I'll bet you don't see this very often, BB. :D
QuoteA woman accused of posing as a lawyer and offering legal services was arrested last week and faces two counts of fraud as well as a rarely laid witchcraft charge.
Vishwantee Persaud faces multiple fraud charges after she allegedly posed as a law student. One of her alleged victims, Toronto lawyer Noel Daley, says he lost $148,000.Toronto police allege that Vishwantee Persaud has no formal legal training but managed to fool multiple people, including a seasoned criminal lawyer, into believing she was a practising lawyer or law student.
At the time she was taken into custody, she was supposed to be under house arrest for previous fraud convictions.
"She has a very long history of fraud-related offences," says Det.-Const. Corey Jones.
Jones says that since police issued the warrant for Persaud's arrest, at least one other alleged victim came forward with a complaint.
One couple claimed they paid the woman $2,000 for immigration services, after which they were unable to reach her.
But that pales in comparison to the amount of money Persaud is accused of conning out of Noel Daley.
"In my career, in a couple of months, I'll be 28 years at this. I've encountered every type of confidence man.
I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly," Daley says. "She was the epitome of the skills that make up a good confidence man."
None of the allegations have been proven in court. As of the time of publication, Persaud was seeking to be released on bail. Her lawyer couldn't be reached for comment.
Daley was a year away from retiring as a criminal lawyer in downtown Toronto and moving back to Newfoundland when he says he first met Persaud in January.
She told him she was in her third year of studies at Osgoode Hall Law School, he says. Police would later say the closest the 36-year-old came to entering the legal profession was applying to law school in the mid-1990s.
Daley says Persaud identified criminal law as a possible focus, so he quizzed her on specific elements of the legal process, everything from bail hearings to judicial pretrials.
"She answered them with such accuracy and detail, I was impressed," Daley says, adding he was convinced she had closely studied criminal law and even had some hands-on experience.
"It never occurred to me that the reason she knew the criminal law system in such detail is because she had been a participant in the criminal law system as an accused."
He claims Persaud went on to tell him that her family was in dire financial straights.
By his assessment, Persaud was a promising law student in need of a little mentoring and a little employment.
"I have a heart the size of Newfoundland and Labrador put together, and she recognized that," Daley alleges.
Within a month, he says he took her under his wing, set her up with space in his Richmond Street practice, and began paying her a modest salary. He was soon giving her a little money to help pay for her parents' groceries, he says.
He says she then gave him a tarot card reading, which Daley accuses Persaud of using to exploit his religious beliefs to ultimately get money out of him.
During the reading, he says she claimed to be inhabited by the spirit of his older sister, who was visiting him to guide him to prosperity.
"I did not believe that on a literal level but I did believe it on a metaphorical level," Daley says, citing his belief that his deceased loved ones guide him in positive ways.
"I accepted that in the framework of my Catholic faith," Daley says.
He says he had Persaud work on minor legal assignments for a few months, attributing her need for much guidance to a steep learning curve.
Then in May, he says she came to him with a proposal. She allegedly said she had previously run a highly successful marketing firm in downtown Toronto and had been asked by Sony, a previous client, to take on a major project involving the launch of a touch-screen remote-control system.
For her work, she said she would be paid $850,000, but her project costs would be no more than $250,000, according to Daley. The profits would be his, he says.
But she allegedly said that to oversee the project, she would need premiere office space with full modern electronic infrastructure.
So he claims he leased for her "the most expensive office space in the country" on the 57th floor of First Canadian Place in the heart of the financial district.
Daley says Persaud later fell out of favour with the building's management and had to vacate, so he moved her into an office on Charles Street East.
He alleges he was soon hemorrhaging money for rent, utilities, computers, phones, and salaries to Persaud and her associates.
More elaborate business proposals followed, requiring larger and larger cash outlays, Daley claims.
Persaud had a plan to represent visiting movie stars at the Toronto International Film Festival, he says.
He would bankroll the security, transportation, hotels, and meals for stars such as Keanu Reeves, Rachel McAdams, Vin Diesel, and Eugene Levy, he says.
Daley also claims he gave her about $18,000 for cancer treatments.
Then there was money for clothing, gym memberships, and spa treatments, Daley alleges.
"All of this was supposed to be so she could represent me in a spectacular fashion."
He says he finally realized something was amiss when the celebrities he was supposedly endorsing failed to show up at parties he believed he was paying to host them at.
"I didn't want to believe it was a hoax because it meant financial ruin for me," he alleges.
Daley then made the difficult decision to tell his story to police. "My desire to make an easy buck clouded my judgment." His final price tag was $148,000, he claims.
He soon learned about Persaud's previous convictions and then the allegations that she defrauded other legal clients, who then got in touch with him.
"Once this house of tarot cards came tumbling down, I started to get calls."
He says he felt obligated to take care of their legal needs.
In addition to the fraud charges, Persaud faces multiple counts of failing to comply as well as the witchcraft charge in relation to the alleged tarot card reading.
