Replies

As soon as you see the words "fraud vitiates everything" in a post on FR, you know you're dealing with someone who would fail out of the first two hours of law school.

It's astonishing that we actually have people on this website who think case law in an unrelated legal matter is more authoritative than the U.S. Constitution.

It's astonishing that we actually have people on this website who think case law in an unrelated legal matter is more authoritative than the U.S. Constitution.

Stop trying to stuff words in other people's mouths. We simply disagree with you regarding what is a correct interpretation of constitutional intent. This is a far different thing than declaring case law as being more authoritative than the US Constitution.

Case law is inferior, but the constitution does not mean what you claim it means.

As soon as you see the words "fraud vitiates everything" in a post on FR, you know you're dealing with someone who would fail out of the first two hours of law school. It's astonishing that we actually have people on this website who think case law in an unrelated legal matter is more authoritative than the U.S. Constitution.

Can you expand on this? I just read the Throckmorton ruling again, and I'm interested in your opinion of it.

If I'm reading it correctly, the Court discussed the notion of "fraud vitiates every thing" and its application to the case at hand (a land grant based on an allegedly fraudulently dated deed).

It sounds like the Court accepted the idea that if the people entrusted with process were simply negligent in recognizing a fraudulent document or testimony, that was not enough to later overturn a ruling by the court.

However, if the people in the positions of trust had a stake in the outcome where fraud was found to result in the desired outcome, or agents for one side sold out to the other side and compromised their obligations to the losing side, or where coverup of prior fraud was proven or perjured testimony was tried and convicted, then the Court would rule on the side of relief.

The case being discussed in Throckmorton was found to be the former scenario, but the logic of "fraud vitiates every thing" was clearly laid out in the decision.

So, what's you take on it?

Thanks,

-PJ

As soon as you see the words "fraud vitiates everything" in a post on FR, you know you're dealing with someone who would fail out of the first two hours of law school.

I never knew of a law school that gave its students exams on the first day. More likely, students fail final exams, which are frequently the only exams for the semester, because of the lack of experience taking them, knowing how to answer them, and what is expected. What transpires in the classroom is quite different from learning what is needed to write effective answers to "issue spotter" exam questions.

Civil Code jurisdictions try to predict every possible outcome, but frequently fail to anticipate novel fraudulent schemes. It's not surprising that New York and London are the financial capitals of the world. The common law is based upon some common sense. If the facts change, the result changes. No case is any better than its facts. Different judges have different opinions, and handle cases differently. So it's easy to confuse new law students with the Socratic method. AFAIK, the U.S. is the only common law jurisdiction that employs it in its law schools. Even here it is subject to much criticism:
Former Law Prof Says, ‘The Socratic Method Is A Sh**ty Method Of Teaching’

Personally, I think U.S. law schools would be much improved by requiring that its law professors actually have advanced legal degrees that require them to become experts in some area of the law and write and defend dissertations, and not just publish a lot of law review articles, about whatever they feel like writing about.

And with all of that stated, if enough fraud is demonstrated, the election in certain states will likely be decertified, particularly if there is substantial evidence of foreign interference. I expect a lot of media disinformation against Lindell's NSA type witnesses to the election hacking.