tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169420095530503988.post861763121297377962..comments2023-08-15T22:02:59.649-05:00Comments on Sunshine State Sarah: Crist sued over GOP contributionsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11251723007613713377noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169420095530503988.post-67774359294851328242010-07-01T22:02:57.080-05:002010-07-01T22:02:57.080-05:00Well said, counselor.Well said, counselor.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11251723007613713377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169420095530503988.post-9867575427718047472010-07-01T21:45:52.534-05:002010-07-01T21:45:52.534-05:00This is a very interesting case. You raise a good...This is a very interesting case. You raise a good point regarding the First Amendment. However, I think it comes down to a very simple question, that if answered in the affirmative, avoids that whole issue: At the time Crist elicited the contributions in question, did he make a "misrepresentation of material fact"? <br /><br />All of the remaining elements of common law fraud are met: "upon which the speaker intended another to rely", "upon which the plaintiff relied", "to the plaintiff's detriment", and "damage to the plaintiff was caused thereby".<br /><br />I would argue that the material fact was whether Crist, as a longtime Republican Attorney General and Governor, would run in the Republican Primary through the full primary process, and abide by the result of that primary. If he was contemplating running outside of the Republican Party process as early as March, as the Greer/Johnson Tapes seem to indicate, then it appears that this was a misrepresentation of material fact.<br /><br />Notably, Florida case law provides two key principles that are relevant regarding fraud:<br /><br />First, a person has no obligation to speak about any issue whatsoever. However, when that person endeavors to speak, he is required to speak truthfully and non-deceptively.<br /><br />Second, where a person has superior knowledge about the subject matter of his statement, his statement, which would otherwise be considered an opinion, will be considered a statement of fact.<br /><br />This issue is not whether he, in his heart of hearts, believed in any given tenet of the Republican platform. This is protected opinion. Rather, the issue was whether he was going to adhere to the Republican primary process, as he stated he would.<br /><br />But I'll bet you money, if it's some big law firm representing the contributors/plaintiffs, nothing is going to happen in this case before November. (Can't take a chance that a potential Senator will have it out for the Lobbying Division of your firm...)Wade Vosehttp://www.voselaw.comnoreply@blogger.com