dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

>FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING

Fraus omnia vitiate

US Supreme Court has ruled in 3 separate cases to uphold the common law maxim: Fraud Vitiates Everything.

Those cases are:

Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 426 (1875), “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters”

Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 3 Pet. (28 US) 210 (1830), “Fraud vitiates everything”

United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 70 (1878) “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments”

For those of you think this legal maxim does not apply now that the US Constitution is a living

document of no fixed meaning , here are some more recent citations from around the US and the world:

Ellett v Ellett Virginia 0824-00-2 (March 13, 2001)

and specifically cites Throckmorton.

Dakota Partners v. Glopak, Inc, 2001 ND 168 North Dakota Supreme Court

In Re Jose Alejandro Penafiel, Relator, No. 05-0213 Texas Supreme Court (2001) "Texas law

holds that fraud vitiates every transaction tainted by the fraud"

Lazarus Estates Ltd -v- Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 from the UK

>>13664691

10 11

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/27282.html Specifically the quote Jim Neu of Wyle Lab: “Unfortunately I don't think that we have all of the data here. Again, what the information appears to indicate is it was

Diebold Commits Fraud for NASED Numbers Last printed 8/9/2006 2:17 AM

http://www.washburnresearch.org/archive/DieboldTSFraud/DeboldHasNoNASEDNumbers.pdf

Texas Supreme Court (2001) "Texas law 17

where a property settlement is over turn 15

Wisconsin Election regulation 7.01(1)e http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=2440&locid=47 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold_Election_Systems http://www.cs.duke.edu/~justin/voting/docs/FEC_1990_Voting_System_Standards.pdf http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/v1/v1s1.doc

http://vote.nist.gov/hava_vss2_glossary.doc http://www.nased.org/NASED%20Qualified%20Voting%20Systems%20031706.pdf http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/36349/wincefraudwalkthrough-36369.pdf http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/36349/RRLee-WINCEdeclaration-36366.pdf

http://www.josephhall.org/tmp/Ciber_and_Wyle_on_ABasic.pdf

characterized as COTS, that it was part of the review done by the software ITA, and that it was not reviewed, apparently because of that.”

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/23075.html Specifically the quote by Jim Neu of Wyle Lab: You know I don't know for certain the answer to your question but the answer really revolves around the fact that if [WinCE] was represented to us if it were firmware and it was represented to us as COTS unmodified, then we would not review it. If it was represented to us as COTS that had been modified and it was firmware, then we would review it. So this person has made the assumption here that his Win CE apparently is not modified. Because he says therefore we don't need to get Win CE 3.0 certified.

13 14 15 16 17

has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by

fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but ones it

is proved it vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see as to deeds……. So, here, I am of opinion that

if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void……" ( Denning LJ)