Fraud Is Not What You Think It Is

There are actually two different definitions of fraud. The lay definition is anything that is a lie. The legal definition goes much further than that and if you can’t satisfy the legal elements of fraud you won’t survive a motion to dismiss or motion to strike.

It’s complicated like everything else.

There are many components that must be satisfied before you can get to a judge or jury to render a verdict on fraud. Such a verdict would be for legal or monetary damages. But there are other actions that do apply to fake foreclosures.

FRAUD: Here are some guidelines:

  • A lie is not fraud unless you believed it. And it still isn’t fraud unless you reasonably believed it. This one is fraught with possibilities because while you may have suspected something was wrong there is a very fuzzy line between that and a reasonable belief that the claimant was a creditor in a  foreclosure case. Why else would they be there, right?
  • The lie is not fraud unless you reasonably relied on the lie to make decisions that caused you to act to your detriment.
  • And it’s still not fraud unless unless you can state with specificity when, where and how the lie was communicated to you.
  • And then it is still not fraud unless you can also state and prove that the speaker had the intent of lying to you, knew that he/she was lying and that they intended for you to act on it to your detriment.
  • It’s still not fraud yet. You still need to prove that the lie was told to benefit the speaker of the lie and not someone else unless it is a joint venture or conspiracy.

If you don’t have all that then you don’t have a cause of action for fraud, but you might very well have a cause of action for RICO, negligence, fraud upon the court, and equitable relief for unjust enrichment etc.


8 Responses

  1. Do you understand the power ???

  2. And according to Trump tonight – we are all fine. As Nancy sits behind. She cannot challenge. Data does not support. And she cannot challenge as Dems covered up. Trump doesn’t care – he wants the vote of those doing fine. So we remain – silenced.

  3. If you want the case — will provide. Thanks.

  4. In certain case law, the court is clear that premature dismissal, prior to discovery, may permit sophisticated defrauders to successfully conceal their fraud. The court noted that “the normally rigorous particularity rule has been relaxed somewhat where the factual information is peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge or control,”

    Certainly, knowledge is within the “Bank’s” control – whether they are Plaintiff or Defendant. And that knowledge far exceeds what the homeowner knows. Courts need to allow discovery. Homeowner knows something is wrong, but they need further discovery – in control of the “Bank.” Without that discovery, the elements of fraud are certainly hampered. It is a “prize” if you can get discovery.

  5. John R ,

    Exactly ,, the fraud is the legal profession ,, “ethics” require honesty…

  6. JohnR…exactly. The lawyers are complicit and the courts know it!

  7. Actually… I’m pretty sure fraud IS what WE think it is… it’s the Legal Profession that’s changed the definition and in their own self appointed authoritarian way… are now requiring US to bow to their verbage.

    As an example… a Plaintiff hires a Legal Profession to bring an Assignment of Note and/or Mortgage into a foreclosure hearing. It actually bears a creation date that is months AFTER the foreclosure case was begun. It bears a transfer date YEARS after the Trust, it alleges to be transferred into’s, as required by Law, years after that trust’s deposit acceptance Cut-Off-Date. AND it’s signed by a person ALREADY NATIONALLY known as an uneducated (no due process), Robo-Signer.

    And lest I forget… it represents, on it’s face, that instead of going from required entity A to required entity B to required entity C into trust… it represents only being transferred from entity A straight into the trust!!!

    So we have a Legal Professional, representing in OUR Court of Law, a Nationally known purveyor of forged documents, bringing 10’s of 1000’s of easily identified forged document into foreclosure proceedings Nationwide and yet the Courts (the one’s We the People fund and pay the salaries of) allows it. Now THAT’s fraud. That’s not even a lawful judicial decision… that’s fraud on the Public by the entire legal Profession.

  8. Here are the 5 elements of common law fraud:

    1. Defendants’ Misrepresentation of a Material Fact. (this would be the bankster)

    2. Knowledge of the Material Fact’s Falsity.

    3. Intent for Plaintiff to Rely Upon the False Material Fact. (this would be the homeowner)

    4. Plaintiff’s Justifiable Reliance Upon the False Material Fact.

    5. Plaintiff’s Damages as a Result of his Reliance Upon the False Material Fact.

    As for RICO, you might have trouble with that one. I have seen a recent fed decision that said that a victim of a single foreclosure action does not have a RICO case, because you need multiple occasions of foreclosures to bring such an action. On the other hand, there is the 6th Circuit Slorp v. Lerner Sampson case that allowed for such a cause of action in Sampson’s foreclosure case.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: