...
Nonsense. The law is the law. Elements are elements. And the recitation of elements (supported by case law citation) has nothing to do with the fact that a lawyer might lose or win some cases.
I did not dispute any of that. Interpreting the law is not as straightforward as people make it out to be, but your entire argument is composed of the kind of logic-chopping legalism that provides many a lawyer with rewarding compensation, the assumption being that the wording in legal documentation is alone sufficient to solve a legal issue. You might as well argue that the person who runs the office of the Presidency is not actually an officer of the US government. Laughable on its face, as long as the lawyers manage to keep straight faces while defending it in the courtroom. Trying to distinguish "victims" from "injured parties" in the language you quoted is a similar kind of stretch, but we are all used to defending untenable claims with that kind of tenuous semantic distinction.
Actually, your complaint t is plain juvenile. Ascertaining the actual meaning of words is part of what lawyers are supposed to do. And making use of logic isn’t logic chopping.
We are in violent agreement that lawyers deal in word meanings, but that only means that they are supposed to ascertain what words mean in their legal context, which is not always easy and straightforward. So lawyers are continually at odds over how to interpret those meanings. Your legalistic argument doesn't amount to much more than logic chopping, which is a fallacy that focuses on trivialities. For example, making a distinction without a difference--"victim" versus "injured party". The injured party in a fraud case is a victim of fraud, and I think you know that very well.
The elements of a tort are there for good reason. If I declare (for whatever stupid reason) that a sky at night is always a pale violet in color, m claim may be mistaken or or may be intentionally false. That difference matters. Similarly, if I said it to lull you into parting with some of your money, we might be a part of the way to making out a complaint for fraud. But more is required. For example, if you have some obligation to exercise at least a little due diligence, it would be difficult to make out the contention that my false statement caused any harm to you if you didn’t bother to even check it out
Nothing I said disputed any of that, and that is precisely what was being adjudicated in Trump's case. He was caught in a series of lies, and witnesses gave testimony to support that. Banks are not expected to physically measure square footage in apartments. They require that those seeking loans make legally binding claims about the worth of their assets. Those making the claims are the ones that need to exercise due diligence before signing a paper that makes them liable for their truth.
All of the elements exist for a reason. They didn’t spring up overnight or just for this case. And here’s a fun fact. One of the elements is that my deceptive claim somehow caused you damages. But if you weren’t injured even after relying on my claim, then you weren’t damaged.
That's right. Your "fun fact" was simply false, but I get that conservatives often call false claims "alternative facts". You didn't cause me injury or damage, just amusement.
