The difference between white and blue collar crime, along with the different way the justice system treats corporations compared to people.
I was baptised Catholic but never practiced. But since the catholic church is internationally integrated I gotta pay the tax perpetually unless I get excommunicated.
It isn't just that they have to pay a fine; it is that they are now quite vulnerable and they'd better shape up and fly right or they really will be hit with something they won't like.
(Or so the theory goes.)
Nor is it as simple as "well just toss them in prison instead of fines"... maybe not in this particular incident, but in many of those, incarcerating the offenders makes it even less likely that the employees receive restitution. (In this case, it probably would mean the restaurant closes, and they lose all employment.)
It's the social construction of crime thing. Stealing $140k is egregious. But because it's an employer stealing from their employees it's being treated as more of an administrative error than a great crime.
Where like, we know that people are in prison on decades long sentences for thefts orders of magnitude smaller, or simple drug possession, or spitting on a cop.
Now, "fake priests" can often be hired to solemnize weddings. If the couple is unhappy with the way their legitimate Catholic parish is handling things (9 months prep is too long, too expensive, won't let them sing "Imagine", requires bridesmaids to cover their shoulders, won't do ceremony on the beach) then the couple can easily contact an "independent" Catholic priest who has all the bona fides (or not; such priests may have been laicized or excommunicated) and who will happily accommodate their every need, for a price. This, however, may not confer the legitimate Catholic marriage that they were hoping for. Because Catholics are required to observe "proper form" which means we must marry in the context of a Mass, or get a dispensation. So if the priest won't observe canonical form, the couple ends up with an invalid wedding, which means they aren't married at all, but cohabiting. However, if the priest does observe canonical form, it is possible that the couple does validly marry, because the priest is merely a witness to the marriage: the couple are the actual ministers of the sacrament when they freely exchange consent. So, there are possibilities when it comes to marriage.
However, a "fake priest" cannot validly absolve people of their sins in any case. The reason is that absolution (forgiveness in the confessional) requires jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by the bishop of a place and priests carry a celebret indicating that they hold faculties to do such things as celebrate Mass, preach homilies, hear confessions, perform baptisms, etc. A priest without jurisdiction is definitely faking confessions. If the priest is laicized, or excommunicated, or schismatic, or simply visiting another territory and hasn't procured faculties from the ordinary, he lacks jurisdiction.
I am betting that their "fake priest" was or is a Catholic priest of some kind, but possibly schismatic or laicized. It would've probably been someone who knew all the right words and actions that could've put on a convincing act for these workers (I assume they were probably mostly Latino Catholics here and that's why they were scammed in this manner.) I am glad that the Diocese of Sacramento has promptly released a statement disavowing knowledge; that's doing the right thing.
Oh yeah, and if you want a "fake priest" to baptize your baby, that will totally work. Because, actually, anyone and everyone can baptize. You don't need a priest or a deacon, except that they know the right words. Even an atheist or a pagan could baptize someone. That's what is unique about this sacrament.
In these United States, all Catholic priests (and other ministers who regularly solemnize weddings) are licensed by the state to act as witness in the civil sphere as well. So one of the most important things a priest will do right before a wedding is sign off on the state's marriage license and have the secretary file that with the clerk.
"Ha-ha, there's no way any sane manager would ever hire an actor to play a priest to obtain private details about employees' personal lives," I would have thought.
And yet, it's real. Shame on everyone who was in on this malignant ploy.
Sigh.
edit:
OK, looks like I just missed it. It seems the "priest" did just visit the workplace during work hours. It's super weird.
Don't trust hedge priests!
(Almost all dioceses will have a list of parishes/priests somewhere, here is Sacramento's: https://www.scd.org/directory - if the priest is not listed in an official diocese publication somewhere, and claims to be visiting, he must (in the USA) have a celebret and a letter of good standing; if he cannot produce those be extremely suspicious. Confession is an additional permission that must be listed in writing - https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=903;937 )
I know this is the extreme end of the scale, but the entire scale stinks.
Workers should also be owners.
> Investigators also found [...] some employees faced “adverse immigration consequences” for cooperating with investigators.
So... The real winner here was the company. The employees involved were warned they would be booted out of the country, and then they were booted out of the country, all for reporting their employer for unfair practices.
So the employee got ~$4000 in back wages, but he and probably his family got ejected from their home country, school, job, friends, and life, with probably a lifetime ban from returning.
And the US department of Labor has no ability to get those employees back into the country.
That's pretty low
What's your sentiment after hearing about a story like this?
And also for deceptively mislabeling crackers and wine as human flesh and blood, and grooming children into cannibalism and vampirism.
