Actual or positive fraud includes cases of the intentional and successful employment of any cunning, deception, or artifice, used to circumvent, cheat, or deceive another. 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 186.
For instance, the misrepresentation by word or deed of material facts, by which one exercising
reasonable discretion and confidence is misled to his injury, whether the misrepresentation was known to be false, or only not known to be true, or even if made altogether innocently; the suppression of material facts which one party is legally or equitably bound to disclose to another; all cases of unconscientious advantage in bargains obtained by imposition, circumvention, surprise, and undue influence over persons in general, and especially over those who are, by reason of age,
infirmity, idiocy, lunacy, drunkenness, coverture, or other incapacity, unable to take due care of and protect their own rights and interests; bargains of such an unconscionable nature and of such gross inequality as naturally lead to the presumption of fraud, imposition, or undue influence, when the decree of the court can place the parties in statu quo; cases of surprise and sudden action, without due deliberation, of which one party takes advantage; cases of the fraudulent suppression
or destruction of deeds and other instruments, in violation ot, or injury to, the rights of others: fraudulent awards with intent to do injustice: fraudulent and lllusory appointments and revocations under powers; fraudulent prevention of acts to be done tor the benefit of others under false statements or false promises; frauds in relation to trusts of a secret or special nature; frauds in verdicts, judgments, decrees, and other judicial proceedings; frauds in the confusion of boundaries of
estates and matters ot partition and dower; frauds in the administration of charities; and frauds upon creditors and other persons standing upon a like equity, are easel! of actual fraud. 1 Story, Eq. Jur. c. 6.
What constitutes Fraud.
1. It must be such an appropriation as is not permitted by
law.
2. It must be with knowledge that the property is another's, and with design to deprive him of it.
3. It is not in itself a crime, for want of a criminal intent; though lt may become such in cases provided by law. See Poll. Contr. 534.
Fraud, In its ordinary application to cases of contracts, includes any trick or artifice employed by one person to induce another to fall into or to detain him in an error, so that he may make an agreement contrary to his interest: and lt may consist in misrepresenting or conceallng material facts, and may be effected by words or by actions. See Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79, 12 Sup. Ct. 340, 36 L. FAl. 82.
Where a party intentionally or by design misrepresents a material fact or produces a false impression, in order to mislead another, or to obtain an undue advantage of him, there is a positive fraud in the fullest sense of the term;
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's (IRS) actions involved five separate elements:
(1) A false statement of a material fact,
Generally, an agent will make presumptions that you failed to commit a duty or committed a crime.
Such as you failed to pay a tax. Then later it will be twisted to include evasion.
(2) Knowledge on the part of the Agent that the statement is untrue,
You know the agent's presumptions are untrue, you even have asked them to please give verification to which they respond by saying "we are not going to respond to frivolous arguments".
(3) Intent on the part of the Agent to deceive the alleged victim,
Because the agent has tacitly admitted, for failure to produce any facts or evidence that the tax the agent is seeking cannot be verified, by omission the agent is acting in fraud!
(4) Justifiable reliance by the alleged victim
on the statement, and
Justifiable reliance would be Supreme Court decisions, The Tax Code and Regulations and the agent by their failure to respond when they have a duty to.
(5) Injury to the alleged victim as a result.
In most
cases loss of job, caused divorces, stress which cause health problems etc.
Now the IRS secretly goes to a grand jury bringing jelly filled doughnuts and coffee showing them all the evidence that they have why you should be indicted for willful failure to file and/or tax evasion, never showing your responses offering to pay if only they would just answer your questions!
Then here comes the judge! Telling you what is admissible for you to defend yourself!
Now before this happens, you are going to have to decide if you want to be a plaintiff or the defendant... I guess that would be the same as do you want to be in front of the firing squad or behind the firing squad
The Supreme Court ruling is better than I had previously thought.
McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit - and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) - includes the deliberate concealment of
material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing material information in violation of his fiduciary
obligations.”
“Fraud in the common law sense of deceit is committed by deliberately misleading another by words, by acts, or, in some instances--notably where there is a fiduciary relationship, which creates a duty to disclose all material facts--by silence. See Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts Secs. 105-06 (5th ed. 1984). Liability is narrower for nondisclosure than for active
misrepresentation, since the former sometimes serves a social purpose; for example, someone who bought land from another thinking that it had oil under it would not be required to disclose the fact to the owner, because society wants to encourage people to find out the true value of things, and it does this by allowing them to profit from their knowledge. See Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 178, 195, 4 L.Ed. 214 (1817); Kronman, Mistake, Disclosure, Information, and the Law of
Contracts, 7 J. Legal Stud. 1 (1978). But if someone asks you to break a $10 bill, and you give him two $1 bills instead of two $5's because you know he cannot read and won't know the difference that is fraud. Even more clearly is it fraud to fail to "level" with one to whom one owes fiduciary duties. The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that the fiduciary agrees to act as his principal's alter ego rather than to assume the standard arm's length stance of traders in a market. Hence the
principal is not armed with the usual wariness that one has in dealing with strangers; he trusts the fiduciary to deal with him as frankly as he would deal with himself--he has bought candor.” United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985)
