Remember these names: Nicholas B. Cox, Oscar Gelpi, Tom Clement.

Cox and Gelpi are the members of the state prosecutor’s office who were unfortunate enough to have their names attached to a grand jury report that is little more than a fraud on an unsuspecting public.

So for that matter, was then Broward Chief Judge Victor Tobin.

Clement was the “Foreperson” of the jury and signed off on the fraud.

The reality of the 2011 grand jury report is that there was nowhere near enough evidence to indict anybody for any criminal actions, yet the prosecutor and the jury chose to publish a report rife with misleading, even concocted “evidence” and intentionally excluded pertinent facts.

They couldn’t indict any members of the Broward School Board in a real court of law so they chose to use a kangaroo court instead.

That’s not to say that there haven’t been massive problems within the district, with one Board member in jail and another under indictment, but those are individual issues considering the “report” covers ten years worth of history.

In those ten years, there have been no fewer than sixteen sitting Board members.

The idea of sixteen independently elected School Board members being corrupt and collusive toward the stated end of the jury report  is not anywhere as believable as the idea that the grand jury itself was corrupt, possibly being influenced by either a corrupt prosecutor or corrupt media.

I certainly know who the sixteen Board members are, but I’ll let you figure out who.

There’s no question that there are real, quantifiable problems within the district and the report did brush on some of them.

That was more than likely done to give the entire report an air of legitimacy.

But the fact remains that the intent of the document was to slander the Board rather than uncover facts about the real waste within the district.

To quote a legal definition of fraud:

“Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.”

“To constitute fraud the misrepresentation or omission must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident, or in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity.”

Here are some of the areas where the grand jury report meets the definition of fraud:

Omission or purposeful failure to state material facts:  Using selected references from the 2002 grand jury report while omitting any reference to the steep rise in student enrollment over the previous ten years.

Omission or purposeful failure to state material facts:  No reference to the class size amendment passed by the voters in 2002.

Omission or purposeful failure to state material facts:  No reference as to why the Board needed to borrow construction funds because of the legislature’s failure to adequately fund construction as required by the class size amendment.

Omission or purposeful failure to state material facts:  No reference to the state mandated fines for not meeting the requirements in the time frame stated by the class size amendment.

Omission or purposeful failure to state material facts:  Failure to report that district facilities employees were getting cushy jobs with the very builders accused of pocketing millions of taxpayer dollars through Board member collusion while those former employees were lobbying the construction department directly.

Intentional misrepresentation of existing fact:  Statutes relating to gifts provided by vendors were mis-applied to Board members while omitting statutes that do apply.

Intentional misrepresentation of existing fact:  Misrepresentation of the ten-year master plan, its timeline and its conclusions about the rise in student enrollment rather than the report’s stated flattening out, along with an allegation that the Board knew it.

Intentional misrepresentation of existing fact:  Failure to provide information on the fact that the “thousands of empty seats” in the district are due to the declining enrollment within the district from 2005 forward and due to the old dilapidated, moldy portable classrooms being replaced by new brick and mortar classroom construction.

Intentional misrepresentation of existing fact:  The grand jury statement that there were no plans to address critical overcrowding in the western portion of the district when clearly, hundreds of millions of dollars were properly spent to build new schools and classroom additions while the real numbers show school populations within the guidelines set by the conveniently excluded class size amendment.

Most of the content of the grand jury report fits the definition of fraud, and there is more than enough evidence to open an investigation.

I believe there’s more than enough evidence to prosecute.