114 was corrected to reflect the position of the NEC, and was signed by the parties’ representatives present. All of these circumstances put together could on the surface construe the implication of fraud; foe even though fraud should be proven with every particularity….fraud can be inferred or reasonably presumed from the surrounding circumstances. Cooper et al. v. Baker, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term, 2014. According to law writers, fraud is a generic term which embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can desire and are resorted to by one individual to gain an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of the truth. In its general or generic sense, it comprises all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty and resulting to damage to another. Fraud has also been defined as any cunning deception or artifice used to circumvent, cheat or deceive another. Cooper et al. v. Baker, Supreme Court Opinion, October Term, 2014. Fraud may be established, those law writers have said, not only directly, but by inconclusive circumstances which by their weight jointly considered, may constitute sufficient proof. Jawhary v. The Intestate Estate of the late Rebecca Watts-Pierre, Supreme Court Opinion, October Term, 2008, decided January 30, 2009; Dassen et al v. Captan et al., Supreme Court Opinion March Term A. D. 2012. Thus, the NEC’s resistance to the appellants’ request for a subpoena of all the addition to the FRR or the extra sheets used during the voting which was sustained by the hearing officer is of concern. We cannot speculate as to what would have been revealed had the additional lists been provided. We do believe, however, that had the additional lists been provided, they would have enabled the Hearing Officer to determine whether in fact additional persons voted at a particular polling place than were permitted by the NEC’s regulation. We are equally concerned by the NEC’s resistance to the request for subpoena of the worksheets of the presiding officer and the Hearing Officer’s action of sustaining said resistance. In the face of the cross allegations, claims and counter claims had the presiding officer’s worksheets were used, the Hearing Officer would have been in a position to determine whether the appellants’ allegations were true and widespread as claimed by the appellants or whether they were isolated. However, we note that the request for worksheets was made for all polling places in the