Some users on 4chan went to all the trouble of creating a fake feminist conference, FemCon 2015, with a date and a hotel and fake enthusiastic twitter attendees, in order to collect registration fees from those stupid SJWs at $50 a pop. They even admitted that this was a fraudulent scheme to make money.
It’s not clear if they actually got any money from this bungled plan — instead, everyone seems to be making fun of those transparently incompetent 4channers — but isn’t this still a crime? Does an attempted fraud need a victim to be considered criminal?
At any rate, it does confirm that the Moot empire is largely the domain of wanna-be tough guys — what you’d get if the Mafia were run by clowns.
I’m not sure I get what the funny is supposed to be in sending “feminazi’s” (sic) to a gay bar. Do imaginary feminazis have the same hang-ups about sexuality as (some) 4channers? I’d’ve thought a Republican-oriented convention would have been funnier.
And they sprinkled homophobic icing on their misogynistic fraud plan. I am surprised. Not.
There is no such crime as attempted fraud. There is a conspiracy here, maybe, perhaps solicitation, but who would have jurisdiction over these people? It would be a headache for the prosecution, so I really don’t see any prosecutor exercising their discretion to go after these people in this particular case.
It might still happen. Of course, the bank information employed to gather the defrauded people’s money would presumably allow easy access to the police and provide the necessary evidence for the prosecution.
Is mere speculation about a hare-brained scheme like this illegal, though? Could anybody prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these weren’t just kids having a laugh about their silly “get rich quick”-schemes? I have my doubts. Hell, they could probably resort to their website’s reputation for viciousness and circle-jerking as evidence that they weren’t being serious.
Can’t help but wonder if MRA spew flooded the scam’s website and Twitter account. And, whether any MRAs made plans to demonstrate at the conference.
Which will be really bad, because gay people totally aren’t feminist.
This is generally why I suspect most MRAssholes are, at best, still in High School. Most adults are generally aware that, if you are going to commit fraud, you don’t start by announcing that you’re going to commit fraud.
Hell, Kent Hovind at least had that part down!
Yes, I believe. Some of these guys have really only been exposed to feminism in insane strawman form. I have a feeling that these people think that feminists literally hate all men, and that a group of feminists in a gay bar would result in a fist fight.
So the punchline of their little “joke” was lifted straight from the Police Academy movies? Oh you merry pranksters, only 30 something years out of date. Well done.
Given that it was intended to take place over the Internet this could be considered a crime like wire fraud that could get the feds involved.
Saganite @4
Seeing as they did set up a donation page and spent a considerable amount of time promoting it on Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook (they even created a sock-puppet feminist, named Jessica Alice, a few hours beforehand to constantly link to it), I’d say this is well-passed the ‘speculation’ stage.
@3 Amused — attempted fraud can be a crime. The typical judicial test is whether there was a “substantial step” toward committing the fraud. Mere preparation is not considered enough to prosecute, but “substantial step” means that the fraud would have likely gone forward had it not been interrupted by independent circumstances.
And naturally the vigor of the prosecution is almost entirely dependent upon the power of the organization(s) targeted. If you attempt to defraud Morgan Stanley, you’ll go to jail. If you attempt to defraud some SJWs, you’ll be hired by Breitbart.
That depends on the jurisdiction. “Criminal attempt” is a crime in many states, and represents taking substantial steps toward the commission of a crime, whether or not the crime was committed or even whether it was even possible to commit. (“Impossibility” crops up in drug cases: if you sell pencil shavings as ‘marijuana’, then you can’t possibly be guilty of selling drugs–but in many states, you can be convicted of attempting to sell drugs.)
In at least one state I know of, the attempt is graded the same as the actual offense. So attempting a first-degree felony is itself a first-degree felony; attempting a third-degree misdemeanor is a third degree misdemeanor; etc.
That said, it’s rare to charge someone with criminal attempt only. The most common charge is attempted distribution of drugs, and the charge usually accompanies a possession charge. Also, it’s unusual to charge criminal attempt for any but fairly serious crimes (unless they’re tossing it in with other crimes just to stack the deck against the defendant, or give material for a plea bargain). And in my jurisdiction at least, judges have discretion to dismiss a charge of criminal attempt if success was so ridiculously unlikely as not to constitute a danger to the public. They don’t call it the “Apple Dumpling Gang” exception, but they should.
Disclaimer: IANAL. What I say might be hooey, and even if it isn’t, it probably doesn’t apply where you live.
We’ve already seen them stalking women, distributing their personal information online, and sending death and rape threats. It’s no surprise that they’d be willing to commit fraud as well. They’ve convinced themselves that feminism is a great evil that needs to be stopped any way they can, so anything they do to oppose feminists, however vile, is inherently justified. Terrorists, MRAs, torture apologists, Sovereign Citizens, racist cops, they all have the same mentality: “It’s okay when WE do it, because we’re the GOOD guys!”