Fraudulently pretending to exercise witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration is a summary conviction offence under the Criminal Code.
"Very rarely do we get to lay that charge," Jones says.
Funny part bolded.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/200911305906/Headline-News/Accused-witch-arrested
Only in Amer....
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 04:21:17 PM
He says she then gave him a tarot card reading, which Daley accuses Persaud of using to exploit his religious beliefs to ultimately get money out of him.
Dude is a fucking retard. Probably banging her as well is my guess.
Most scam victims display egregious stupidity.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 04:21:17 PM
Funny part bolded.
Err, you should have bolded this:
QuoteFraudulently pretending to exercise witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration is a summary conviction offence under the Criminal Code.
:huh: Is your law that retarded? Wtf?
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
QuoteFraudulently pretending to exercise witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration is a summary conviction offence under the Criminal Code.
:huh: Is your law that retarded? Wtf?
What's wrong with that? If you take somebody's money for magic, you should give value, no?
The law does not say anything about money. I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 04:21:17 PM
Funny part bolded.
Err, you should have bolded this:
QuoteFraudulently pretending to exercise witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration is a summary conviction offence under the Criminal Code.
:huh: Is your law that retarded? Wtf?
So Marti, you think it is ok for people to commit fraud? Once again you astound.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:28:03 PM
Well, I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.
You missed the word "fraud" in all of that which requires intent. Again. Astounding.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2009, 05:28:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 04:21:17 PM
Funny part bolded.
Err, you should have bolded this:
QuoteFraudulently pretending to exercise witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration is a summary conviction offence under the Criminal Code.
:huh: Is your law that retarded? Wtf?
So Marti, you think it is ok for people to commit fraud? Once again you astound.
How is that "fraud" different from anything priests or rabbis do?
I think Marty's point is how do you non-fraudulently practice sorcery.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2009, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:28:03 PM
Well, I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.
You missed the word "fraud" in all of that which requires intent. Again. Astounding.
So if I can prove a priest does not believe in god, can he be charged with that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 05:30:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:29:32 PM
How is that "fraud" different from anything priests or rabbis do?
Defended as counseling. As long as they're performing in good faith, to the best of their ability, and with appropriate credentials... the only "material" gains they promise happen to the soul after death, so it's a little difficult to prove that those promises were not fulfilled, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 30, 2009, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:29:32 PM
How is that "fraud" different from anything priests or rabbis do?
Defended as counseling. As long as they're performing in good faith, to the best of their ability, and with appropriate credentials... the only "material" gains they promise happen to the soul after death, so it's a little difficult to prove that those promises were not fulfilled, wouldn't you say?
Last time I checked rabbis couldn't care less about "soul after death" - they do it not to offend God, who would surely smite you down in this life. That's pretty "here-and-now". And a lot of "work" done by priests is about here and now as well - praying for the sick, "praying the gay away", blessing events and people, etc. That's no different than what "witches" do.
And "proper credentials"? What does it even mean, when it comes to metaphysics and supernatural? Should they have a diploma from Hogwart? :lol:
Idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:37:12 PM
Last time I checked rabbis couldn't care less about "soul after death" - they do it not to offend God, who would surely smite you down in this life. That's pretty "here-and-now". And a lot of "work" done by priests is about here and now as well - praying for the sick, "praying the gay away", blessing events and people, etc. That's no different than what "witches" do.
And "proper credentials"? What does it even me, when it comes to metaphysics and supernatural? Should they have a diploma from Hogwart? :lol:
Idiot.
There are seminaries out there. Whether or not they put out shysters, people believe seminary graduates are more qualified to officiate religious services. If a pastor's kid made a ton of money pretending to be a graduate of, say, Westminster Seminary, odds are that he could be prosecuted for fraud. I take it Polish lawyers don't recognize the concept of detrimental reliance?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 30, 2009, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:37:12 PM
Last time I checked rabbis couldn't care less about "soul after death" - they do it not to offend God, who would surely smite you down in this life. That's pretty "here-and-now". And a lot of "work" done by priests is about here and now as well - praying for the sick, "praying the gay away", blessing events and people, etc. That's no different than what "witches" do.
And "proper credentials"? What does it even me, when it comes to metaphysics and supernatural? Should they have a diploma from Hogwart? :lol:
Idiot.
There are seminaries out there. Whether or not they put out shysters, people believe seminary graduates are more qualified to officiate religious services. If a pastor's kid made a ton of money pretending to be a graduate of, say, Westminster Seminary, odds are that he could be prosecuted for fraud. I take it Polish lawyers don't recognize the concept of detrimental reliance?
You missed my point. There are no "seminaries" for witches and warlocks. And last time I checked, you and the rest were talking about intent - "credentials" should then be completely irrelevant. If a priest graduated from the right seminary, but did not believe in what he is doing to be true, he should be prosecuted for fraud, right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2009, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:28:03 PM
Well, I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.
You missed the word "fraud" in all of that which requires intent. Again. Astounding.
