It's not the same unless she's making money by casting death curses on people. She could be defrauding people by not being able to cast beneficial spells, but still be perfectly capable of conjuring death curses.
But as I said, I think the fraud accusation is bunk however you look at it. The only type of fraud there is, is if you say "I am going to give you x" and then you don't. Even if the product you get from someone is defective, you can always return it and get your money back. No fraud involved here.
rufio wrote:I actually find the accusation of fraud to be less viable than the accusation of murder. Can you arrest someone for such fraud? Can you arrest the makers of soft drinks if their drink does not live up to what their commercial promised? I am a little confused as to why this would be a solid case. People pay Hazel in any case to at least appear to be casting a spell. If she truly is appearing to do something, and they are happy with the results, where is the fraud? If they are unhappy with the results, I'd expect that they would take their own actions against her, like demanding their money back or something.
Let's just say that the prosecutor is charging Hazel with some form of consumer fraud, which would involve engaging in fraudulent or deceptive trade practices. In this particular instance, the prosecutor would be alleging that Hazel, in advertising her services as a fortune-teller and psychic counsellor, made bogus claims about her abilities and charged customers for services that she could not provide.
Magus wrote:Is the Local Prosecutor still on the case?
If he's still alive... , then he's already "proved" that the "Curse" and "Curser" were ineffectual frauds.
Well, maybe he's still alive because the curse hasn't taken effect yet.
Would your position be different if the prosecutor actually died a horrible, painful death shortly after Hazel's announcement?
I'm still not clear on what kind of fraud having to do with fortune-telling would require a prosecutor. The whole situation feels a bit fishy, and I'd be likely to side with Hazel anyway, regardless of what I think about the murder charge.
Hazel here is being prosecuted for fraud but, the prosecutor has not proven this case ? So can Hazel be arrested ? Hazel cannot be arrested for (a) if female because that law applies to person(s) but describes these person(s) as ("he") which describes males, since the law stated "he", makes Hazel, if a female witch, exempt from being charged with attempt from law (a).
Now, if the prosecution fails to prove the case of fraud. Then Hazel may be arrested because if and only if (male); this would prove that "he" (Hazel)isn't operating fraud and from his (Hazel's) statement to the local television station, intent to kill was given, so this is attempted murder ? The prosecution has to prove this; should he be arrested, no ? Hazel, stated that he " put " a curse on the prosecutor but, "who heard the curse" ? If someone heard Hazel, while cursing the prosecutor, then he may be arrested, for attempted murder ? Saying and doing are different, and this could be used in Hazel's defense ?
doyouknowhim wrote:Hazel cannot be arrested for (a) if female because that law applies to person(s) but describes these person(s) as ("he") which describes males, since the law stated "he", makes Hazel, if a female witch, exempt from being charged with attempt from law (a).
As a matter of law and of statutory interpretation, the pronoun "he" in a statute is applicable to both males and females. A woman, therefore, can be charged with breaking a law that, on its face, refers only to "he" and "him."
