| Index 1 |
| Previous |
| Next |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, MARC CAMPUS |
7 May 2007
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether the actions of the
“perpetrators” and “users” amount to any civil or criminal liabilities.
ISSUES
1. Whether the French government committed negligence by failing to ensure that the
exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
2. Whether the French government committed common law fraud by failing to ensure that the
exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
3. Whether any user of the misinformation is guilty of defamation?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
In the early 1980s, Marc Campus was falsely accused in France of business irregularities in connection
with investments made with his businesses in the United States. Mr. Campus was initially convicted of the
allegations; however, on appeal in 1985, Mr. Campus was cleared of all the charges. In spite of this, the
final exoneration was never recorded properly.
As a direct consequence of this failure to properly register the final exoneration, several United States law
enforcement agencies have failed to appropriately acknowledge the exoneration. In addition, these United
States agencies have continued to only acknowledge the initial conviction of the case and have failed to
recognize the fact that Marc Campus was cleared of all charges. These failures have been and continue
to be extremely detrimental to CS 1 Group™.
ANAYLSIS
1. Whether the French government committed negligence by failing to ensure that the
exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
Plaintiff can assert a claim of negligence alleging that the defendant failed in its duty to exercise ordinary
care in ensuring that the exoneration is properly recorded with all agencies. To establish a case for
negligence, plaintiff must prove that (1) defendant owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) defendant breached that
duty, (3) defendant caused the injury to plaintiff, and (4) plaintiff was injured. The French government had
a duty to make sure the exoneration was properly recorded as well as forward the exoneration to all
agencies which received and/or reported the conviction. However, that duty was breached when
defendant failed to correct the problem even after a number of years had passed. Plaintiff will be entitled
to damages after a presentation of evidence showing how the misinformation has hampered its business
dealings and reputation in the United States.
2. Whether the French government committed common law fraud by failing to ensure that
the exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
Defendants can be liable under common law fraud for failing to properly record the exoneration of Marc
Campus. One type of common law fraud in Texas is nondisclosure of material facts. To prove
nondisclosure of material facts, plaintiff must prove that (1) a special relationship exits that requires
disclosure, (2) defendant discovered new information that made an earlier representation misleading or
untrue, and (3) defendant failed to disclose the whole truth. The French government failed to convey the
whole truth to the US agencies. This failure to disclose the final exoneration (the truth) conveyed a false
impression on Marc Campus. Even after repeated attempts by plaintiff to have the information corrected,
the French government ignored the plaintiff’s requests which confirm a false representation by the French
government.
3. Whether any user of the misinformation is guilty of defamation?
Any user spreading the misinformation about Marc Campus can be liable under the tort of defamation.
Defamation is the act of injuring a person’s reputation by making a false statement. A defamatory
statement can be made in one of two ways: by libel or slander. Libel is a defamatory statement published
in writing or other graphic form. Slander is a defamatory statement published orally. To prove a cause of
action for defamation, plaintiff must show: (1) defendant published a statement of fact; (2) the statement
referred to the plaintiff; (3) the statement was defamatory; (4) the statement was false; (5) the defendant
was acting with actual malice or negligent or liable without regard to fault (strict liability); and (6) the
plaintiff suffered pecuniary injury. Any one who used the misinformation concerning Marc Campus’
conviction without checking the truth (exonerated of all charges) will be found liable due to the fact they
are spreading false information. Failing to check if the information is true and using the information would
cause someone to be liable to plaintiff for damages.
(Note: Plaintiff can bring causes of action under slander of title and business disparagement, as well as
defamation. While all involve false statements, each claim is different in regard to the interests it protects.
An action for slander of title protects against injuries to real and personal property, an action for
defamation protects against personal injuries; and an action for business disparagement protects against
business injuries.)
(Note: The United States is usually immune from actions of libel or slander. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h).)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has several causes of action to allege against the perpetrators and
users of the false information currently in the US agencies’ records. And because the French government
failed to correct the situation, the French government will be liable for monetary damages, including
punitive damages. The above list certainly gives some good arguments against the defendants’ actions
and possible claims that can be asserted in the US courts with the facts presented.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether the actions of the
“perpetrators” and “users” amount to any civil or criminal liabilities.