What's astounding is people like you believing in some fairytale about a slutty Jewish whore and her son performing "miracles" 2000 years after their deaths. I guess if you are stupid enough, you could avoid fraud charges by claiming insanity/mental retardation.
A seminary is where you study before you become a priest or pastor. A seminar is a small class where you suck up to the teacher in hopes of getting a good recommendation.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 30, 2009, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:37:12 PM
Last time I checked rabbis couldn't care less about "soul after death" - they do it not to offend God, who would surely smite you down in this life. That's pretty "here-and-now". And a lot of "work" done by priests is about here and now as well - praying for the sick, "praying the gay away", blessing events and people, etc. That's no different than what "witches" do.
And "proper credentials"? What does it even me, when it comes to metaphysics and supernatural? Should they have a diploma from Hogwart? :lol:
Idiot.
There are seminaries out there. Whether or not they put out shysters, people believe seminary graduates are more qualified to officiate religious services. If a pastor's kid made a ton of money pretending to be a graduate of, say, Westminster Seminary, odds are that he could be prosecuted for fraud. I take it Polish lawyers don't recognize the concept of detrimental reliance?
You missed my point. There are no "seminars" for witches and warlocks. And last time I checked, you and the rest were talking about intent - "credentials" should then be completely irrelevant. If a priest graduated from the right seminar, but did not believe in what he is doing to be true, he should be prosecuted for fraud, right?
First, "seminar" is just a lesson. "Seminary" is a theological college. Second, no; the law's only going to get involved if his intent was to deliberately mislead someone for material gain- most modern legal systems in the west take a dim view of legislating morality, and aren't going to prosecute someone for a crisis of faith, although most religions have some kind of rules in place for either stepping aside during the crisis or being removed if one is acting in bad faith.
EDIT: Yi ninja'd me because I had to resubmit the post. :P
A lot of the work they do is praying the gay away???
Really?
I had no idea.
Most priests take money for holding a mass in some intention, at least in the catholic church. If he does not believe in God but does that, how is he different from a "fraud" tarot reader taking money for a reading that she does not believe in?
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:56:12 PM
Most priests take money for holding a mass in some intention, at least in the catholic church. If he does not believe in God but does that, how is he different from a "fraud" tarot reader taking money for a reading that she does not believe in?
The better question is why would someone assume that witchcraft is fraud anyway - a witch can certainly believe that they are really doing witchcraft, and that this really is going to work (within the confines of how witchcraft presumably works, anyway).
So why the special rule making witchcraft illegal?
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 05:55:30 PM
A lot of the work they do is praying the gay away???
Really?
I had no idea.
Are you a fucking retard? I said a lot of their work is about stuff like "A, B, C etc." That does not mean the same as saying "a lot of their work is B".
Psychics over here always disclaimer that their services are "for entertainment purposes" except for a few crazies who actually buy into what they're doing. The "for entertainment purposes" part keeps them off the hook, because they're promising no material comfort, and the rest are acting in good faith because they actually believe it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:28:03 PM
The law does not say anything about money. I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.
The "fraud" part modifies the witchcraft, sourcery, etc.
The intent I believe was to capture the use of such means as a
method of committing fraud. The section in which it appears deals with various sorts of "false pretenses" used in committing common kinds of fraud.
I agree that there ought to be no difference between Religious evangelists and the like cheating people with faith-healing and similar frauds, and alleged witches doing the same.
I do not agree that a church is per se fraudulent, for the simple reason that many if not most people running the thing actually believes in it. I find it very hard to believe a chick who scams an elderly dude out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by spirit possession and tarot cards really believes in it. Chances are better it's a deliberate scam. Though I'd say many actual scams are run under the rubric of religion - look at televangelists.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 30, 2009, 05:59:50 PM
Psychics over here always disclaimer that their services are "for entertainment purposes" except for a few crazies who actually buy into what they're doing. The "for entertainment purposes" part keeps them off the hook, because they're promising no material comfort, and the rest are acting in good faith because they actually believe it.
Again, unless priests who do not actually believe in God are also saying they hold mass "for entertainment purposes", this is double standard.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 06:02:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:28:03 PM
The law does not say anything about money. I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.
The "fraud" part modifies the witchcraft, sourcery, etc.
The intent I believe was to capture the use of such means as a method of committing fraud. The section in which it appears deals with various sorts of "false pretenses" used in committing common kinds of fraud.
I agree that there ought to be no difference between Religious evangelists and the like cheating people with faith-healing and similar frauds, and alleged witches doing the same.
I do not agree that a church is per se fraudulent, for the simple reason that many if not most people running the thing actually believes in it. I find it very hard to believe a chick who scams an elderly dude out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by spirit possession and tarot cards really believes in it. Chances are better it's a deliberate scam. Though I'd say many actual scams are run under the rubric of religion - look at televangelists.
I think it is just silly to hold this as a separate crime - unless the penalty for "witchcraft fraud" is smaller than the penalty for ordinary fraud (which I doubt).