The funniest part of this, to me, is the opening line: “I think we should spread around on tumblr that there is going to be a feminist convention like Dashcon,” … because Dashcon was an abject failure, and immediately achieved meme status on tumblr. Literally! There’s a knowyourmeme page about it! So even if they hadn’t been absurdly transparent about it, I doubt “a feminist convention like Dashcon” would get many bites.
ummm, doesn’t fraud imply deception? So how can there be deception when they post it, on the internet with no subterfuge, that they are going to set up a payment page for an even they say will not happen and they will use the money to buy beer for themselves? Is this one of those double frauds, where you defraud by admitting you’re defrauding?
I assume this is a deliberate admission, so as to “make a point”, as some kind of attempt at accussing [sic] the “feminazis” of defrauding the public.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that if anyone really attempts to collect money for a nonexistent event, that will be fraud, and it will then, and only then, be illegal.
And no, state laws won’t apply — this is a national scam, using national means such as mail or the Internet. Only Federal laws (mail fraud, wire fraud, etc.) will apply here.
I was on a US (federal) grand jury. (Excellent education as to just how corrupt the “justice” system is.)
We heard cases of conspiracy to commit fraud. (Might have been wire fraud or mail fraud.)
So, no you don’t need to actually collect money to get charged with fraud. Conspiracy in particular requires only:
a. planning it, and
b. at least one person doing something to implement it.
Talking about it isn’t enough. But if one of the people who talked about it actually posts an ad for the fake conference, or tries to set up some mechanism for collecting the money, or something like that, they’re all guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud.
At least, that’s what the AUSAs always told us (but they might have been lying.)
Amused @ 3
Under US federal law, you’re correct. The elements of wire fraud, however, don’t require that you actually receive money, just that you transmit false statements across state lines trying to defraud someone. 18 USC 1843. So the crime is committed as soon as someone sends an interstate communication fraudulently promoting the fake conference.
Lots of people. Pretty much any state prosecutor or US attorney in the jurisdiction where a perpetrator or victim lived. You’re right, however, that prosecution seems unlikely. If you knew where the guy who created the payment page lived, it might be worth reporting the posts to the local FBI office.
Raging Bee @16
Assuming this falls under US jurisdisction, you’re right that federal law will apply, probably wire fraud. (18 USC 1343) . State law, however, could apply as well. For example, if the person setting up the page or the person being defrauded is in Texas ( Tex. Pen Code 1.04), they could be convicted of theft or attempted theft there. Tex, Pen Code 31.03 (in this case, taking property from someone by deception).
slithey tove
The fact that I’m really bad at hiding my planning of a crime doesn’t absolve me of that crime. The donation page makes materially false statements in an attempt to get people to send money. That’s fraud. If the donation page said the payments would solely be used to buy beer for the organizers and that the event would not happen, it might not be.
This would probably fall under 18 U.S.C. 1343, which states:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. “
Has anybody notified the bar? I bet the gay folks in the bar will feel compassion and protect any women/man that do show up no matter. Looks like an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive. Call the bar tell them some ripped off folks will be showing up and BOOM. You have a larger group of people meeting together that have more in common than not. Turn it into a solidarity party?
More than the money or the damage to the “feminazi” these guys’ priority seems to be bragging…
@Amused
Yet another reason we might need some kind of police and justice system for the internet itself.
@qwints, #18:
Thank you for all 3 parts of this. I know crap about US criminal statutes, but I know a bit about conflict-of-laws and the “no one has jurisdiction in this case” or “jurisdiction would be hard to establish in this case” assertion sounded completely wrong to me.
That someone else also had jurisdiction or a prosecutable case doesn’t mean that you don’t. And while in contract law the case has to be resolved in a single jurisdiction, if your behavior violates the criminal laws of Canada and the US and the state of, say, Wyoming, there’s no problem with 3 trials for the 3 statutes broken. Conflict of laws doctrine doesn’t insist that Wyoming has to determine the guilt of innocence according to Canadian law just because it also happens to be holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence under Wyoming law.
So, yeah. Thanks for that. Much more coherent and believable and, with the citations, informative.
No problem. It can get a little more complex if the courts hold that federal law contradicts or preempts state law, but that generally doesn’t happen in the criminal law field. The most recent example of that actualy happening wa Arizona v. US 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012) where the Supreme Court held that Arizona couldn’t make illegal immigration a state crime.
[Lionel Hutz]
“Your Honor, my clients would like to invoke the ‘doin’ it for the lulz’ defense!”
[/Lionel Hutz]
In the last year I have seen several stories about criminals who were caught after boasting of their exploits on social media. Maybe we need a new award, similar to the Darwin award?
The tumblr account is still up, and I see they are doing the typical thing channers do when their little ops fall apart, try claim some sort of victory, despite being shown to be utterly incompetent, and achieving nothing. I do not think they know what the word popular actually means.
