Hitchens Dying Days Reading G. K. Chesterton

[ThinkingSapien]

you realize its a crime to receive stolen property. you could be charged with possession of stolen goods even if you didn’t know they were stolen… shh…

To be charged all that is needed is an accusation. But a criminal charge is not the same as a criminal offense. A criminal charge is a part of the process of determining if a crime had occurred.

Crimes are dependent on mental state/intent/knowledge. If I knew the computer was stolen at the time I received it then it would have been the offense of “receiving stolen property.” If I found out the computer was stolen after the fact and had continued in possession of the computer then it would have been the crime of “possession of stolen property.” If I had known the computer was stolen ahead of time and choose to receive it and hold on two it then I would have committed two offenses. (There’s some other potential crimes including “criminal conversion” but I won’t list them). If I knew the computer was stolen ahead of time of time and accepted it with the intent of getting it back to the rightful owner then I have not committed a crime.

What occurred is

• I received the computer with a falsified story of it’s origins
• There were inconsistencies between the story and what I found on the computer, so I searched for identifying information on it’s drive
• I found the identity of the employee to which the computer had been entrusted, his employer, company address book, calendar, and other information
• I contacted the employee while he was taking his father out to a birthday dinner to confirm he had lost an item on a recent trip
• The employee confirmed loosing the computer on a plane (the person that stole the computer was a flight attendant) , described identifying marks on the computer
• I shipped the computer back to the employee via Federal Express, and called him back with a tracking number

Now if the computer’s owner wanted two they could have files a complaint against me accusing me of criminal actions. Evidence would then be considered in court on whether or not I had actually committed a crime. This evidence would need to sufficiently convince that I had knowledge the computer was stolen and had no intent to remedy the theft. By the time I was identifiable as a person that had a computer that had been stolen I had already contacted the owner and expressed intent to return it followed by a prompt trip to the shipping store. Had it been discovered I Was in possession of a stolen computer before I had started on actions to return it then I would have had more work in front of me for my defense.

Relating this back to the scenario that atheistgirl had described, one of the key pieces of her story is that a charity has become aware that the money that had received was acquired through dubious means. One’s response after such a discovery seems to be what she is asking about.

 

[buffalo]

So Charities can launder money with impunity

Yeah, that’s common sense.

I can steal my clients money, donate the stolen money to charity, and that’s just fine.

The recipient charity is under no obligation to return the stolen money.

That’s only fair.

If someone stole $1 million from you, your entire life savings and donated it to a single charity, would you write it off with a saying that’s fair, let them keep it, makes perfect sense

I doubt it.

Sarah x

The person who stole the money needs to make restitution. If he bought a boat should the boat dealer have to pay it back? SO now every store has to screen their customers, just in case?

 

[atheistgirl]

Relating this back to the scenario that atheistgirl had described, one of the key pieces of her story is that** a charity has become aware that the money that had received was acquired through dubious means**. One’s response after such a discovery seems to be what she is asking about.

Keatings trial was all over the media and made global headlines.

The Deputy DA contacted the Order to inform them his donation to them was in fact stolen money.

He asked for the money to be returned.

Nothing

I simply cannot believe that anybody seriously thinks it would be OK for this money not to have been returned, once it was pointed out to them it was stolen.

And yet, it would appear so.

Oh well.

I guess I’ve learned something.

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

Keatings trial was all over the media and made global headlines.

The Deputy DA contacted the Order to inform them his donation to them was in fact stolen money.

He asked for the money to be returned.

Nothing

I simply cannot believe that anybody seriously thinks it would be OK for this money not to have been returned, once it was pointed out to them it was stolen.

And yet, it would appear so.

Oh well.

I guess I’ve learned something.

Sarah x

Are you suggesting that the order would have to go and ask the thousands that it was dispensed to for it back? The poor people who couldn’t give it back?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Keatings trial was all over the media and made global headlines.

The Deputy DA contacted the Order to inform them his donation to them was in fact stolen money.

I’m trying to look this case up. Want to make sure I found the right one. Is KEatings first name “Charles”?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

**If you discovered that your life savings had been stolen, and donated to a charity, and you discovered that charity has been informed they are in possession of this stolen money, would you expect the charity to return this money?

Yes or no? **

What does the law say?

**The Deputy DA contacted the Order to inform them his donation to them was in fact stolen money.

He asked for the money to be returned.

Nothing **

Do you have an article that explores this story in depth and the DA’s rationale?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What does the law say?

