Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
===========================
>
> >>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
> >>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did not
> >>>> believe she was causing a detriment because she is an anti-vaxxer.
> >>>>
> >>> ** Total nonsense.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 409. Fraud
> >>>>
> >>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ** Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the cost of doing another vaccination.
> >>>
> >>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if the woman got ill from Covid.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.
> >>
> >> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not
> >> have the required intention.
> >>
> >
> > ** Massive, stupid fallacy.
> > The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
> > She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be defended.
> >
> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
> life needs such as food and shelter.

** Pigs might fly too - fuckwit.

> >> The employer would not have to cover the cost of doing another
> >> vaccination. The government would pay for both attempts.
> >>
> >> The employer would not be at risk of being sued for medical negligence
> >> if the woman was responsible for the actions.
> >
> > ** 10000 % WRONG
> >
> > Employers always face * vicarious liability * for whatever bad things employees do.
> >
> Vicarious liability does not apply when employees do not follow orders
> and go on a 'frolic of their own'.
>

** 10000000% WRONG It * especially applies * then.

If only "following orders" the employer is 100% directly liable.

...... Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
> > Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> >> Rod Speed wrote
> >>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> Else wrote
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-08/nurse-who-allegedly-faked-covid-vaccines-charged/100602566>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If this turns out to be true, then the teenager has a cause
> >>>>>>>>>>> of action
> >>>>>>>>>>> against the nurse, and her employer via vicarious
> liability, for
> >>>>>>>>>>> assault. The police should also charge the nurse with
> >>>>>>>>>>> criminal assault.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ** Huh ???
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is because the teenager consented to have a vaccination,
> >>>>>>>>>>> not to
> >>>>>>>>>>> have a needle stuck into her arm.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ** ROTFL wot a hoot.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The teen contracted to get a vaccine injected, but only got
> >>>>>>>>>> half the deal.
> >>>>>>>>>> Contract not completed - one free vaccine jab required.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> They are always free, fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I dare say the nurse will be struck off the register, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> never work as
> >>>>>>>>>>> a nurse again.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Seen nurses doing a lot worse.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, deliberately killing people with lethal injections.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've heard they steal patients' pain-killers, just
> >>>>>>>> to shoot up with them (the pain killers that is).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yeah, that certainly happens. Not clear why this one faked the
> >>>>>>> vaccination tho.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The woman has been charged with fraud,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> but the definition of fraud is gaining by dishonesty.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That’s just one type of fraud.
> >>>
> >>>> That's the only thing fraud is.
> >>>
> >>> You are wrong, as always. Most obviously with what
> >>> that stupid cow did and pretending to be someone
> >>> else in usenet etc.
> >
> >> It is not fraud to impersonate someone on usenet, if you don't gain
> >> anything of value by doing it.
> >
> > You are wrong, as always.
> >
> > And you always gain something by doing it
> > because otherwise you wouldn’t do it, fuckwit.

> The law only recognises value in things that could be converted to dollar
> value.

You are wrong, as always.

> Personal gratification in doing something cannot be converted to dollar
> value.

Doesn’t need to be to be fraud, as that stupid cow proves.

> >> There are certain laws about impersonating a police officer etc,
> >
> > In fact quite specific ones in that case.
> >
> >> but that is not 'fraud'.
> >
> > You are wrong, as always.
> > > And what that stupid cow did is fraud without
> > any personal reward for the stupid cow.

> This is the definition of fraud in WA.

You are wrong, as always.

> You might think that 1(d) applies because it is about causing a detriment,
> but the woman did not believe she was causing a detriment because she is
> an anti-vaxxer.

But she obviously did cause detriment if she had not got caught, fuckwit.

> 409. Fraud

> (1) Any person who, with intent to defraud, by deceit or any
> fraudulent means —
> (a) obtains property from any person; or
> (b) induces any person to deliver property to another person; or
> (c) gains a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person; or

This one covers pretending to be someone else, fuckwit.

> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise,

Pity about that. There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

> to anyperson; or
> (e) induces any person to do any act that the person is lawfully entitled
> to abstain from doing; or

Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.

> (f) induces any person to abstain from doing any act that the person is
> lawfully entitled to do,

Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.

> is guilty of a crime

So that stupid cow is guilty of criminal fraud, fuckwit.

> >>>>>> So what did she gain by doing it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That remains to be seen when she shows up in court.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And some are curt and rude.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Some are indeed.
> >
> >

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Max wrote

>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did not
>> believe she was causing a detriment because she is an anti-vaxxer.

> Total nonsense.

As always.

>> 409. Fraud

>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or

> Her employer suffered detriment as he would have
> to cover the cost of doing another vaccination.

Nope, that didn’t cost him anything.

> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical
> negligence if the woman got ill from Covid.

Not possible to prove by then that there had been no vaccination.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did not
>>> believe she was causing a detriment because she is an anti-vaxxer.

>> Total nonsense.

>>> 409. Fraud

>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or

>> Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the cost of
>> doing another vaccination.

>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if the woman
>> got ill from Covid.

> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.

There was no criminal offence by the employer.

> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not have
> the required intention.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually
manage and that’s saying something. The stupid
cow had the 'mens rea' or 'intention'. To not give
a valid vaccination. THAT’S the detriment, fuckwit.

> The employer would not have to cover the cost of doing another
> vaccination. The government would pay for both attempts.

Very arguable that they would pay for the first one.

> The employer would not be at risk of being sued for medical negligence if
> the woman was responsible for the actions.

But the employer did supervise her actions
and caught her fraud because he did.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max wrote

>>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>>>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did not
>>>>> believe she was causing a detriment because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>>>>>
>>>> ** Total nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>>>
>>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the cost
>>>> of doing another vaccination.
>>>>
>>>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if the
>>>> woman got ill from Covid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.
>>>
>>> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not
>>> have the required intention.
>>>
>>
>> ** Massive, stupid fallacy.
>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be defended.

> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic life
> needs such as food and shelter.

Corse she couldn’t given that she could obviously get a job
that doesn’t involve doing vaccinations or even go on the dole.

On 11/11/2021 4:43 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
> ===========================
>>
>>>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>>>>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did not
>>>>>> believe she was causing a detriment because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ** Total nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the cost of doing another vaccination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if the woman got ill from Covid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.
>>>>
>>>> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not
>>>> have the required intention.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Massive, stupid fallacy.
>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be defended.
>>>
>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>
> ** Pigs might fly too - fuckwit.
>
>
>>>> The employer would not have to cover the cost of doing another
>>>> vaccination. The government would pay for both attempts.
>>>>
>>>> The employer would not be at risk of being sued for medical negligence
>>>> if the woman was responsible for the actions.
>>>
>>> ** 10000 % WRONG
>>>
>>> Employers always face * vicarious liability * for whatever bad things employees do.
>>>
>> Vicarious liability does not apply when employees do not follow orders
>> and go on a 'frolic of their own'.
>>
>
> ** 10000000% WRONG It * especially applies * then.
>
> If only "following orders" the employer is 100% directly liable.
>

I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
on their own'. That is when viarious liability does NOT apply.

Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
> on their own'.
>

** Define the words in quote marks.

Cos that did not fucking happen here.

...... Phil

On 11/11/2021 6:51 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
>> on their own'.
>>
>
> ** Define the words in quote marks.
>
> Cos that did not fucking happen here.
>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>

'In N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the High Court held that
the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for an assault carried
out by a policeman employed by the Merseyside force. It was clear on the
facts that the policeman had used his position as an opportunity to
commit the assault and was "on a frolic of his own". As the police owe
no specific duty of care to potential victims and the actions of the
policeman were not closely connected to his employment, it was not fair
or just to impose vicarious liability on his employer. Although this
case relates specifically to the police, it applies general common law
vicarious liability principles which are relevant for all employment
relationships.'