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:58:17 PM
Are you a fucking retard? I said a lot of their work is about stuff like "A, B, C etc." That does not mean the same as saying "a lot of their work is B".
All class, as always. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 05:57:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:56:12 PM
Most priests take money for holding a mass in some intention, at least in the catholic church. If he does not believe in God but does that, how is he different from a "fraud" tarot reader taking money for a reading that she does not believe in?
The better question is why would someone assume that witchcraft is fraud anyway - a witch can certainly believe that they are really doing witchcraft, and that this really is going to work (within the confines of how witchcraft presumably works, anyway).
So why the special rule making witchcraft illegal?
If it's not a fraud the section doesn't apply.
The real issue is why make special mention of witchcraft etc. In my opinion, the likely answer is historical. Witchcraft and conjuration etc. was long associated with various riff-raff - carnies and gypsies and the like - who made a living ripping people off.
The intent wasn't to persecute Alester Crowley or new age Wiccans, but rather to have a handy section to bust seedy carnies and the like.
It seems to me that the section could be improved by adding all sorts of faith healers and the like, regardless of religion; but there is no real impetus to change it because it is, as the article says, a section very seldom used.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 06:02:43 PM
Again, unless priests who do not actually believe in God are also saying they hold mass "for entertainment purposes", this is double standard.
You missed my point; priests who do not actually believe in God and continue to practice are subject to their religion's own discipline. Offerings typically go to facilities expenditures and priests and pastors are paid out of trust funds established by their presbytery/diocese/whatever and do not pay the religious official directly. If money is taken directly from the religious follower and given to the priest directly, then they absolutely can be taken to court for fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52e_1232618904 (first Catholic fraud scandal I came across)
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 06:04:14 PM
I think it is just silly to hold this as a separate crime - unless the penalty for "witchcraft fraud" is smaller than the penalty for ordinary fraud (which I doubt).
The section has a bunch of detailed provisions decribing various sorts of scams - like fraudulently obtaining a drink by pretending to leave your luggage in a place. I have no idea why the drafters felt in necessary to spell things out in such detail, it does seem a trifle redundant. Maybe there was some value in having an exact section to cite, I dunno.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 30, 2009, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 06:02:43 PM
Again, unless priests who do not actually believe in God are also saying they hold mass "for entertainment purposes", this is double standard.
You missed my point; priests who do not actually believe in God and continue to practice are subject to their religion's own discipline. Offerings typically go to facilities expenditures and priests and pastors are paid out of trust funds established by their presbytery/diocese/whatever and do not pay the religious official directly. If money is taken directly from the religious follower and given to the priest directly, then they absolutely can be taken to court for fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52e_1232618904 (first Catholic fraud scandal I came across)
So you are saying that if I commit fraud but make the money go to the organisation I work for and not to my pocket, this is alright? :lol:
Nor did I know that "being subject to your religion's own discipline" exempts one from criminal law.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:58:17 PM
It seems to me that the section could be improved by adding all sorts of faith healers and the like, regardless of religion; but there is no real impetus to change it because it is, as the article says, a section very seldom used.
What if I was trying to witchcraft the gay away?
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 06:11:59 PM
like fraudulently obtaining a drink by pretending to leave your luggage in a place.
:huh:
You guys really have weird laws. Here that kind of "casuistic" drafting wouldn't pass the muster of proper legislation technique.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2009, 06:25:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:58:17 PM
It seems to me that the section could be improved by adding all sorts of faith healers and the like, regardless of religion; but there is no real impetus to change it because it is, as the article says, a section very seldom used.
What if I was trying to witchcraft the gay away?
The wiccans might be worth something then.
Wasn't Marty comparing the "gay rights" movement as being similar to the various religious movements in the US in another thread?
Does that mean we can charge him with "witchcraft"? :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 06:11:59 PM
like fraudulently obtaining a drink by pretending to leave your luggage in a place.
:huh:
You guys really have weird laws. Here that kind of "casuistic" drafting wouldn't pass the muster of proper legislation technique.
Here's the section I was citing:
Quote364. (1) Every one who fraudulently obtains food, a beverage or accommodation at any place that is in the business of providing those things is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Presumption
(2) In proceedings under this section, evidence that the accused obtained food, a beverage or accommodation at a place that is in the business of providing those things and did not pay for it and
(a) made a false or fictitious show or pretence of having baggage,
(b) had any false or pretended baggage,
(c) surreptitiously removed or attempted to remove his baggage or any material part of it,
(d) absconded or surreptitiously left the premises,
(e) knowingly made a false statement to obtain credit or time for payment, or
(f) offered a worthless cheque, draft or security in payment for the food, beverage or accommodation,
is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof of fraud.
This is section 364. The "anti-Witchcraft" section immediately follows - s. 365.
How the fuck do you get free food or hotel rooms by pretending to have suitcases? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 05:30:48 PM
I think Marty's point is how do you non-fraudulently practice sorcery.
It all has to do with intent. Someone may ferverently believe that doing some kind of ritual will be beneficial but if it is all a scam then this section likely applies.