If you receive money and then become aware it was stolen you but keep it then you could be considered an accessory after the fact. It could be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the amount received.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

To be charged all that is needed is an accusation. But a criminal charge is not the same as a criminal offense. A criminal charge is a part of the process of determining if a crime had occurred.

Crimes are dependent on mental state/intent/knowledge. If I knew the computer was stolen at the time I received it then it would have been the offense of “receiving stolen property.” If I found out the computer was stolen after the fact and had continued in possession of the computer then it would have been the crime of “possession of stolen property.” If I had known the computer was stolen ahead of time and choose to receive it and hold on two it then I would have committed two offenses. (There’s some other potential crimes including “criminal conversion” but I won’t list them). If I knew the computer was stolen ahead of time of time and accepted it with the intent of getting it back to the rightful owner then I have not committed a crime.

What occurred is

• I received the computer with a falsified story of it’s origins
• There were inconsistencies between the story and what I found on the computer, so I searched for identifying information on it’s drive
• I found the identity of the employee to which the computer had been entrusted, his employer, company address book, calendar, and other information
• I contacted the employee while he was taking his father out to a birthday dinner to confirm he had lost an item on a recent trip
• The employee confirmed loosing the computer on a plane (the person that stole the computer was a flight attendant) , described identifying marks on the computer
• I shipped the computer back to the employee via Federal Express, and called him back with a tracking number

Now if the computer’s owner wanted two they could have files a complaint against me accusing me of criminal actions. Evidence would then be considered in court on whether or not I had actually committed a crime. This evidence would need to sufficiently convince that I had knowledge the computer was stolen and had no intent to remedy the theft. By the time I was identifiable as a person that had a computer that had been stolen I had already contacted the owner and expressed intent to return it followed by a prompt trip to the shipping store. Had it been discovered I Was in possession of a stolen computer before I had started on actions to return it then I would have had more work in front of me for my defense.

Relating this back to the scenario that atheistgirl had described, one of the key pieces of her story is that a charity has become aware that the money that had received was acquired through dubious means. One’s response after such a discovery seems to be what she is asking about.

thats a wonderful post, thinking sapien. but, i think that receiving stolen goods is a criminal offence, even if you are not aware of it. whether you would be charged is another matter.
the law works in mysterious ways.

i do not know anything about the case you and atheistgirl are talking about, i only view it hypothetically. i view it as a charity which received, as you did, in good faith, and promptly distributed the money in full to ‘the poorest of the poor’.
it would not in those circumstances be possible to return the money as it is gone. unless they went back to every poverty-stricken person in calcutta and asked for the money back i don’t know how they would return that money. charities are supposed to be distributers of money not hoarders or investors of money, in which case it would be different.
both yourself and the hypothetical charity are guilty of receiving stolen goods but as your computer was still in your possession you could remedy the fact but the charity, hypothetically, has already given the money away, and no longer has possession of it.
if i give money to a charity i don’t want to hear that the money is sitting in a bank account somewhere earning interest or that it is being spent on administration fees, i want to know that all the funds i send go directly to the people who are in need.
if my charitable funds go to an individuals bank account who was wrongfully swindled out of their money i would be a bit annoyed. i gave money to the poor people of calcutta, for their relief, not to a private individuals bank account, no matter how well deserved they are of recompense. it is just a difficult situation, hypothetically.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

No need to assume.

They were told categorically by the prosecuting DA.

No reason to think they weren’t considering the many many millions they banked according to the testimony of their own sisters.

Of course.

Sarah x

but when were they told by the prosecuting da. the donor obviously did not tell them the money was stolen, presumably. and presumably the money was given away before any da’s questions came up.

i have no idea of the accounts of any charities, so i cannot comment on their individual finances.

 

[buffalo]

This thread has drifted from the OP.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**If you receive money and then become aware it was stolen you but keep it then you could be considered an accessory after the fact. It could be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the amount received. **

Was the money still in possession when you were made aware of the fact of it being stolen? If it had been distributed to the poor, how do you get it back?

By the way, when government agents and agencies wastefully spend the taxpayers’ money on joy trips, are they required to reimburse the taxpayers? This I think is a far more deliberate case of theft that whatever any nuns could do with money donated to them that they are unable to return because it has already been spent on the poor.

Again, I think this story needs to be fleshed out in more detail. Where is the documented source of this supposed crime by the good nuns?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

thats a wonderful post, thinking sapien. but, i think that receiving stolen goods is a criminal offence, even if you are not aware of it.