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-207-4045

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:55:22 +1100, Max posted:-

> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did
> not believe she was causing a detriment because she is an anti-vaxxer.

Doesn't matter what she believes, what matters is what the law says.

I believe I don't have to wear a seat belt, so I am above the law?

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:34:03 +1100, Max posted:-

> > The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
> > She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
> > defended.
>
> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
> life needs such as food and shelter.

Irrelevant. No defence.

She will never work again as a nurse.

Good fucking riddance, IMO.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Max wrote

>> I said when the employee is NOT following
>> orders and goes on a 'frolic on their own'.

> Define the words in quote marks.
> Cos that did not fucking happen here.

Corse it did.

Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
>>
> >> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
> >> on their own'.
> >>
> >
> > ** Define the words in quote marks.
> >
> > Cos that did not fucking happen here.
> >
> >
> 'In N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the High Court held that
> the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for an assault carried
> out by a policeman employed by the Merseyside force. It was clear on the
> facts that the policeman had used his position as an opportunity to
> commit the assault and was "on a frolic of his own". As the police owe
> no specific duty of care to potential victims and the actions of the
> policeman were not closely connected to his employment, it was not fair
> or just to impose vicarious liability on his employer. Although this
> case relates specifically to the police, it applies general common law
> vicarious liability principles which are relevant for all employment
> relationships.'
>

** YOU fucking Google monkey moron !!!!!!!!!

Drop Fucking DEAD
-------------------------------

...... Phil

On 11/11/2021 8:08 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>
>>>> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
>>>> on their own'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Define the words in quote marks.
>>>
>>> Cos that did not fucking happen here.
>>>
>>>
>> 'In N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the High Court held that
>> the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for an assault carried
>> out by a policeman employed by the Merseyside force. It was clear on the
>> facts that the policeman had used his position as an opportunity to
>> commit the assault and was "on a frolic of his own". As the police owe
>> no specific duty of care to potential victims and the actions of the
>> policeman were not closely connected to his employment, it was not fair
>> or just to impose vicarious liability on his employer. Although this
>> case relates specifically to the police, it applies general common law
>> vicarious liability principles which are relevant for all employment
>> relationships.'
>>
>
> ** YOU fucking Google monkey moron !!!!!!!!!
>

You asked a question, I gave an answer. The fact that the answer came
from Google means nothing.

"on a frolic of his own" is a famous legal phrase which has been part of
the law for a long time, as being an exception to vicarious liability.

On 11/11/2021 5:23 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>>>>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> believe she was causing a detriment because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ** Total nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the
>>>>> cost of doing another vaccination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if the
>>>>> woman got ill from Covid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.
>>>>
>>>> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not
>>>> have the required intention.
>>>>
>>>
>>>   **  Massive, stupid fallacy.
>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be defended.
>
>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>
> Corse she couldn’t given that she could obviously get a job
> that doesn’t involve doing vaccinations or even go on the dole.
>
>

She might not be able to get a job doing anything else. The dole might
not pay her rent.

On 11/11/2021 7:05 pm, Mountain Magpie wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:34:03 +1100, Max posted:-
>
>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
>>> defended.
>>
>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>
> Irrelevant. No defence.
>
> She will never work again as a nurse.
>
> Good fucking riddance, IMO.
>

She wants to be a chiropractor. Will that profession let her be part of it?

