Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (947970)	7/18/2016 6:02:10 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577883

No that's not the definition. Fraud requires a victim who is injured by the fraud. Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person merriam-webster.com Here even 1 isn't quite solid enough to justify fraud charges, opinion is being expressed, and opinion is protected by free speech even when it can be shown to be wrong. (Otherwise you could bring almost everyone up on fraud charges, starting with politicians, probably including the attorney generals launching these investigations) 2 is even less solid, and as for 3, 4, and 5 who is the victim? You need a concrete and reasonably direct victim, who was victimized specifically because their reliance on the false alleged facts. -------------- Not everyone believes that the planet is warming; not everyone who thinks that it is warming agrees on how much; not everyone who thinks that it is warming even believes that laws or regulation can make a difference. Yet the goal of these state attorneys general seems to be to treat disagreement as something more or less criminal. That’s wrong. As the Supreme Court wrote in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” Yet prescribing such orthodoxy seems to be just what they have in mind. Their approach is — and I use this term quite deliberately — thoroughly un-American. In pursuing this action, they are betraying their oaths of office, abusing their powers and behaving unethically as attorneys. usatoday.com