Where Marti goes wrong, often, is that he simply assumes that if people do not believe as he does then they are not only wrong but also a fraud.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
How the fuck do you get free food or hotel rooms by pretending to have suitcases? :huh:
Dont know but at some point there was big enough of a problem to make it a criminal code offence. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 06:02:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
How the fuck do you get free food or hotel rooms by pretending to have suitcases? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 07:04:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
How the fuck do you get free food or hotel rooms by pretending to have suitcases? :huh:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2009, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:28:03 PM
Well, I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.
You missed the word "fraud" in all of that which requires intent. Again. Astounding.
Remember, he's not a real lawyer.
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.
Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2009, 07:22:56 PM
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. :blush:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 30, 2009, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2009, 07:22:56 PM
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. :blush:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2009, 06:58:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 06:02:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2009, 05:32:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 05:30:48 PM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 30, 2009, 07:18:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 30, 2009, 07:04:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
How the fuck do you get free food or hotel rooms by pretending to have suitcases? :huh:
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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 09:31:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 09:37:58 AM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 10:16:42 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:22:12 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 10:16:42 AM
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.
:yes: 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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:14:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:29:12 AM
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. :contract:
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:14:27 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:36:23 AM
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. :contract:
Their practices are not equated to fraud. Fraud using their religious practices as a cover is fraud. If they are insulted by that...well then having silly superstitious beliefs is the least of their problems.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:14:27 AM
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.
Yes and.... I still fail to see where the fraud is in any of that.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:37:28 AM
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.
And if some priest was using this as a way to swindle people out of their money, convincing them they needed to constantly have him say mass and pay him for it or they would go to hell, I am sure most Catholics would be in favor of prosecution.
Seriously it is not a witch hunt and charges for fraud on various practices are not a common thing...even when they probably should be like televangelists who tell suckers if they send him money God will reward them tenfold...and then guess what? That check from God never seems to arrive.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:37:28 AM
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.
In which case, you're paying for the service of the ritual. The effect on the soul afterward is neither quantifiable nor qualifiable, so a court couldn't determine whether or not the seller's performance was satisfactory.
The lawyer is claiming he had a reasonable belief that he would prosper financially. If she encouraged or even simply knew that he was laboring under that assumption without explaining that the tarot readings wouldn't make him money, she's liable.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:29:12 AM
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. :contract:
The problem is a historical association with various sorts of hucksterism in the not so distant past, before new age really had much popular cachet. That association is real, and evidently some fraud artists still use it as a cover for scams, so I don't see why laws based on it should be offensive.
I do see it as unnecessarily specific (a more general anti-fraud law not specifically mentioning witchcraft would do). But then, the law in this area is replete with very specific fraud type offenses - like faking your luggage to get a free drink, discussed above.
I'm not agreeing with Marti's assumption, merely explaining it. Though I will say that this:
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
And if some priest was using this as a way to swindle people out of their money, convincing them they needed to constantly have him say mass and pay him for it or they would go to hell, I am sure most Catholics would be in favor of prosecution.
is exactly why people pay for those services. They are taught from the cradle that without those rituals and masses, the person's soul will go to hell. If the priest doesn't believe it, and does the masses simply for the money, is that fraud?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 01, 2009, 11:48:21 AM
In which case, you're paying for the service of the ritual. The effect on the soul afterward is neither quantifiable nor qualifiable, so a court couldn't determine whether or not the seller's performance was satisfactory.
This makes sense, but again, if the priest doesn't believe it and simply wants the money, is it fraud?
QuoteThe lawyer is claiming he had a reasonable belief that he would prosper financially. If she encouraged or even simply knew that he was laboring under that assumption without explaining that the tarot readings wouldn't make him money, she's liable.
*shrugs* She was a scam artist, no doubt, but his reasonable belief that he would prosper comes from his trusting her business enterprises were legit, not from the cards. It seems silly to tack on the other charge.
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2009, 11:51:58 AM
The problem is a historical association with various sorts of hucksterism in the not so distant past, before new age really had much popular cachet. That association is real, and evidently some fraud artists still use it as a cover for scams, so I don't see why laws based on it should be offensive.
I do see it as unnecessarily specific (a more general anti-fraud law not specifically mentioning witchcraft would do). But then, the law in this area is replete with very specific fraud type offenses - like faking your luggage to get a free drink, discussed above.
I think the second part of your statement is most appropriate. Like Marti said, all religions are fraught with abuse and chicanery if you go back far enough, and to be honest, there are plenty of fraud cases regarding Christianity in the very recent history.
To make a law so specific is to risk not being allowed to apply it later. And in this case, it's pretty specific to a particular religion, making it a bit offensive to them.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:57:03 AM
This makes sense, but again, if the priest doesn't believe it and simply wants the money, is it fraud?