On 11/11/2021 5:11 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>> > Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> >> Rod Speed wrote
>> >>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
>> >>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>> >>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>> >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> >>>>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>> >>>>>>>>>> Else wrote
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-08/nurse-who-allegedly-faked-covid-vaccines-charged/100602566>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> If this turns out to be true, then the teenager has a cause
>> >>>>>>>>>>> of action
>> >>>>>>>>>>> against the nurse, and her employer via vicarious
>> liability, for
>> >>>>>>>>>>> assault. The police should also charge the nurse with
>> >>>>>>>>>>> criminal assault.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> **  Huh  ???
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is because the teenager consented to have a vaccination,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> not to
>> >>>>>>>>>>> have a needle stuck into her arm.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> ** ROTFL   wot a hoot.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> The teen contracted to get a vaccine injected, but only got
>> >>>>>>>>>> half the deal.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Contract not completed  -  one free vaccine jab required.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> They are always free, fuckwit.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I dare say the nurse will be struck off the register, and
>> >>>>>>>>>>> never work as
>> >>>>>>>>>>> a nurse again.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Seen nurses doing a lot worse.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, deliberately killing people with lethal injections.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I've heard they steal patients' pain-killers, just
>> >>>>>>>> to shoot up with them (the pain killers that is).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Yeah, that certainly happens. Not clear why this one faked the
>> >>>>>>> vaccination tho.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> The woman has been charged with fraud,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> but the definition of fraud is gaining by dishonesty.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That’s just one type of fraud.
>> >>>
>> >>>> That's the only thing fraud is.
>> >>>
>> >>> You are wrong, as always. Most obviously with what
>> >>> that stupid cow did and pretending to be someone
>> >>> else in usenet etc.
>> >
>> >> It is not fraud to impersonate someone on usenet, if you don't gain
>> >> anything of value by doing it.
>> >
>> > You are wrong, as always.
>> >
>> > And you always gain something by doing it
>> > because otherwise you wouldn’t do it, fuckwit.
>
>> The law only recognises value in things that could be converted to
>> dollar value.
>
> You are wrong, as always.
>
>> Personal gratification in doing something cannot be converted to
>> dollar value.
>
> Doesn’t need to be to be fraud, as that stupid cow proves.
>
>> >> There are certain laws about impersonating a police officer etc,
>> >
>> > In fact quite specific ones in that case.
>> >
>> >> but that is not 'fraud'.
>> >
>> > You are wrong, as always.
>> > > And what that stupid cow did is fraud without
>> > any personal reward for the stupid cow.
>
>> This is the definition of fraud in WA.
>
> You are wrong, as always.
>

Copied from the WA legislation website, fuckwit.

>> You might think that 1(d) applies because it is about causing a
>> detriment, but the woman did not believe she was causing a detriment
>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>
> But she obviously did cause detriment if she had not got caught, fuckwit.
>

Not in her mind because she is an anti-vaxxer.

>> 409. Fraud
>
>> (1) Any person who, with intent to defraud, by deceit or any
>> fraudulent means —
>> (a) obtains property from any person; or
>> (b) induces any person to deliver property to another person; or
>> (c) gains a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person; or
>
> This one covers pretending to be someone else, fuckwit.
>

The benefit has to something of value. Personal gratification doesn't count.

>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise,
>
> Pity about that. There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>

There is no detriment in her mind because she is an anti-vaxxer.

>> to anyperson; or
>> (e) induces any person to do any act that the person is lawfully
>> entitled to abstain from doing; or
>
> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.
>
>> (f) induces any person to abstain from doing any act that the person
>> is lawfully entitled to do,
>
> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.
>

Doesn't have to say that. That is how the law works.

>> is guilty of a crime
>
> So that stupid cow is guilty of criminal fraud, fuckwit.
>
>> >>>>>> So what did she gain by doing it?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That remains to be seen when she shows up in court.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> And some are curt and rude.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Some are indeed.
>> >
>> >

Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> >>>> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
> >>>> on their own'.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ** Define the words in quote marks.
> >>>
> >>> Cos that did not fucking happen here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> 'In N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the High Court held that
> >> the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for an assault carried
> >> out by a policeman employed by the Merseyside force. It was clear on the
> >> facts that the policeman had used his position as an opportunity to
> >> commit the assault and was "on a frolic of his own". As the police owe
> >> no specific duty of care to potential victims and the actions of the
> >> policeman were not closely connected to his employment, it was not fair
> >> or just to impose vicarious liability on his employer. Although this
> >> case relates specifically to the police, it applies general common law
> >> vicarious liability principles which are relevant for all employment
> >> relationships.'
> >>
> >
> > ** YOU fucking Google monkey moron !!!!!!!!!
> >
> You asked a question, I gave an answer.

