Fake Canadian Lawyer Charged With "Witchcraft"

[saskganesh]

another reading is that the criminal code actually *protects* non fraudulent sorcerers and witches. if there is no intent to deceive, then there is no crime.

[DontSayBanana]

Remember, he's not a real lawyer.

Lately, I'm finding this more and more plausible.  That Marti can't wrap his head around concepts that a first-year law student like Faeelin or even a first-year paralegal student like myself would get makes it really hard to believe he can practice efficiently at all.

[grumbler]

Remember, he's not a real lawyer.

Lately, I'm finding this more and more plausible.  That Marti can't wrap his head around concepts that a first-year law student like Faeelin or even a first-year paralegal student like myself would get makes it really hard to believe he can practice efficiently at all.

So the real question is whether or not someone falsely claiming to be a Polish lawyer on the internet is guilty of fraud. I think Marti is counting on a defense based, as he puts it, on the idea that "if you are stupid enough, you could avoid fraud charges by claiming insanity/mental retardation" to keep his ass out of jail, but I would think this interpretation of his is probably also fraudulent.

[Martinus]

Again, unless priests who do not actually believe in God are also saying they hold mass "for entertainment purposes", this is double standard.

Um...if the psychic does her thing free of charge like Priests holding mass then they do not have to do it "for entertainment purposes only" it is only when they build their business around it that they need to understand they are not actually guaranteeing their powers are real.  I don't see the double standard.  If  a priest was charging for guaranteed miracles then suddenly he would open himself up for fraud as well.

You do not need to "guarantee" that the effect will occur 100% to be considered a fraud. If a doctor says to a patient that a medical procedure has only 10% chance of success, whereas in fact it has no chance of success and he knows it, then he is committing a fraud as well.

And priests do charge money for "intentional" masses, at least in the catholic church.

And besides, how is what you are saying relevant to the story we are talking about. She gave him a tarot reading to leech money out of him via other ways - it's not about her doing some witchcraft ritual and charging money for it - it's about her exploiting his religious views to make him give her money "voluntarily". What else is a collection platter being passed around during a mass if not exactly that.

[Grey Fox]

I think Marty's point is how do you non-fraudulently practice sorcery.

Exactly. The whole concept is retarded and seems like a way to introduce penalisation of "witchcraft" through backdoor, while not holding the mainstream religious superstition to the same standard.

So you understand it then.

[Malthus]

How the fuck do you get free food or hotel rooms by pretending to have suitcases?

I have ... absolutely no idea.

I'm assuming that there is some historical reason for that part, having to do with blocking off some (then) common scam.

its probably related to some hotels not renting rooms unless you had luggage, and not requiring you to pay until you checked out.

so if you had fake baggage, you could swindle a free room, posing as a legitimate traveller. when you left the hotel, you would leave your empty bags behind in your room, so hotel staff would not think you were actually leaving.

hotel food would be part of the tab.

Okay, that makes perfect sense.

[grumbler]

Marti, donatism hasn't been seriously considered for maybe 500 years.  Good luck finding a lawyer who will take up your case for fraud against religions.

Your whine seems more to me like complaining that Edward James Olmos was committing fraud during the filming of Battlestar Galactica because he didn't really believe he was Commander Adama.  The fact of the matter is that no one is paying these people  (actors or priests) based on their ability to believe.  One pays them based on their ability to make one's self believe.

[Martinus]

Marti, donatism hasn't been seriously considered for maybe 500 years.  Good luck finding a lawyer who will take up your case for fraud against religions.

Your whine seems more to me like complaining that Edward James Olmos was committing fraud during the filming of Battlestar Galactica because he didn't really believe he was Commander Adama.  The fact of the matter is that no one is paying these people  (actors or priests) based on their ability to believe.  One pays them based on their ability to make one's self believe.

My complaint is really about double standards. Pretty much, you are right, but the same applies to "witchcraft scam" - if witchcraft works, then someone performing a ritual should achieve a desired effect whether he or she believes in what he/she is doing or not. If it doesn't, then his or her personal belief is irrelevant.

I don't see why in this day and age law should protect people who get "scammed" by people claiming to perform magic and sorcery.

[grumbler]

My complaint is really about double standards. Pretty much, you are right, but the same applies to "witchcraft scam" - if witchcraft works, then someone performing a ritual should achieve a desired effect whether he or she believes in what he/she is doing or not. If it doesn't, then his or her personal belief is irrelevant.

This does not always follow.  Witchcraft is a means to accomplish a specific end (like surgery but unlike saying mass).  If the end cannot be accomplished by the means one is being paid to use, then one is committing fraud.  If it can be but simply is unsuccessful in this case, then one isn't committing fraud so long as one has warned the customer as accurately as possible that this could be an outcome.

