Breach of Trust with Fraudulent Intent
When Government Officers Deliberately Deceive to Deprive You of Rights
Breach of trust with fraudulent intent is the most serious form of governmental misconduct—deliberate deception, concealment, or misrepresentation designed to deprive natural persons of constitutional rights or property. Unlike simple breach (which may result from negligence), fraudulent breach involves knowing, intentional wrongdoing that voids all resulting acts and exposes officers to personal liability without qualified immunity protection.
What Makes Breach "Fraudulent"?
Not all breaches of trust are fraudulent. Simple breach may occur through negligence, error, or lack of training. **Fraudulent breach**, however, requires proof that the officer **knew** the conduct was wrongful and **intended** to deceive or deprive the beneficiary of rights.
The distinction is critical because fraudulent breach carries far more severe consequences: the resulting acts are **void ab initio** (without legal effect from inception), qualified immunity does not apply, and criminal prosecution may be available.
"Fraud vitiates everything it touches."
— **United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64 (1878)**
This principle establishes that fraudulent government action cannot create valid obligations, confer jurisdiction, or bind natural persons. Fraud destroys the legal effect of any act, judgment, or proceeding.
Elements of Fraudulent Breach
Fraudulent breach requires proof of **all elements of simple breach** (fiduciary duty, breach, causation, damages), **plus** three additional elements that establish fraudulent intent:
The officer acted with **knowledge** that the conduct was wrongful and with **intent** to deceive or deprive the beneficiary of rights. This is the mental state element—the officer must have known the act violated constitutional principles.
Fraudulent intent may be proven through:
- **Direct evidence:** Admissions, internal memos, or statements showing intent to deceive
- **Circumstantial evidence:** Pattern of conduct, systematic violations, or concealment of exculpatory facts
- **Willful blindness:** Deliberate avoidance of knowledge that would reveal constitutional violations
The officer made a **false statement** or **concealed a material fact** that affected the beneficiary's rights. The misrepresentation must be material—meaning it would have influenced the beneficiary's decision or understanding.
Common examples include:
- **Capacity substitution:** Treating a natural person as a juridical entity (corporation, trust) without disclosure or consent
- **Jurisdictional fraud:** Claiming authority where none exists, proceeding without jurisdiction
- **Oath violation:** Swearing to uphold the Constitution while enforcing unconstitutional statutes
- **Concealment of exculpatory evidence:** Hiding facts that would exonerate the accused or establish lack of jurisdiction
- **False claims of immunity:** Asserting qualified immunity for conduct the officer knew violated clearly established law
The beneficiary **relied** on the misrepresentation or concealment and **suffered injury** as a result. In the government context, reliance may be **presumed** where the officer exercises coercive authority (arrest, taxation, seizure of property).
When a judge issues a void order, a prosecutor files fraudulent charges, or a tax collector seizes property without jurisdiction, the natural person has no meaningful choice but to comply. The coercive nature of governmental power creates a presumption of reliance.
Real-World Examples of Fraudulent Breach
Fraudulent breach occurs when government officers deliberately conceal jurisdictional defects, substitute legal capacity without disclosure, or enforce unconstitutional statutes while knowing they violate constitutional principles.
**Scenario:** A court proceeding treats a natural person as a juridical entity (corporate "person") without disclosure, obtaining consent, or establishing jurisdiction over the artificial capacity.
**Fraudulent Elements:** - **Intent:** Court knows it lacks jurisdiction over natural person in their natural capacity - **Misrepresentation:** Conceals capacity substitution, proceeds as though jurisdiction exists - **Reliance:** Natural person appears in court, unaware of capacity fraud - **Injury:** Judgment entered against natural person based on void jurisdiction
Result: Judgment is void ab initio and may be challenged at any time through collateral attack.
**Scenario:** A judge enforces an unconstitutional statute (e.g., civil asset forfeiture without due process) while knowing the statute violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
**Fraudulent Elements:** - **Intent:** Judge knows statute is unconstitutional but enforces it anyway - **Misrepresentation:** Conceals constitutional violation, claims lawful authority - **Reliance:** Property owner relies on court's claimed authority - **Injury:** Property seized without due process
Result: Seizure is void ab initio, judge loses qualified immunity, and may face § 1983 liability.
**Scenario:** A prosecutor withholds evidence showing the defendant's innocence or lack of jurisdiction, obtaining a conviction through deliberate concealment.
**Fraudulent Elements:** - **Intent:** Prosecutor knows evidence would exonerate defendant - **Misrepresentation:** Conceals exculpatory evidence, presents false narrative - **Reliance:** Defendant and jury rely on prosecutor's duty of disclosure - **Injury:** Wrongful conviction, imprisonment, loss of liberty
Result: Conviction is void ab initio, prosecutor loses absolute immunity for fraud, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242 may be available.
Supreme Court on Fraudulent Government Action
The Supreme Court has consistently held that fraudulent government action is void and cannot create valid obligations or confer jurisdiction.
"Fraud vitiates everything it touches."
— **United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64 (1878)**
This foundational principle establishes that fraud destroys the legal effect of any act, judgment, or proceeding. When government officers act fraudulently, their acts are void ab initio—without legal force or effect from inception.
"A judgment obtained by fraud is void."
— **United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65 (1878)**
Fraudulent judgments have no legal effect and may be challenged at any time through collateral attack. Unlike voidable judgments (which have legal effect until set aside), void judgments are legal nullities from inception.
"A void judgment may be attacked at any time, in any proceeding, and by any person."
— **Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732 (1878)**
This passage establishes that fraudulent judgments are not protected by statutes of limitations or res judicata. They may be challenged decades later, in any court, by any affected party.
Why Fraudulent Intent Matters
Proving fraudulent intent transforms the legal landscape. Simple breach may result in injunctive relief or compensatory damages. Fraudulent breach opens the door to far more powerful remedies:
Fraudulent acts are void from inception—they have no legal effect and cannot create obligations, confer jurisdiction, or bind natural persons. This is far more powerful than "voidable" (which requires court action to set aside).
Qualified immunity does not protect officers who act with fraudulent intent. Courts have consistently held that fraudulent conduct is never protected, even if the law was not "clearly established" at the time.
Fraudulent breach exposes officers to punitive damages—designed to punish malicious conduct and deter future violations. Punitive damages can far exceed compensatory damages.
Fraudulent deprivation of constitutional rights may constitute a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), carrying penalties of up to life imprisonment if death results.
Key Takeaways
- Fraudulent breach requires proof of **knowing, intentional wrongdoing**—not mere negligence or error
- Three additional elements distinguish fraudulent breach: **fraudulent intent**, **material misrepresentation**, and **reliance/injury**
- Common examples include **capacity substitution**, **jurisdictional fraud**, **oath violation**, and **concealment of exculpatory evidence**
- Supreme Court precedent establishes that **fraud vitiates everything**—fraudulent acts are void ab initio
- Fraudulent breach eliminates **qualified immunity**, opens door to **punitive damages**, and may support **criminal prosecution**
Related Resources
Private Property of Golden Spiral Ministries All Rights Reserved