No, it’s not. In my jurisdiction this is covered by O.C.G.A. 16-8-7 part (a). This may be different in your own jurisdiction.

quote="§ Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-8-7 A person commits the offense of theft by receiving stolen property when he receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property which he knows or should know was stolen **unless **the property is received, disposed of, or retained with intent to restore it to the owner. ‘Receiving’ means acquiring possession or control or lending on the security of the property.
[/quote]

The unless was taken care of when I contacted the person to which it was entrusted. I consulted some one that was studying law at the time that this incident occurred.

From curiosity I checked the laws in Alabama, Mississippi, New York, California, Ohio, Texas and Florida. The laws in those states are similar with the noticeable difference being in at what dollar value it is considered a felony to knowingly receive stolen goods.

i do not know anything about the case you and atheistgirl are talking about,

I don’t know about the case either. That’s why I asked for confirmation that I’ve found the correct case. Wanted to look into the information available for it. Was going the ask the legal professional that assisted me in the incident I mentioned about it. But she’s too inundated with other task right now. Though I still hope to find information on it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Was the money still in possession when you were made aware of the fact of it being stolen? If it had been distributed to the poor, how do you get it back?

If you are asking about the Keating case, couldn’t tell you. My intent in my reply to you was to provide you with a guiding law for which I think you were inquiring. I’ve only just now found what I think to be the details of the case. About to read them now…

 

[Paddy_Walker]

No, it’s not. In my jurisdiction this is covered by O.C.G.A. 16-8-7 part (a). This may be different in your own jurisdiction.

The unless was taken care of when I contacted the person to which it was entrusted. I consulted some one that was studying law at the time that this incident occurred.

From curiosity I checked the laws in Alabama, Mississippi, New York, California, Ohio, Texas and Florida. The laws in those states are similar with the noticeable difference being in at what dollar value it is considered a felony to knowingly receive stolen goods.

I don’t know about the case either. That’s why I asked for confirmation that I’ve found the correct case. Wanted to look into the information available for it. Was going the ask the legal professional that assisted me in the incident I mentioned about it. But she’s too inundated with other task right now. Though I still hope to find information on it.

while i know this doesn’t apply to you it is interesting where physical goods are involved;

"…While pawnbrokers do not like this characterization of their business, police efforts have indicated that some pawnbrokers are involved in fencing. For example, in the US, the “Sarasota Police Department, Venice Police Department and North Port Police Department assisted with the undercover operation to sell gold jewelry to each [pawnshop] business. Many were found to be in compliance. However, a number of businesses were operating under a “no questions asked” policy, making no attempt to properly document the seller information, record the items being purchased or obtain the seller’s fingerprint, all of which are state requirements”.

 

[inocente]

This thread has drifted from the OP.

Not really. Hitchens made accusations against Mother Teresa. I can fully understand why her fans want to absolve her but they are making legal, not moral, arguments. If Hitchens is correct (I don’t know) then Mother Teresa did moral wrong according to CCC 1753 & 1759, and common sense. No excuses, period. If he is correct then God will judge her, and God doesn’t listen to legal technicalities.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**Not really. Hitchens made accusations against Mother Teresa. I can fully understand why her fans want to absolve her but they are making legal, not moral, arguments. **

Legal arguments usually rest upon moral arguments. Your attempt to divide them against each other is typical of all Protestant and atheist arguments that arise from bigotry against the saints of the Catholic Church.

 

[inocente]

inocente

**Not really. Hitchens made accusations against Mother Teresa. I can fully understand why her fans want to absolve her but they are making legal, not moral, arguments. **

Legal arguments usually rest upon moral arguments. Your attempt to divide them against each other is typical of all Protestant and atheist arguments that arise from bigotry against the saints of the Catholic Church.

I’m fine wirh CCC 1753 & 1759. If you want to disagree with the Church then that’s up to you.

By the way, I think maybe I told you before I’m not a protestant, but by all means call me a n******.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocent

By the way, I think maybe I told you before I’m not a protestant

Why do you designate yourself a Baptist?

 

[inocente]

inocent

By the way, I think maybe I told you before I’m not a protestant

Why do you designate yourself a Baptist?

I ain’t protesting, that’s like calling me a n******, only I don’t call myself a n******.

btw nice try getting out of the CCC, only trouble is God is brighter than you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

btw nice try getting out of the CCC, only trouble is God is brighter than you.

You got that right!

Brighter than you too!