@slithey tove, 15
Uh, hello? They’re behind a bajillion proxies? #subterfhuge
I do love how utterly inept channers are, though. They all think they’re anon, but so few of them understand that the internet never forgets.
@ Travis #29
They’re like cats pretending that they meant to fall off the bed, except they’re not cute. Sellby has apparently issued a statement that FemCon2015 sold zero tickets. And, wow, they got a whopping 55 notes on that one Tumblr post! Most of the posts mocking FemCon2015 have more notes than that. It’s dorks and doofuses all the way down.
Lindsay #31, that might be true, I see a comment on the tumblr post claiming that, but I have not found a statement by Sellfy yet. Perhaps it exists, my brain is slow and sluggish and not quite awake at the moment.
I see a Know Your Meme entry has been created for this. As always, the comments are a mess there, many commenters seem to believe in the same straw feminists that lead the silly people behind this to believe it would be convincing. This one stuck out for me, due to the utter cluelessness of it:
I just do not know how someone could go through that entry and come away with the idea people fell for it. Unless they use a similar metric to the creators of Femcon2015, and think people responding in any way, even if it is derision and laughter, constitutes falling for their tricks.
Actually, I was just looking at the Buzzfeed article and see they reached out to Sellfy, and found that no money had been spent.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/how-do-you-do-fellow-feminist-kids
-i don’t know how to feel, in one hand it was a scam and that is a crime, on the other hand feminists fell for it.
*snort* If by ‘feminists’, they mean their own damn sock puppets.
ts nt crmnl ctvty, nt my flt fmnzs r rtrds
Toxic: Conduct poor, effort poor. Grade: F minus.
nd shld cr bt n mgnry grd frm sm rndm plb n th ntrnt fr wht rsn? nt
Th nly rsn cm hr ws t s f thr ws rlly ny fr thnkrs, bt n n hr lk tht xsts nd ll tht d gt btd frm th blgs
It’s only free thinking if they agree with you, right Toxic Army Strong?
toxicpathetic
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought:
No empiricism, or third party facts linked to, just an appeal to your authority. You aren’t a free thinker, just a wannbe.
Hey, I guess we’re about to get a preview of PZ’s new commenting rules. :)
Ll y gys r prvng m rght XD nd n ts nt fr thnkng f y lwys gr wth m. ts nt fr thnkng whn ppl gt btd fr vcng yr wn pnns. Hnc why ppl lk Thndrf00t gt btd frm ths blg nd + Fr jst vcng hs pnns. nd hv fn ll ths tht wll try t trck m dwn thrgh my ml, ts n jst md. Hv fn wth tht ;)
Ll nd nrd, yr fckng rtrd. Hw n th fck cn y b “wnnb” fr thnkr. Stp tryng t b Spcl Snwflk
Complaining about poor, poor Thunderf00t. Asserting people are banned just because Opinions. Freshly made e-mail, therefore Untrackable. And random ableist slurs. We are truly dealing with an internet super genius.
n th wrds f PZ “f y s smthng y dn’t lk, rp nt t.”
nt syng m spr gns, jst sng smpl wys t nt b trckd by rtrds
toxic
The commenting rules forbid using ‘retard’ as an insult.
Stop it.
My bd ch. Dd’t knw
Don’t call me chi.
Easy wannbe alleged free thinker. You aren’t a free thinker. Dogma. Since most of the people in the USA aren’t feminist, the dogma to be opposed is those people who oppose or are indifferent to feminism.. You provide no evidence to back your claims (argument from your authority *snicker* is not a freethinking position), but I do. That make me with prima facie evidence a free thinker, and you a non-thinker. You can’t even figure out the definitions of words and how to apply them. Pitiful case of a know-nothing in action.,
For all the whining about freethinking from toxic, I have yet to see a single actual thought put forward. Unless you count them slinging ableist slurs and then pleading ignorance about the acceptability of said slurs as “thought”.
(In other words: obvious troll is obvious. And I am done with poking them)
There seems to be some confusion. There isn’t going to be less moderation, there’s going to be more.
Of course toxic is banned. Also, just got added to the block filter.
Comment by toxic blocked.
Thank you greasemonkey.
Al Dente #54, is greasemonkey finally working again?
glad to disemvoleling has returned (to discourage toxic [sic] slurs).
re 56:
edit::
disemvoleling-> disemvowelingBy the way, when horrible people like toxic show up, do feel free to use the “report a problem” link on the sidebar — it goes straight to a google group I can peruse when I get a moment, and then I can pop in and obliterate the poisonous little toad.
Despite having read your other post recently, which mentions this, the though never even crossed my mind. I really need to work on that, using the tools that are available to deal with these things quickly, rather than letting them taint and ruin comment sections.
It’s funny, all that crap from toxic, and the most annoying thing?
“Hence why…”
*shudder*
I don’t know why reporting it didn’t occur to me. Ugh.
It occurred to me.