** A fake one, from mindless Google monkeying.

> "on a frolic of his own" is a famous legal phrase which has been part of
> the law for a long time,

** No way it applies to this case.

Read you own FUCKING cite - arsehole.
=================================

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>>>>>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman did
>>>>>>> not believe she was causing a detriment because she is an
>>>>>>> anti-vaxxer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Total nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the cost
>>>>>> of doing another vaccination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if the
>>>>>> woman got ill from Covid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.
>>>>>
>>>>> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not
>>>>> have the required intention.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** Massive, stupid fallacy.
>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be defended.
>>
>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>
>> Corse she couldn’t given that she could obviously get a job
>> that doesn’t involve doing vaccinations or even go on the dole.

> She might not be able to get a job doing anything else.

Bullshit with someone who obviously got qualified to be a nurse.

> The dole might not pay her rent.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit given rent assistance.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Mountain Magpie wrote
>> Max wrote

>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
>>>> defended.
>>>
>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>
>> Irrelevant. No defence.
>>
>> She will never work again as a nurse.
>>
>> Good fucking riddance, IMO.
>>
>
> She wants to be a chiropractor. Will that profession let her be part of
> it?

They get no say on that.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> > Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> >> Rod Speed wrote
>>> >>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> >>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> >>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>> >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> >>>>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Else wrote
>>> >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-08/nurse-who-allegedly-faked-covid-vaccines-charged/100602566>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If this turns out to be true, then the teenager has a cause
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of action
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> against the nurse, and her employer via vicarious
>>> liability, for
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> assault. The police should also charge the nurse with
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> criminal assault.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> ** Huh ???
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is because the teenager consented to have a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> vaccination,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> have a needle stuck into her arm.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> ** ROTFL wot a hoot.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> The teen contracted to get a vaccine injected, but only got
>>> >>>>>>>>>> half the deal.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Contract not completed - one free vaccine jab required.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> They are always free, fuckwit.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I dare say the nurse will be struck off the register, and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> never work as
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a nurse again.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Seen nurses doing a lot worse.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, deliberately killing people with lethal injections.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> I've heard they steal patients' pain-killers, just
>>> >>>>>>>> to shoot up with them (the pain killers that is).
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, that certainly happens. Not clear why this one faked the
>>> >>>>>>> vaccination tho.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> The woman has been charged with fraud,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Yes.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> but the definition of fraud is gaining by dishonesty.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> That’s just one type of fraud.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> That's the only thing fraud is.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You are wrong, as always. Most obviously with what
>>> >>> that stupid cow did and pretending to be someone
>>> >>> else in usenet etc.
>>> >
>>> >> It is not fraud to impersonate someone on usenet, if you don't gain
>>> >> anything of value by doing it.
>>> >
>>> > You are wrong, as always.
>>> >
>>> > And you always gain something by doing it
>>> > because otherwise you wouldn’t do it, fuckwit.
>>
>>> The law only recognises value in things that could be converted to
>>> dollar value.
>>
>> You are wrong, as always.
>>
>>> Personal gratification in doing something cannot be converted to dollar
>>> value.
>>
>> Doesn’t need to be to be fraud, as that stupid cow proves.
>>
>>> >> There are certain laws about impersonating a police officer etc,
>>> >
>>> > In fact quite specific ones in that case.
>>> >
>>> >> but that is not 'fraud'.
>>> >
>>> > You are wrong, as always.
>>> > > And what that stupid cow did is fraud without
>>> > any personal reward for the stupid cow.
>>
>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA.
>>
>> You are wrong, as always.

> Copied from the WA legislation website

Which says nothing like what you stupidly claimed.

>>> You might think that 1(d) applies because it is about causing a
>>> detriment, but the woman did not believe she was causing a detriment
>>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.

>> But she obviously did cause detriment if she had not got caught, fuckwit.

> Not in her mind

Her mind is completely irrelevant to what she actually did.

> because she is an anti-vaxxer.

>>> 409. Fraud
>>
>>> (1) Any person who, with intent to defraud, by deceit or any
>>> fraudulent means —
>>> (a) obtains property from any person; or
>>> (b) induces any person to deliver property to another person; or
>>> (c) gains a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person; or

>> This one covers pretending to be someone else, fuckwit.

> The benefit has to something of value.

The legislation says nothing like that.

> Personal gratification doesn't count.

The legislation says nothing like that.

>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise,

>> Pity about that. There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

> There is no detriment in her mind

Her mind is completely irrelevant to what she actually did.

> because she is an anti-vaxxer.

>>> to anyperson; or
>>> (e) induces any person to do any act that the person is lawfully
>>> entitled to abstain from doing; or

>> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.

>>> (f) induces any person to abstain from doing any act that the person is
>>> lawfully entitled to do,

>> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.

> Doesn't have to say that. That is how the law works.

More of your mindless pig ignorant shit.

>>> is guilty of a crime

>> So that stupid cow is guilty of criminal fraud, fuckwit.
>>
>>> >>>>>> So what did she gain by doing it?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> That remains to be seen when she shows up in court.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> And some are curt and rude.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Some are indeed.

On 12/11/2021 5:24 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
>>>>>> on their own'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Define the words in quote marks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cos that did not fucking happen here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 'In N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the High Court held that
>>>> the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for an assault carried
>>>> out by a policeman employed by the Merseyside force. It was clear on the
>>>> facts that the policeman had used his position as an opportunity to
>>>> commit the assault and was "on a frolic of his own". As the police owe
>>>> no specific duty of care to potential victims and the actions of the
>>>> policeman were not closely connected to his employment, it was not fair
>>>> or just to impose vicarious liability on his employer. Although this
>>>> case relates specifically to the police, it applies general common law
>>>> vicarious liability principles which are relevant for all employment
>>>> relationships.'
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** YOU fucking Google monkey moron !!!!!!!!!
>>>
>> You asked a question, I gave an answer.
>
> ** A fake one, from mindless Google monkeying.
>
>
>> "on a frolic of his own" is a famous legal phrase which has been part of
>> the law for a long time,
>
> ** No way it applies to this case.
>
> Read you own FUCKING cite - arsehole.
> =================================
>

How about this one:

"The employer of the nurse is vicariously liable for the actions of the
nurse and the nurses are not personally responsible for negligent
conduct. This is the case even if the nurses behaviour is what is
considered grossly negligent.

For a nurse to be personally liable for their conduct, the conduct would
need to be almost criminal conduct; for example, deliberately causing
harm to a patient."

https://www.andersons.com.au/lawtalk/2015/february/duty-of-care-of-nurses-to-patients/

So the employer is not vicariously liable for criminal conduct of the
nurse. There's no question the nurse as done criminal conduct - though
it's not clear that the crime is fraud. Therefore the employer is not
vicariously liable. QED.

