Democratic Party Deception
DemocraticDeception.com
Application of Fraud Elements to Senator Dorgan (D-ND)
In
the case study on deception with a projection, knowing full well the Congress
is exempt from its own Laws, the elements of fraud
(see below) are still being met by senior Democratic politicians in their
deception with a projection. Senator
Dorgan’s (D-ND) comments will be featured to demonstrate my points. (Not featured in this case study but using
the same tactic)
1)
Senator
Dorgan in 2003 makes a representation the CBO in 2001
“predicted” a $5.6 trillion surplus.
2)
The
representation is not true as indicated in the CBO report the Senator
references. “ …the
baseline projection is not a prediction of future outcomes…” - CBO 2001
3)
A
$5.6 trillion budget surplus is material. Using a CBO projection for purposes
of deception using a tactic that is illegal in the private sector is material (Securities Act of 1933, Sec. 27A,
page 47 of PDF file.) – Webhost Opinion
4)
Senator
Dorgan knows his 2003 statement is false.
In 2001, referencing the same projection, Senator Dorgan said this: “I hope that is
the case, but with the current slowdown in our economy, we ought to be
cautious. Economic forecasts are no
more reliable than weather forecasts." - Emphasis added. – Congressional Record 2001
5)
Senator
Dorgan’s intent is for his 2003 statement to be relied upon. It is an opening statement of his as Chairman of the Democratic Policy
Committee. – Webhost Opinion
6)
The
vast majority of Americans are not aware of a tactic to deceive with
projections. – Webhost Opinion
7)
Americans
are relying on statements from their elected officials. – Webhost Opinion
8)
American’s
have a right to rely on their elected officials to comply with the Code of Ethics for Government
Service.
9)
American’s
are injured by being misled by intentional deception of elected officials. –
Webhost Opinion
Senator
Dorgan (D-ND) – Ethics - $5.6 Trillion Projection
http://wcc.dli.mt.gov/TOOLS/Fraud_Elements.htm
Fraud:
Elements
|
Taylor v. State
Compensation Insurance Fund, 175 Mont. 432, 913 P.2d 1242 (1996) To sustain a claim of fraud, insurer was required to
plead and prove each of the nine elements of fraud: (1) a representation; (2)
falsity of the representation; (3) materiality of the representation; (4)
speaker’s knowledge of the falsity of the representation; (5) the speaker’s
intent it should be relied upon; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of
the representation; (7) the hearer’s reliance on the representation; (8) the
hearer’s right to rely on the representation; and (9) the hearer’s consequent
and proximate injury caused by reliance on the representation. |
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2004/1204/essentials/p38.htm
Excerpt
The Fraud Diamond: Considering the
Four Elements of Fraud
By David T. Wolfe and Dana R. Hermanson
A Different Way to Think About Fraud
Risks
The authors believe that the fraud triangle
could be enhanced to improve both fraud prevention and detection by considering
a fourth element. In addition to addressing incentive, opportunity, and
rationalization, the authors’ four-sided “fraud diamond” also considers an
individual’s capability: personal traits and abilities that play a
major role in whether fraud may actually occur even with the presence of the
other three elements.
Many frauds, especially some of the
multibillion-dollar ones, would not have occurred without the right person with
the right capabilities in place. Opportunity opens the doorway to fraud, and
incentive and rationalization can draw the person toward it. But the person
must have the capability to recognize the open doorway as an opportunity and to
take advantage of it by walking through, not just once, but time and time
again. Accordingly, the critical question is, “Who could turn an opportunity
for fraud into reality?”
Using the four-element fraud diamond, a
fraudster’s thought process might proceed as follows (Exhibit 1):