> > > Second, if indeed the purpose of the party founders was not
> > political why on earth did they form a political party? They could
> > have formed a PAC, or a think tank, or an interest group like the
> ACLU.
> > >
> > > Third, they DID form a political party. Why should anybody be
> > surprised if its members want it to act like one?
> > >
> > > Richard Shepard
> > >
> > > steven linnabary <linnabary51@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/samuels1.html
> > >
> > > PEACE
> > > Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer
> > > Franklin County Libertarian Party
> > > (614) 891-8841
> > > P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115
> > >
> > > "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent
> > revolution
> > > inevitable" John F. Kennedy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
Great rates starting at 1ยข/min.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just
radically better.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
