Davin News Server

On 12/28/2024 6:23 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:26:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/27/2024 7:31 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/26/2024 6:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/25/2024 7:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2024 4:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2024 5:59 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who did she take money from?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
>>>>>>>>>>> deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
>>>>>>>>>>> the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
>>>>>>>>>>> of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
>>>>>>>>>> the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
>>>>>>>>> person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not limited to money.
>>>>>>>>> What is the matter with you two?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Siri quoted California law. Trump's lawsuit is in Iowa where the law states:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
>>>>>>>> the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
>>>>>>>> may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This should be an interesting case.  Also in this law contains the
>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>> 2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
>>>>>>> 714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
>>>>>>> 1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
>>>>>>> reasonably
>>>>>>> should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
>>>>>>> or false promise, or
>>>>>>> the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
>>>>>>> material fact, with the
>>>>>>> intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
>>>>>>> false pretense, false
>>>>>>> promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
>>>>>>> connection with the
>>>>>>> advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
>>>>>>> solicitation of contributions for
>>>>>>> charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
>>>>>>> alleging an unfair practice,
>>>>>>> deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
>>>>>>> must prove that the
>>>>>>> prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
>>>>>>> “Solicitations of contributions for
>>>>>>> charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
>>>>>>> a political organization
>>>>>>> as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
>>>>>>> religious organization as
>>>>>>> defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
>>>>>>> regionally, or nationally
>>>>>>> accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
>>>>>>> nonprofit foundation
>>>>>>> benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
>>>>>>> university subject to section
>>>>>>> 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
>>>>>>> stop him from suing under the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Again:
>>>>>
>>>>> I quote from the exact law to which you refer and you say 'no".
>>>>
>>>> Your quote describes what constitutes a violation of the law. It does
>>>> not say boo about how one goes to court to get relief from that
>>>> violation. My quote does and is strictly limited to someone who has lost
>>>> money or property.
>>>
>>> It does state what actions would qualify as actionable so not exactly
>>> honest of you to leave it out.
>>
>> I did not leave it out. I quoted it above (repeated here):
>>
>> "A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
>> the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
>> may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
> 
> You left out eveything (paragraphs worth of criteria) that I provided
> from your citation.

The only criteria you quoted is what conduct (from Selzer in this case) 
could lead to an action in court. That's a necessary, but not sufficient 
condition for suing. The part I quoted adds *another* necessary 
condition (Trump lost money or property in this case).

>> Trump may not sue unless he can state that he lost money or property as
>> a result of the poll.
> 
> That will be a matter for the courts to decide.  We shall see.
> Not sure how many times I'll have to repeat this for you.

Care to bet? I will put up $100 and give you 100-to-1 odds that Trump 
does not sue without claiming he lost money or property.