President Obama 60 minutes interview

[JoePhilly]

23. You did not name a single statute.

Which is what the LAW requires.

Wikipedia does a better job of describing this that you ...

Common law fraud has nine elements:[3][4]

1. a representation of an existing fact;
2. its materiality;
3. its falsity;
4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

Most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be pled with particularity and be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence) to establish a claim of fraud. The measure of damages in fraud cases is to be computed by the "benefit of bargain" rule, which is the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented, and its actual value. Special damages may be allowed if shown proximately caused by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with specificity.


My point is, you screaming FRAUD does not a legal case make.

And again, Bush and the GOP weakened the over-site to a point where it is nearly impossible to prove anything other than #9.