Source: https://lpcprof.typepad.com/law_and_magic_blog/fortune-telling/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:14:00+00:00

Document:
From the New York Times: the saga of Janet Lee, the "Greenwich Psychic" facing identity theft and forgery charges for signing another woman's name on a lease for an apartment in Manhattan and for using a fake driver's license.
Note that the Connecticut statute banning fortune telling was repealed in 1993. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-265-278; 1993 Bill Text CT H.B. 5040 enacted April 1, 1993. New York still bans fortune telling. See NY CLS Penal § 165.35: A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement. Fortune telling is a class B misdemeanor.
I've been looking at some of the recent cases brought under the Canadian federal law that bans the practice of witchcraft (Canadian Criminal Code. RS 1985. c. C-46 §365). They are extremely interesting. The most recent one that I can find is that of Yacouba Fofana, aka Professor Alfoseny, arrested back in April, 2014, on charges of fraud and yes, witchcraft, under the current statute. Now, the fraud count convictions can bring serious time, but prosecutors are apparently beginning to bring the witchcraft charges in order to hold suspects until they can gather evidence (at least that's what I can determine from media coverage). Conviction on a witchcraft charge is a misdemeanor--what Canadian law calls a summary conviction. I love Commonwealth legal language. It's so elegant. But I digress.
As I say, Mr. Fofana's arrest and conviction are only among the latest in a series. In December, 2014, Toronto police charged a Spanish language newspaper publisher with violating the law. According to the article I link to here that describes this defendant's arrest and detention, the code provision is related to those English laws that used to send "accused witches" to "burn at the stake." Skipping over the notion that "accused" persons went directly to their doom (even in medieval times, the courts paid due deference to trials and convictions before dispatching defendants to the Great Beyond), those sentenced to die for witchcraft didn't die at the stake. They were hanged. On the continent, however, yes--they were burned.
I have some disagreements with other statements in the article. Rather than go through them specifically, I'll just run through the history of the adoption of the 1735 Witchcraft Act, explain its interpretation, its export to Canada as I understand it, and discuss how the drafters of the Canadian Criminal Code of 1892 pulled the law in effect into that unified document. Sir John A. MacDonald, the great Canadian Prime Minister, led the fight for codification, and the 1892 Code was his monument (although it was completed under Sir John Thompson, a later PM).
Recent research indicates that while Enlightenment thought heavily influenced the MPs who voted for the new Witchcraft Act (9 Geo. II, ch. 5, s. 4), the folks who voted for them (and the unenfranchised) were unpersuaded by the new thinking. Check out writing by Ian Bostridge (Witchcraft and Its Transformations, c. 1650-c.1750, Oxford, 1997, yes the wonderful Schubertian, and how can one person excel in two such different realms?) and Owen Davies (Popular Magic: Cunning Folks in English History, Bloomsbury Academic, 2007) on the persistence of popular belief in witches and witchcraft. What was the meaning of the change in the 1735 Witchcraft Act? They made the claim that one was a witch illegal, because Parliament held through the Act that witchcraft itself--the possibility that one could complete the act--was impossible. The Act also criminalized the accusation that someone was a witch. Thus, no one could claim to be a witch and no one could accuse another of being a witch.
The Witchcraft Act 1735 came to Canada through the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763.
It was codified in the Canadian Criminal Code of 1892 at section 396. Here's the text of that original act.
Pretending to practise witchcraft — Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who pretends to exercise or use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration, or undertakes to tell fortunes, or pretends from his skill or knowledge in any occult or crafty science, to discover where or in what manner any goods or chattels supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found.
This law is essentially the equivalent of that 1735 Witchcraft Act. Here I must make two important points. First, the statute does not allow any defense if the accused admits to the act. Second, the word "pretends" means "claims" or "alleges." It derives from the French word "pretendre," to claim. It does not have the ordinary meaning of "pretends," as in "She's wearing a Hallowe'en costume and pretending to be Glinda the Good Witch from the Wizard of Oz."
The text of the statute remained the same until the recodification of 1953/4, ch. 51, sec. 308. Why, I don't know, but I think it may have been because the UK repealed its Witchcraft Act in 1951, replacing it with the Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951. Yes, I know the title is vaguely amusing. The Fraudulent Mediums Act provided that one could only be convicted if the government showed that the defendant intended to deceive by "purport[ing} to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers" or used some fraudulent device, and accepted some consideration (money or other thing of value). The new UK law was aimed at frauds, not at those genuinely believed in their paranormal abilities, even though they might be self-deluded.
Here's the text of the new Canadian law passed in 1953/1954.
This law is still in effect today. The Criminal Code has been recodified several times, the provision still reads as above, and you can find the witchcraft provision in the 1985 revision at section 365 as I note above.
The inclusion of the word "fraudulently" seems to provide a defense for those who genuinely believe in their mediumistic or paranormal abilities. It also places the burden on the prosecution to demonstrate the elements of the crime. Beginning in 1975, Canadian courts began to rule on the provision because defendants began to assert that the word "fraudulently" could offer them a defense. That is, the government had to prove that a defendant intended to deceive (exactly what that eighteenth century Parliament tried to legislate out of existence). In 1975, in R. v Dazenbrook (23 C.C.C. (2d) 252 (1975)), a Canadian judge ruled that a defendantr was not guilty under the statute, holding that fortune telling was not illegal under the law.
Now, I am not an expert in Canadian constitutional law. But I think sincere believers should have protection against any accusations brought under this law, even though as I said, section 2 must be balanced with section 1. See for example Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem  2 S.C.R. 551.
Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials. This understanding is consistent with a personal or subjective understanding of freedom of religion. As such, a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion. It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived‑as‑mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection. The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma.
It seems to me that a sincere believer in Wicca, or a sincere believer in any non-mainstream religious practice that would otherwise be classified as banned under section 365 should be able to mount a defense of genuine belief, should she or he need one.
As an aside, the UK repealed the Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951 in 2008 in order to harmonize its domestic legislation with the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, EU 2005/29/EC. The UK legislation, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 are now the subject of some debate in the psychic community. But that's a subject for another time.
Northern Virginia Town Repeals Ban On "Magic Arts"
In spite of some opposition, the town council of the northern Virginia community of Front Royal repealed its ban (Fort Royal Town Code 110-17) on the practice of the "magic arts," which includes fortune telling, tarot card reading, "gypsies," and I assume encompasses palmistry, astrology, and other "crafty sciences." When a tarot card reader recently set up shop in the town (note that it was just for a day), other vendors got very upset. That's when local residents realized that the law was still in force.
During the town council's meeting to discuss repeal of the ordinance, protestors complained that such practices were anti-Christian. Like one local resident, they thought that these practices would cause an increase in crime. Nevertheless, the council voted 4-2 to do away with the ban. More here from the Northern Virginia Daily, here from change.org.
According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, the prosecuting attorney of Butler County, tired of bad weather, wants to indict Punxsutawney Phil Sowerby (yup, the magic groundhog), for "purposely, and with prior calculation and design" misleading people about the date that spring would start. And he wants Phil done away with. Permanently. Here's a link to a copy of the indictment.
Now, first of all, Mr. Gmoser, the DA in this story here, has clout in Ohio, I admit, but I hasten to point out that Phil lives in Pennsylvania. Extradition is a problem. Will a Pa. judge okay shipping a groundhog across the border for maliciousness (and Mr. Gmoser will have to make a case for faulty forecasting and pernicious prediction by the grumbly groundhog)? Do human laws apply to marmots?
Second, is Mr. Gmoser suggesting that a whistle pig is not protected by the First Amendment? That Phil's expressive speech of recognizing his shadow, and thus "predicting spring" is not protected by the First Amendment? Check out cases such as Rushman v. City of Milwaukee (959 F. Supp. 1040, 1997) (false statements fraudulent only if the speaker has knowledge that the statement cannot come true).
I cry fowl! Couldn't Mr. Sowerby argue that whatever humans interpret from his conduct is our problem? After all, human beings force him through this event on the 2 of February to see if he sees his shadow or not. It isn't really his idea. Who decided to engage the furry Mr. Sowerby in this venture? Did he ever ask anybody to believe his predictions, such as they are? Aren't those beliefs and assumptions about whether a groundhog can predict the coming of spring by seeing his shadow or not, amusing as they are, really quite inane? Well, then, why blame the groundhog?
There are probably some criminal defenses available, but it's Friday and I'm tired.
Fourth, how much gmoser could a woodchuck chuck?
Yes, the indictment is a joke. At least, I think it is. But I hope no one goes sciurid hunting, hoping for a bounty. That would make a tragedy out of what is Mr. Gmoser's attempt at humor.
Lindsay Lohan's lawyer Mark Heller told the media that a fortune teller says that 2013 would be a lucky one for his client. It's certainly starting out that way. Prosecutors put off her assault case (stemming from an altercation in a New York night club last November) for now, which was really lucky for her. According to Mr. Heller, no charges have yet been filed. As for Ms. Lohan, she's still in London. More here at tmz.com.
A federal judge has invalidated yet another fortune telling ban, this time in Alexandria, Louisiana. Federal district court judge Dee Drell agreed with U.S. magistrate James Kirk (great name!) that the city's ban on fortune telling is unconstitutional.
Fortune teller Rachel Adams challenged the ordinance after a police officer issued her a summons, which would have cost her up to $500 a day. The ordinance banned all manner of crafty sciences, including fortune telling, astrology, and palm reading.
The section at issue is 15-127, Fortune-telling, phrenology, palmistry, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business or practice of palmistry, card reading, astrology, fortune-telling, phrenology, mediums or activities of a similar nature within the city, regardless of whether a fee is charged directly or indirectly, or whether the services are rendered without a charge.
This type of ordinance is a garden variety "crafty sciences" prohibition, banning these practices whether or not they are offered for a fee. I would think that the judge looked to the reasoning in prior cases (Argellio, Rushman, and particularly Trimble). See an earlier post here. Such ordinances target speech. In order to defend them, the government must identify a compelling state interest; here it told the court that fortune telling was fraud and the state interest was to prevent fraud. However, in other such cases, judges have already rejected such arguments, saying that while some fortune tellers may be frauds, the government cannot say that all fortune tellers are frauds. One cannot paint an entire group with that brush. The judge in Trimble told the government that if it wanted to prosecute fortune tellers it could do so under a statute that specifically targeted fraud rather than under a statute aimed at speech.
Further, as another judge wrote, speech that a fortune teller delivers might come true in the future, or it might not. Until it positively has no possibility of coming true, the speaker cannot be branded a liar.
Magistrate Judge Kirk also notes that the ordinance cites as authority LSA: RS 4-7 allows the taxation and licensing of fortune telling, and suggests that if the state recognizes a difference between regulation and restriction, then an ordinance that bans fortune telling is in violation of the statute.
Case citation: Adams v. City of Alexandria, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97042.
Background on the case here.
My candidate for the Million Dollar Prize.

References: § 53
 § 165
 §365
 v. 
 v. 
 v.