.
Fraud, by definition, is where one justifiably relies on another's misrepresentation of a material fact to their (the person who so relied) detriment.
Let's break that down:
Justifiable reliance: is it justifiable that a person who donated to and/or who took time off from their job and family to work for Griffith last year was justified in relying on his representing to the world at large (let alone the people of Ala's 5th Congressional District) that he was and would remain a Democrat for (at least) his two year term? Would Griffith argue that, no, he never overtly said he'd remain a Democrat, even though he ran for the Democratic Party's nomination and ran for a 2 Year Term as a Democrat? Would Griffith argue that it would be unreasonable to rely upon his word because, in fact, he's a known liar and con man? I'd like to see him argue that, actually.
.
Misrepresentation: See above. Also, I believe this is sort of a "the thing speaks for itself" thing.
.
of a Material Fact: Had Griffith misrepresented his favorite color, his preference for Pinot Grigio over Shiraz, or even how he might be inclined to vote on this or that piece of legislation that would likely come up during the 111th U.S. Congress, one could hardly argue that such a lie (uh, "misrepresentation") was Material to his campaign and fund raising efforts during the Spring, Summer and Fall of 2008. On the other hand, when one holds themselves out as a Democrat in order to win the Democratic Primary and then runs as a Democrat against a Republican, one's stated political party affiliation is somewhat at the core of one's campaign. And, I think it's obvious, material to whether people donate to your campaign or the other guy's.
.
to the detriment of the other (to the screw-ee). Well, on the fundamental level, if one is out-of-pocket $10, $100, $1,000 or more that one would now have in-pocket but for Griffith's misrepresentation, then that appears, indeed, detrimental to one's pocketbook. Then there's the larger issue of whether it's "detrimental" to a person who gave to, spent time off work and voted for a supposed Democrat to find out that for more than half that candidate's term they would be caucusing and strategizing with the Republican Party. Would Griffith argue that it's not detrimental to the pocketbooks and aspirations of such Democrats for him to now caucus with the GOP? I'd like to hear him argue that, too.
.
Well, I'd like to see this as a "test case". I'd like to see a comprehensive Complaint (i.e., the point-by-point, paragraph-by-paragraph allegations in the lawsuit) and see what Griffith's lawyers argue in his inevitable Motion to Dismiss. Remember, such Motion would be coming from a Republican (now) who holds out that he believes in "personal responsibility", and not running from a fight, and in courage, blah, blah, blah . . . when, in fact, he'd hide behind his lawyer's coattails and hope that he could get out from under a lawsuit that, indeed, would be asking the Court to award the plaintiff(s) recompense for Griffith's (alleged) fraud. You see, Griffith's the type that hates lawyers, except when they're pulling his chestnuts out of a fire of his own creation.
Oh, and fraud cases allow plaintiffs to seek punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to (1) punish [duh] wrongdoing . . . here, lying; and, (2) deter similar acts of malfeasance in the future. To "send a message to the world" that such acts will not be tolerated by society.
______________________
|