Whether one calls one's self a witch, doctor, lawyer, or priest has little to do with the legal definitions of fraud.

Now, you are correct to the extent that, say, a Navajo "Singer" may not really believe that he or she is calling on the spirits to ease the suffering of the subject of the sing, but rather believes that the subject's belief in the power of the sing will yield the desired results.  This isn't fraud, though, even though it is done for monetary gain.

I don't see why in this day and age law should protect people who get "scammed" by people claiming to perform magic and sorcery.

I wouldn't argue that it should either.

[merithyn]

Witchcraft is a means to accomplish a specific end (like surgery but unlike saying mass).  If the end cannot be accomplished by the means one is being paid to use, then one is committing fraud.  If it can be but simply is unsuccessful in this case, then one isn't committing fraud so long as one has warned the customer as accurately as possible that this could be an outcome.

Whether one calls one's self a witch, doctor, lawyer, or priest has little to do with the legal definitions of fraud.

Now, you are correct to the extent that, say, a Navajo "Singer" may not really believe that he or she is calling on the spirits to ease the suffering of the subject of the sing, but rather believes that the subject's belief in the power of the sing will yield the desired results.  This isn't fraud, though, even though it is done for monetary gain.

She read Tarot cards. Doing so is just like the Navajo "singers" you cite. The person reading usually has little vested interest other than to help or guide the person being read to. That they take money to support their livelihood (and some think it helps the person being read to believe in it more, as it's the "sacrifice") doesn't make it any more, or less, fraud than any other such antics.

It is a religion with a belief system that is meant to help those who follow it.

The fraud comes from taking money for those things that she had no intention of providing, not from the card reading. I find it ridiculous that they would add that charge, not because I care what happens to her, but because it's a slap in the face to those who truly do believe in such things. It's an antiquated law that doesn't belong on the books anymore.

[Valmy]

The fraud comes from taking money for those things that she had no intention of providing, not from the card reading. I find it ridiculous that they would add that charge, not because I care what happens to her, but because it's a slap in the face to those who truly do believe in such things. It's an antiquated law that doesn't belong on the books anymore.

Like most laws it was a reaction to some outrage or another.  Maybe it came about after WWI when mediums and other antics were sweeping the western world...I don't know.  It doesn't seem to do anything above and beyond what would logically already be illegal.

As for a slap in the fact to people who believe in witchcraft, I doubt any actual wiccans are in favor of fraud being committed in their names.

[DontSayBanana]

This does not always follow.  Witchcraft is a means to accomplish a specific end (like surgery but unlike saying mass).  If the end cannot be accomplished by the means one is being paid to use, then one is committing fraud.  If it can be but simply is unsuccessful in this case, then one isn't committing fraud so long as one has warned the customer as accurately as possible that this could be an outcome.

Whether one calls one's self a witch, doctor, lawyer, or priest has little to do with the legal definitions of fraud.

Now, you are correct to the extent that, say, a Navajo "Singer" may not really believe that he or she is calling on the spirits to ease the suffering of the subject of the sing, but rather believes that the subject's belief in the power of the sing will yield the desired results.  This isn't fraud, though, even though it is done for monetary gain.

Also, in that case, you're skirting on trade secrets in the form that the illusion of ritual must be maintained for the sing to be effective.

Also, Marti, there's a difference between "donation" and "payment for services."  A donor has no reasonable expectation of return, and is simply voluntarily providing money for the furtherance of a cause or the continuation of the status quo.  However, once it becomes a sale of services, the customer is obligated to pay based on the seller's obligation to provide the service paid for.

[crazy canuck]

And priests do charge money for "intentional" masses, at least in the catholic church.

Yes, they do in fact intentionally hold masses.  Which is exactly what the people who attend the mass expect them to do.

You have a very odd concept of fraud in Poland.

[merithyn]

As for a slap in the fact to people who believe in witchcraft, I doubt any actual wiccans are in favor of fraud being committed in their names.

Wiccans are only one facet of modern witchcraft. There are plenty of other types of pagan-style religions blossoming everywhere, and I would guess that all of them are a little tired of their religious practices being equated to fraud. Otherwise, the little "for entertainment purposes only" wouldn't be necessary.

[merithyn]

And priests do charge money for "intentional" masses, at least in the catholic church.

Yes, they do in fact intentionally hold masses.  Which is exactly what the people who attend the mass expect them to do.

You have a very odd concept of fraud in Poland.

He's referring to a mass being said specifically for someone, i.e. a sick loved one, a family member who has died, etc. In many Catholic churches even today it's common to pay for such a request.