• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There is hope yet...

Now hang on a minute:...

Alex L. Orbito, 65, a self-described “reverend” who claims to reach into the bellies of the ill to retrieve their “negative energies,” faces charges of fraud over $5,000 and possession of the proceeds of crime.

Det. Michael Barsky of the Toronto police said officers seized $6,000 in U.S. and Canadian currency — the proceeds of a single afternoon of healing — after raiding the Scarborough hotel where Orbito and his fellow accused, John Robert Wood, 62, are alleged to have set up treatment sessions.
Click to expand...

They are fining him an afternoon's wages?????
That hardly seems appropriate.
 
cabby said:
Now hang on a minute:...



They are fining him an afternoon's wages?????
That hardly seems appropriate.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, I'll agree.

At this point however, I will take anything on record with the courts as this man being a fraud.

In a perfect world he'd be fined much more and do hard time in prison, though I'm not familiar with Canada's laws on this.

Anyone out there have knowledge of Canadian law on this subject?
 
rdaneel said:
No, it doesn't say he was fined, it says the police SEIZED $6000 in their raid. He hasn't been to trial yet, so his punishment hasn't been determined yet.
Click to expand...

No.. but the CHARGES are at $5000
 
TobiasTheCommie said:
No.. but the CHARGES are at $5000
Click to expand...

Ok I am taking that to mean a distinction in Canadian law, not that they are charging him a specific amount. Much like our laws in the US make a distinction between felony and misdemeanor frauds by dollar amount.
 
fowlsound said:
Ok I am taking that to mean a distinction in Canadian law, not that they are charging him a specific amount. Much like our laws in the US make a distinction between felony and misdemeanor frauds by dollar amount.
Click to expand...

ehm
Alex L. Orbito, 65 ... faces charges of fraud over $5,000 and possession of the proceeds of crime.
Click to expand...

i think i just missunderstood it.. i think it means to say "fraud for over".

i read it as something like "charged with second degree murder"... ie "charged for fraid with $5000" as maximum sentence.


sorry, my bad.
:D
 
fowlsound is correct.

For fraud over $5,000 (an indictable offence), the maximum sentence is 10 years. For fraud under $5,000 (a hybrid offence, meaning that the Crown has the option of proceeding by indictment or summarily), the maximum sentence is 2 years.
 
TobiasTheCommie said:
ehm


i think i just missunderstood it.. i think it means to say "fraud for over".

i read it as something like "charged with second degree murder"... ie "charged for fraid with $5000" as maximum sentence.


sorry, my bad.
:D
Click to expand...

Easy thing to mistake.

No harm no foul...

Interestingly, I have yet to see woo-woo's admit they might be wrong. Is that a purely skeptical trait? :D
 
Jon. said:
fowlsound is correct.

For fraud over $5,000 (an indictable offence), the maximum sentence is 10 years. For fraud under $5,000 (a hybrid offence, meaning that the Crown has the option of proceeding by indictment or summarily), the maximum sentence is 2 years.
Click to expand...

I have to celebrate this, I am rarely correct on blind guesses :D

Welcome Jon!
 
fowlsound said:
I do my best to applaud critical thinking :D
Click to expand...

i fear i have disappointed Eos of the Eons
in the MAJOR Thimerosal / Autism scare piece in Salon thread though.

Gah.. i keep jumping back and forth in that one.

no no.. not on the vacination thingy.
 
TobiasTheCommie said:
i fear i have disappointed Eos of the Eons
in the MAJOR Thimerosal / Autism scare piece in Salon thread though.

Gah.. i keep jumping back and forth in that one.

no no.. not on the vacination thingy.
Click to expand...

You know, not everyone agrees all the time...

For example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58715&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

It was only later I realized it was an ad hominem attack, not a straw man fallacy that I was referring to.

*sigh*

If only we could always get it right, eh?;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom