There are quite a few people that constantly are saying it is all fraud when it comes to the actions of the government concerning the people. This mindset comes from a lack of understanding of a few things by the people.
The People know they have certain inherent rights. But, because of the lack of knowledge on how this system we call government has been set up it “feels” fraudulent to some. Well, I hate to be the bringer of bad news. It is not all fraud. Now, can fraud happen? Yes.
There are different types of fraud also. I am going to only look at two.
Fraud has a specific definition as follows;
fraud n. (14c) 1. A knowing misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a material fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. • Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. — Also termed intentional fraud.
“Fraud has been defined to be, any kind of artifice by which another is deceived. Hence, all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and other unfair way that is used to cheat any one, is to be considered as fraud.” John Willard, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence 147 (Platt Potter ed., 1879).
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
Is it all fraud based on this?
Can you prove that there was a knowing misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a material fact? Did they do this with the intent to induce you to act to your detriment? Fraud has to be willful on the party that attempted to contract with you. The government as a system is typically neutral. But, the individual may be corrupt. So, you would have a hard time proving that there was an intent to commit fraud. It is a willful choice to commit fraud. This means the actor had to have prior knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. Unfortunately, a lot of times they are just doing their job and do know that what they are doing may or may not be wrong as you think it is.
You hear people spout this mantra that the act of 1871 was fraud and treasonous. Well, that comes from a mindset of ignorance again. A lack of understanding of the United States Constitution. Why do people only look at certain parts of the constitution, and not as the whole? Did you forget Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1, otherwise called the contract clause? If the government can pass no law that impairing the obligations of contracts, does this not also imply that the government also has the right to contract? Before you say no, what is a treaty? Is that not a type of contract? Also, what about the Ashwander rule number 6? The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits. Which falls under Constitutional Estoppel
You hear this in the right-to-travel movement when a cop pulls them over because they have the mindset that they should not have bothered them while exercising their right. While that may or may not always be true. A lot of times the one that got pulled over may have been speeding. Well, then the officer had a duty to pull you over. Why you may ask? It goes to public safety and public rights doctrine. Before you say that speed limit signs only apply to commercial traffic, you are not the only person in the public. On the right to travel, there is an interesting law review that discusses this.
The law of free travel was so well-settled that it was recognized in the “constitutional law” entry of American Jurisprudence as recently as 1931:
Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.
Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.,The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950, 30 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 245, 251–52 (2005)
You can see you have this right but, what is it also based on? “while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct”
So, was it fraud when you got pulled over? Maybe, maybe not. Only you know your situation. I will not give any more examples of arguments of fraud I have heard even though I could on many different types of law and or subjects
Now, here’s where I will discuss what the better argument is. It is called Constructive Fraud. It is defined as follows;
Constructive fraud. (18c) 1. Unintentional deception or misrepresentation that causes injury to another. 2. See fraud in law. — Also termed legal fraud; fraud in contemplation of law; equitable fraud; fraud in equity.
“In equity law the term fraud has a wider sense, and includes all acts, omissions, or concealments by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another, or which equity or public policy forbids as being to another’s prejudice; as acts in violation of trust and confidence. This is often called constructive, legal, or equitable fraud, or fraud in equity.” Encyclopedia of Criminology 175 (Vernon C. Branham & Samuel B. Kutash eds., 1949), s.v. “Fraud.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
Constructive fraud does not require the willful intent to commit fraud and requires the court to review the “contract” to see if fraud was built into it.
Constructive fraud is a breach of duty which, irrespective of moral guilt, the law declares to be fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive, to violate confidence, or to injure public interests.
Constructive fraud is a fraud that arises by the operation of law from conduct, which if sanctioned by law, would secure an unconscionable advantage, irrespective of the actual intent to defraud. The existence or nonexistence of an actual purpose to defraud does not enter as an essential factor in determining whether there is constructive fraud; the law regards the transaction as fraudulent per se. Also, constructive fraud may be implied by law from the nature of the transaction itself. The gist of a constructive fraud finding is to avoid the need to prove intent, that is, knowledge of falsity or intent to induce reliance, since it may be inferred directly from the relationship and the breach.
Constructive fraud is a breach of a legal or equitable duty which, irrespective of the moral guilt of the fraud-feasor, the law declares to be fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate public or private confidence, or to injure public interests. The legal duty may arise from a statute, a contract, or a trust.
To establish constructive fraud, it is necessary only to prove acts of fraud; thus, a party whose actions constitute constructive fraud might still be deemed to have acted in good faith.
Constructive fraud is an equitable claim that typically does not afford a relief in the form of monetary damages.
There are five elements you have to prove;
The elements of constructive fraud are: (1) a duty owing by the party to be charged to the complaining party due to their relationship; (2) violation of that duty by the making of deceptive material misrepresentations of past or existing facts or remaining silent when a duty to speak exists; (3) reliance thereon by the complaining party; (4) injury to the complaining party as a proximate result thereof; and (5) the gaining of an advantage by the party to be charged at the expense of the complaining party. Fiederlein v. Boutselis, 952 N.E.2d 847, 860 (Ind.Ct.App.2011).
Sheaff Brock Inv. Advisors, LLC v. Morton, 7 N.E.3d 278, 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)
This is why I tell people that it is not fraud, but if they want to discuss if it is constructive fraud then we can have a discussion.