I thought this was covered quite well by Grumbler already. The answer is no. If people do indeed pay for the Mass directly, as you say, then they are getting exactly what they are paying for. They are paying for the ritual and that is exactly what they are getting whether or not the priest hates his job and thinks that Dawkins makes a good argument.
edit: Meri, the main flaw in Marti's argument is that christianity is based on a fraud. That is what he believes but that does not make it so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
I thought this was covered quite well by Grumbler already. The answer is no. If people do indeed pay for the Mass directly, as you say, then they are getting exactly what they are paying for. They are paying for the ritual and that is exactly what they are getting whether or not the priest hates his job and thinks that Dawkins makes a good argument.
Then how is reading Tarot cards any different? The person is getting exactly what they paid for: a Tarot card reading.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 12:17:33 PM
Then how is reading Tarot cards any different? The person is getting exactly what they paid for: a Tarot card reading.
Really, it was just the reading of the cards and nothing else. I think you and I are reading a different fact pattern. You really dont see the difference between a con artist using Tarot cards as part of her scam and someone going to a Church to hear a Mass being said?
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:57:03 AM
is exactly why people pay for those services. They are taught from the cradle that without those rituals and masses, the person's soul will go to hell. If the priest doesn't believe it, and does the masses simply for the money, is that fraud?
Maybe. I mean I would have to know alot more about the situation. Obviously to be a huckster you need to do more than simply accept payment for doing a service you do not believe in.
QuoteTo make a law so specific is to risk not being allowed to apply it later. And in this case, it's pretty specific to a particular religion, making it a bit offensive to them.
See I would view it as protection to my religion not offensive...but maybe I wouldn't like fraud and conmen using my religion to their advantage.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 02:14:27 AM
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.
By "intentional" masses I mean masses which are held in some specific intention. Like a mass for someone's recovery from an illness or a mass for some class/school year to pass the finals or for a troop of soldiers to come safe from a war.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:26:35 PM
By "intentional" masses I mean masses which are held in some specific intention. Like a mass for someone's recovery from an illness or a mass for some class/school year to pass the finals or for a troop of soldiers to come safe from a war.
To what extent does the Catholic Church claim these services will actually do some good? Could you then sue them if indeed what they say Mass for doesn't come to pass? Surely they have a disclaimer of some sort protecting them similar to the 'for entertainment purposes only' thing.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:26:35 PM
By "intentional" masses I mean masses which are held in some specific intention. Like a mass for someone's recovery from an illness or a mass for some class/school year to pass the finals or for a troop of soldiers to come safe from a war.
Yes, Priests do pray to God for all kinds of things on behalf of the people that attend their Church and yes people do have faith that those things will have some positive benefit. Please identify where the fraud is in that if you can.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 12:29:44 PM
To what extent does the Catholic Church claim these services will actually do some good? Could you then sue them if indeed what they say Mass for doesn't come to pass? Surely they have a disclaimer of some sort protecting them similar to the 'for entertainment purposes only' thing.
Of course they do. Marti is just being either intentionally (or I suspect unintentionally) obtuse.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 12:22:43 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:57:03 AM
is exactly why people pay for those services. They are taught from the cradle that without those rituals and masses, the person's soul will go to hell. If the priest doesn't believe it, and does the masses simply for the money, is that fraud?
Maybe. I mean I would have to know alot more about the situation. Obviously to be a huckster you need to do more than simply accept payment for doing a service you do not believe in.
QuoteTo make a law so specific is to risk not being allowed to apply it later. And in this case, it's pretty specific to a particular religion, making it a bit offensive to them.
See I would view it as protection to my religion not offensive...but maybe I wouldn't like fraud and conmen using my religion to their advantage.
How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same. I sincerely doubt either of them would be stupid enough to claim a 100% effectiveness - either would say that if it doesn't work, it's surely because God does not want it/the spirits are angry/mumbo jumbo like that.
The fact that one of them would be working for a benefit of an organisation he is being paid by, and the other is working for himself, is irrelevant.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:32:13 PM
How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same.
This is not a distinction as they are both religious dudes. I guess I could see you asking how that is different from somebody practicing witchcraft or sorcery...or did I miss something? How did the Navajo religion get wrapped up in this? Of course over here we have actual Navajo so I never thought them as having a different status legally than Catholics.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:32:13 PM
How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same.
This is not a distinction as they are both religious dudes. I guess I could see you asking how that is different from somebody practicing witchcraft or sorcery...or did I miss something? How did the Navajo religion get wrapped up in this? Of course over here we have actual Navajo so I never thought them as having a different status legally than Catholics.
Oh I thought they were being used as an example of mumbo-jumbo. Ok substitute a "witch casting a spell" for that.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:32:13 PM
How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same.
This is not a distinction as they are both religious dudes. I guess I could see you asking how that is different from somebody practicing witchcraft or sorcery...or did I miss something? How did the Navajo religion get wrapped up in this? Of course over here we have actual Navajo so I never thought them as having a different status legally than Catholics.
You are both missing the point. Where is the fraud in either situation. It matters not one bit whether the two of you can agree that a certain belief is somehow legitimate or not. What matters is whether the representantion of a particular belief is used to carry out a fraud.