ISSUES
1. Whether the French government committed negligence by failing to ensure that the
exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
2. Whether the French government committed common law fraud by failing to ensure that the
exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
3. Whether any user of the misinformation is guilty of defamation?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
In the early 1980s, Marc Campus was falsely accused in France of business irregularities in connection
with investments made with his businesses in the United States. Mr. Campus was initially convicted of the
allegations; however, on appeal in 1985, Mr. Campus was cleared of all the charges. In spite of this, the
final exoneration was never recorded properly.
As a direct consequence of this failure to properly register the final exoneration, several United States law
enforcement agencies have failed to appropriately acknowledge the exoneration. In addition, these United
States agencies have continued to only acknowledge the initial conviction of the case and have failed to
recognize the fact that Marc Campus was cleared of all charges. These failures have been and continue
to be extremely detrimental to CS 1 Group™.
ANAYLSIS
1. Whether the French government committed negligence by failing to ensure that the
exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
Plaintiff can assert a claim of negligence alleging that the defendant failed in its duty to exercise ordinary
care in ensuring that the exoneration is properly recorded with all agencies. To establish a case for
negligence, plaintiff must prove that (1) defendant owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) defendant breached that
duty, (3) defendant caused the injury to plaintiff, and (4) plaintiff was injured. The French government had
a duty to make sure the exoneration was properly recorded as well as forward the exoneration to all
agencies which received and/or reported the conviction. However, that duty was breached when
defendant failed to correct the problem even after a number of years had passed. Plaintiff will be entitled
to damages after a presentation of evidence showing how the misinformation has hampered its business
dealings and reputation in the United States.
2. Whether the French government committed common law fraud by failing to ensure that
the exoneration of Marc Campus was properly recorded?
Defendants can be liable under common law fraud for failing to properly record the exoneration of Marc
Campus. One type of common law fraud in Texas is nondisclosure of material facts. To prove
nondisclosure of material facts, plaintiff must prove that (1) a special relationship exits that requires
disclosure, (2) defendant discovered new information that made an earlier representation misleading or
untrue, and (3) defendant failed to disclose the whole truth. The French government failed to convey the
whole truth to the US agencies. This failure to disclose the final exoneration (the truth) conveyed a false
impression on Marc Campus. Even after repeated attempts by plaintiff to have the information corrected,
the French government ignored the plaintiff’s requests which confirm a false representation by the French
government.
3. Whether any user of the misinformation is guilty of defamation?
Any user spreading the misinformation about Marc Campus can be liable under the tort of defamation.
Defamation is the act of injuring a person’s reputation by making a false statement. A defamatory
statement can be made in one of two ways: by libel or slander. Libel is a defamatory statement published
in writing or other graphic form. Slander is a defamatory statement published orally. To prove a cause of
action for defamation, plaintiff must show: (1) defendant published a statement of fact; (2) the statement
referred to the plaintiff; (3) the statement was defamatory; (4) the statement was false; (5) the defendant
was acting with actual malice or negligent or liable without regard to fault (strict liability); and (6) the
plaintiff suffered pecuniary injury. Any one who used the misinformation concerning Marc Campus’
conviction without checking the truth (exonerated of all charges) will be found liable due to the fact they
are spreading false information. Failing to check if the information is true and using the information would
cause someone to be liable to plaintiff for damages.
(Note: Plaintiff can bring causes of action under slander of title and business disparagement, as well as
defamation. While all involve false statements, each claim is different in regard to the interests it protects.
An action for slander of title protects against injuries to real and personal property, an action for
defamation protects against personal injuries; and an action for business disparagement protects against
business injuries.)
(Note: The United States is usually immune from actions of libel or slander. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h).)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has several causes of action to allege against the perpetrators and
users of the false information currently in the US agencies’ records. And because the French government
failed to correct the situation, the French government will be liable for monetary damages, including
punitive damages. The above list certainly gives some good arguments against the defendants’ actions
and possible claims that can be asserted in the US courts with the facts presented.