On 12/11/2021 8:19 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA. You might think that 1(d)
>>>>>>>> applies because it is about causing a detriment, but the woman
>>>>>>>> did not believe she was causing a detriment because she is an
>>>>>>>> anti-vaxxer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** Total nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise, to anyperson; or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** Her employer suffered detriment as he would have to cover the
>>>>>>> cost of doing another vaccination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also it put him at risk of being sued for medical negligence if
>>>>>>> the woman got ill from Covid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every criminal offence requires a 'mens rea' or 'intention'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If she does not believe she is causing a detriment then she does not
>>>>>> have the required intention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   **  Massive, stupid fallacy.
>>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be defended.
>>>
>>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>>
>>> Corse she couldn’t given that she could obviously get a job
>>> that doesn’t involve doing vaccinations or even go on the dole.
>
>> She might not be able to get a job doing anything else.
>
> Bullshit with someone who obviously got qualified to be a nurse.
>

You don't know that. Maybe all the jobs are taken.

>> The dole might not pay her rent.
>
> More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit given rent assistance.

Might not be enough to pay rent to house her children.

On 12/11/2021 8:21 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Mountain Magpie wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>> The correct & legal response to such belief is she to quits her job.
>>>>> She well knew that her view was outside the law so cannot be
>>>>> defended.
>>>>
>>>> She might argue that she needed the income from job to support basic
>>>> life needs such as food and shelter.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.  No defence.
>>>
>>> She will never work again as a nurse.
>>>
>>> Good fucking riddance, IMO.
>>>
>>
>> She wants to be a chiropractor. Will that profession let her be part
>> of it?
>
> They get no say on that.

The chiropractors board would get a say on who joins the profession.

Fuck OFF Max the MORON wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>>>>> I said when the employee is NOT following orders and goes on a 'frolic
> >>>>>> on their own'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ** Define the words in quote marks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cos that did not fucking happen here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> 'In N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the High Court held that
> >>>> the Chief Constable was not vicariously liable for an assault carried
> >>>> out by a policeman employed by the Merseyside force. It was clear on the
> >>>> facts that the policeman had used his position as an opportunity to
> >>>> commit the assault and was "on a frolic of his own". As the police owe
> >>>> no specific duty of care to potential victims and the actions of the
> >>>> policeman were not closely connected to his employment, it was not fair
> >>>> or just to impose vicarious liability on his employer. Although this
> >>>> case relates specifically to the police, it applies general common law
> >>>> vicarious liability principles which are relevant for all employment
> >>>> relationships.'
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ** YOU fucking Google monkey moron !!!!!!!!!
> >>>
> >> You asked a question, I gave an answer.
> >
> > ** A fake one, from mindless Google monkeying.
> >
> >
> >> "on a frolic of his own" is a famous legal phrase which has been part of
> >> the law for a long time,
> >
> > ** No way it applies to this case.
> >
> > Read you own FUCKING cite - arsehole.
> > =================================
> >
> How about this one:

** It ain't the law - just more Google Monkey Shit.
=======================================

> "The employer of the nurse is vicariously liable for the actions of the
> nurse and the nurses are not personally responsible for negligent
> conduct. This is the case even if the nurses behaviour is what is
> considered grossly negligent.

** Game over - vicarious liability rules.
=================================
>
> For a nurse to be personally liable for their conduct, the conduct would
> need to be almost criminal conduct; for example, deliberately causing
> harm to a patient."

** Didn't happen here.

>There's no question the nurse as done criminal conduct

** Not in relation to the patient.

> it's not clear that the crime is fraud.

** That was the police charger.

> Therefore the employer is not
> vicariously liable. QED.