I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:42:01 PM
[Oh I thought they were being used as an example of mumbo-jumbo. Ok substitute a "witch casting a spell" for that.
All things being equal? Nothing. As I suggested it is likely the specificness of that law was probably a reaction to a specific incident of a fraud or several frauds using magic as a cover. Reactionary legislating is what our societies here in North America are built on.
Well at least how we get our strangest laws.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:49:09 PM
I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?
As I queried earlier does the Catholic Church not protect itself my saying somewhere their masses and rites are not magical and should not be relied on in the place of, say, professional medical assistance? Because they most certainly could be sued otherwise.
Highly entertaining thread sorcery in this thread. I won't sue. :p kutgw
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:49:09 PM
I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?
Again are you are obtuse.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:49:09 PM
I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?
The problem here is that proof of the "dishonesty" of a Catholic Priest is going to be difficult to come by.
The leading case on fraud as a criminal offense in Canada is R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5, in which the headnotes summarize the majority position as follows:
QuoteThe actus reus of fraud is established by proof of a prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, and by proof of deprivation caused by the prohibited act (which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests at risk). Just as what constitutes a falsehood or a deceitful act for the purpose of the actus reus is judged on the objective facts, the actus reus of fraud by "other fraudulent means" is determined objectively, by reference to what a reasonable person would consider to be a dishonest act. Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of subjective knowledge of the prohibited act, and by proof of subjective knowledge that the performance of the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of another (which deprivation may consist in knowledge that the victim's pecuniary interests are put at risk). In certain cases, the subjective knowledge of the risk of deprivation may be inferred from the act itself, barring some explanation casting doubt on such inference. Where the conduct and knowledge required by these definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether he actually intended the deprivation or was reckless as to whether it would occur. The accused's belief that the conduct is not wrong or that no one will in the end be hurt affords no defence to a charge of fraud. While the scope of the offence may encompass a broad range of dishonest commercial dealings, the proposed definition of mens rea will not catch conduct which does not warrant criminalization. Only the deliberately practised fraudulent acts which, in the knowledge of the accused, actually put the property of others at risk will constitute fraud. The requirement of intentional fraudulent action excludes mere negligent misrepresentation, or sharp business practice.
To my mind, this creates a difficulty in the context of religion, as your hypothetical reasonable person would be unlikely to agree that a Catholic priest, actually operating within the doctrines of the Church, was behaving with the sort of
intentional, deliberate dishonesty as required by the Court here. Merely lacking faith in God is not, I would assert, sufficient to remove such a case from the ambit of what the Court described as "... conduct which does not warrant criminalization".
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 12:49:09 PM
I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?
Because your belief that the ritual is useless doesn't make it so, and more importantly even if you are correct doesn't mean that the person performing the ritual believes it to be useless. It seems likely to me that most Catholic priests and Navajo medicine men
do believe in the faith that they purport to represent. Your non-belief doesn't mean that their belief is a fraud. Again, logically, even if you are correct in your non-belief, that merely makes them mistaken in their belief; it doesn't demonstrate that they are claiming something that they know to be untrue.
dps, Marti would have you believe that if a Priest who has lost his faith performs the Mass then the Mass somehow becomes fraudulent. He says this because he readily identifies with the said Priest. He however completely forgets about the hundreds of millions of people who do have faith and particularly faith in the efficacy of attending a Mass who really could care less whether a particular Priest lost his faith or not. All they really care about is whether the Mass is properly performed.
As an aside, one of the most moving moments I have had is attending a Mass in Assissi. I can readily understand why a Catholic person would have their faith strengthened by such an experience.
Of course, by Marti's logic I have simpy been taken in by a fraud if the priest in attendance at that Mass did not fully believe in what he was doing at that particular time.
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2009, 01:34:50 PM
To my mind, this creates a difficulty in the context of religion, as your hypothetical reasonable person would be unlikely to agree that a Catholic priest, actually operating within the doctrines of the Church, was behaving with the sort of intentional, deliberate dishonesty as required by the Court here. Merely lacking faith in God is not, I would assert, sufficient to remove such a case from the ambit of what the Court described as "... conduct which does not warrant criminalization".
I agree completely, and this highlights my concern about that law. The assumption seems to be that someone participating in sorcery and witchcraft
is trying to perpetuate fraud by default. At least, that's how it seems to me based on that law. That may not be what is intended, but that is the
feel of the law.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:21:42 PM
Because your belief that the ritual is useless doesn't make it so, and more importantly even if you are correct doesn't mean that the person performing the ritual believes it to be useless. It seems likely to me that most Catholic priests and Navajo medicine men do believe in the faith that they purport to represent. Your non-belief doesn't mean that their belief is a fraud. Again, logically, even if you are correct in your non-belief, that merely makes them mistaken in their belief; it doesn't demonstrate that they are claiming something that they know to be untrue.
Does this then translate to Tarot readings, etc.?
I agree with all of you that what matters is how the participant in the ritual feels much more so than what the person doing the ritual thinks or feels. In which case, if the person having their cards or palm or crystal ball read to them believes in such things, how can it be fraud?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 05:23:57 PM
dps, Marti would have you believe that if a Priest who has lost his faith performs the Mass then the Mass somehow becomes fraudulent.
This is the doctrine of Donatism, as I pointed out earlier; the idea that only saintly priests could successfully serve because the efficacy of the sacrament depended on the purity and religious fervor of the priest. Hasn't really been an issue since about 600CE, although Luther toyed with it for a while in the 1600s CE. Bringing it up now seems a bit... old-fashioned.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 05:37:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 05:23:57 PM
dps, Marti would have you believe that if a Priest who has lost his faith performs the Mass then the Mass somehow becomes fraudulent.
This is the doctrine of Donatism, as I pointed out earlier; the idea that only saintly priests could successfully serve because the efficacy of the sacrament depended on the purity and religious fervor of the priest. Hasn't really been an issue since about 600CE, although Luther toyed with it for a while in the 1600s CE. Bringing it up now seems a bit... old-fashioned.
Yes, I do recall you saying that. I had forgotten and it is well worth repeating.
It is also odd that a lawyer, such as Marti (giving him the benefit of the doubt) would confuse Donatism with the legal concept of Fraud.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 05:31:24 PM
In which case, if the person having their cards or palm or crystal ball read to them believes in such things, how can it be fraud?
It all turns on what the person performing the ritual represents the ritual to mean and the intent they had in making that representation.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 05:31:24 PM
I agree completely, and this highlights my concern about that law. The assumption seems to be that someone participating in sorcery and witchcraft is trying to perpetuate fraud by default. At least, that's how it seems to me based on that law. That may not be what is intended, but that is the feel of the law.
That isn't how the law looks and feels to me, but we are both just expressing personal perceptions.
QuoteDoes this then translate to Tarot readings, etc.?
I agree with all of you that what matters is how the participant in the ritual feels much more so than what the person doing the ritual thinks or feels. In which case, if the person having their cards or palm or crystal ball read to them believes in such things, how can it be fraud?
So long as the person doing the "reading" isn't promising more than they can deliver, so as to increase the amount of money they make, it
isn't fraud.
The reason I brought up the Navajo singer issue is that the purpose of the sing is to bring the subject of the sing into balance with nature (the Navajo traditionally believe that all sickness and evil, including criminal behavior, occurs because a person is "out of balance with nature," so to speak). The subject, if properly blessed by the sing, feels in harmony once again. Traditionally, this was thought to be true because the spirits drove out whatever evil was causing the subject to be out of balance (and the subject, by enduring the multi-day sing, demonstrates a desire to become balanced again). Even Christian Navajos believe in the efficacy of the sing, even if they don't believe any more that it is "spirits' at work. I don't see them as engaging in fraud to participate, even if they are paid to participate (and the subject does pay a fair number of people to participate, though his/her relatives do it for free).
Fraud occurs when you deliberately deceive for the purposes of getting remuneration you would not get without the deception.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 05:31:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2009, 01:34:50 PM
To my mind, this creates a difficulty in the context of religion, as your hypothetical reasonable person would be unlikely to agree that a Catholic priest, actually operating within the doctrines of the Church, was behaving with the sort of intentional, deliberate dishonesty as required by the Court here. Merely lacking faith in God is not, I would assert, sufficient to remove such a case from the ambit of what the Court described as "... conduct which does not warrant criminalization".
I agree completely, and this highlights my concern about that law. The assumption seems to be that someone participating in sorcery and witchcraft is trying to perpetuate fraud by default. At least, that's how it seems to me based on that law. That may not be what is intended, but that is the feel of the law.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 04:21:42 PM
Because your belief that the ritual is useless doesn't make it so, and more importantly even if you are correct doesn't mean that the person performing the ritual believes it to be useless. It seems likely to me that most Catholic priests and Navajo medicine men do believe in the faith that they purport to represent. Your non-belief doesn't mean that their belief is a fraud. Again, logically, even if you are correct in your non-belief, that merely makes them mistaken in their belief; it doesn't demonstrate that they are claiming something that they know to be untrue.
Does this then translate to Tarot readings, etc.?
I don't see how it wouldn't.
As a Christian, I reject things like that as false; but apparantly unlike Marty, I can conceive of the possibility that other people might actually truly believe in things that I don't.
The debate in this thread pretty much sums up why this section is never used. :yes:
No Malthus, I have never seen or prosecuted such a charge.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2009, 12:20:45 PM
The debate in this thread pretty much sums up why this section is never used. :yes:
No Malthus, I have never seen or prosecuted such a charge.
It would be ultra-cool to prosecute at a witchcraft trial, though. :lol:
"Your honour, I move that the defendant be dunked into a pond ... "
She turned Beeb into a newt. But he got better.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on December 03, 2009, 02:37:02 AM
She turned Beeb into a newt. But he got better.
A better newt?
Hey buddha, is that daibutsu in Kamakura in your avatar?