** ROTFL - wot insane crap.

On 12/11/2021 8:26 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> > Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> >> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> >>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> >>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>> >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Else wrote
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-08/nurse-who-allegedly-faked-covid-vaccines-charged/100602566>
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If this turns out to be true, then the teenager has a cause
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of action
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> against the nurse, and her employer via vicarious
>>>> liability, for
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> assault. The police should also charge the nurse with
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> criminal assault.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **  Huh  ???
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is because the teenager consented to have a
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> vaccination,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not to
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> have a needle stuck into her arm.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ** ROTFL   wot a hoot.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The teen contracted to get a vaccine injected, but only got
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> half the deal.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Contract not completed  -  one free vaccine jab required.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are always free, fuckwit.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I dare say the nurse will be struck off the register, and
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> never work as
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a nurse again.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Seen nurses doing a lot worse.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, deliberately killing people with lethal injections.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> I've heard they steal patients' pain-killers, just
>>>> >>>>>>>> to shoot up with them (the pain killers that is).
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, that certainly happens. Not clear why this one faked the
>>>> >>>>>>> vaccination tho.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> The woman has been charged with fraud,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Yes.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> but the definition of fraud is gaining by dishonesty.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> That’s just one type of fraud.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> That's the only thing fraud is.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> You are wrong, as always. Most obviously with what
>>>> >>> that stupid cow did and pretending to be someone
>>>> >>> else in usenet etc.
>>>> >
>>>> >> It is not fraud to impersonate someone on usenet, if you don't gain
>>>> >> anything of value by doing it.
>>>> >
>>>> > You are wrong, as always.
>>>> >
>>>> > And you always gain something by doing it
>>>> > because otherwise you wouldn’t do it, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> The law only recognises value in things that could be converted to
>>>> dollar value.
>>>
>>> You are wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> Personal gratification in doing something cannot be converted to
>>>> dollar value.
>>>
>>> Doesn’t need to be to be fraud, as that stupid cow proves.
>>>
>>>> >> There are certain laws about impersonating a police officer etc,
>>>> >
>>>> > In fact quite specific ones in that case.
>>>> >
>>>> >> but that is not 'fraud'.
>>>> >
>>>> > You are wrong, as always.
>>>> > > And what that stupid cow did is fraud without
>>>> > any personal reward for the stupid cow.
>>>
>>>> This is the definition of fraud in WA.
>>>
>>> You are wrong, as always.
>
>> Copied from the WA legislation website
>
> Which says nothing like what you stupidly claimed.
>
>>>> You might think that 1(d) applies because it is about causing a
>>>> detriment, but the woman did not believe she was causing a detriment
>>>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>
>>> But she obviously did cause detriment if she had not got caught,
>>> fuckwit.
>
>> Not in her mind
>
> Her mind is completely irrelevant to what she actually did.
>

It is part of the common law of this country that a person's intention
is part of the offence. The person has to have a 'guilty mind'.

>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>
>>>> 409. Fraud
>>>
>>>> (1) Any person who, with intent to defraud, by deceit or any
>>>> fraudulent means —
>>>> (a) obtains property from any person; or
>>>> (b) induces any person to deliver property to another person; or
>>>> (c) gains a benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person; or
>
>>> This one covers pretending to be someone else, fuckwit.
>
>> The benefit has to something of value.
>
> The legislation says nothing like that.
>
>> Personal gratification doesn't count.
>
> The legislation says nothing like that.
>

You don't get to decide what the legislation means. The courts do.

>>>> (d) causes a detriment, pecuniary or otherwise,
>
>>> Pity about that. There you go, face down in the mud, as always.
>
>> There is no detriment in her mind
>
> Her mind is completely irrelevant to what she actually did.
>

It is part of the common law of this country that a person's intention
is part of the offence. The person has to have a 'guilty mind'.

>> because she is an anti-vaxxer.
>
>>>> to anyperson; or
>>>> (e) induces any person to do any act that the person is lawfully
>>>> entitled to abstain from doing; or
>
>>> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.
>
>>>> (f) induces any person to abstain from doing any act that the person
>>>> is lawfully entitled to do,
>
>>> Also doesn’t say anything about dollar value.
>
>> Doesn't have to say that. That is how the law works.
>
> More of your mindless pig ignorant shit.
>
>>>> is guilty of a crime
>
>>> So that stupid cow is guilty of criminal fraud, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> >>>>>> So what did she gain by doing it?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> That remains to be seen when she shows up in court.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> And some are curt and rude.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Some are indeed.
>
>