For days, there has been much outrage on the blogosphere about a couple who refused to give a lesbian waitress a tip because they refused to support her “lifestyle.” Dayna Morales, an ex-Marine and server at Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater, N.J., produced a receipt that said “I’m sorry but I cannot tip because I don’t agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life.” People flocked to the restaurant to leave big tips for Morales and she received national acclaim for donating the tips to the Wounded Warrior charity. Now the couple has come forward and claims that it is all a hoax. Worse yet, they say that they have proof.
Morales put the receipt on her Facebook page and it went viral. If the couple is telling the truth, this was a claim to victimization that quickly snowballed into an international story.
The New Jersey couple says that they saw the story and were flabbergasted. They say that they support same-sex marriage and voted against Chris Christie because he did not. More importantly, they left an $18 tip, which by the way appears the standard 20 percent since the entire payment for the meal was $111.55. They have the receipt as well as a credit card receipt for the amount of $111.55.
The restaurant is investigating but could not produce the original receipt. I am not sure the VISA bill would answer the question since it would not show the division of the meal and tip amounts. As for the original receipt, that would be highly probative. They say that their receipt shows both the original amount and the added tip. Notably, the receipt produced by Morales shows the amount of $93.55. IF the VISA shows $111.55, that would be pretty damning evidence.
The question is, if true, what is the potential liability for Morales beyond losing her job. As we have discussed with regard to the Stolen Valor Act, there is a first amendment protection for lying. However, you do not have a protected right to commit fraud. If the couple is telling the truth, Morales is wise to donate the proceeds. If she did not financially gain from the tips, a fraud claim can be more difficult to establish. That raises the possibility that even the donation to charity may not have been what it seemed. Again, this is assuming that the couple is the wronged party. We have not heard from Morales. There are also statutory provisions that might be stretched by prosecutor to fit the alleged crime like the following:
2C:21-4. Falsifying or tampering with records
a. Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he falsifies, destroys, removes, conceals any writing or record, or utters any writing or record knowing that it contains a false statement or information, with purpose to deceive or injure anyone or to conceal any wrongdoing.
It could also raise an interesting forgery case since she was allegedly forging the writing of the couple (though they were not named in the stories). Here is the New Jersey code provision:
2C:21-1 – Forgery and Related Offenses
a.Forgery. A person is guilty of forgery if, with purpose to defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the actor:
(1)Alters or changes any writing of another without his authorization;
(2)Makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues or transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act or of a fictitious person, or to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed; or
(3)Utters any writing which he knows to be forged in a manner specified in paragraph (1) or (2).
“Writing” includes printing or any other method of recording information, money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, trademarks, access devices, and other symbols of value, right, privilege, or identification, including retail sales receipts, universal product code (UPC) labels and checks. This section shall apply without limitation to forged, copied or imitated checks.
As used in this section, “information” includes, but is not limited to, personal identifying information as defined in subsection v. of N.J.S.2C:20-1.
b.Grading of forgery. Forgery is a crime of the third degree if the writing is or purports to be part of an issue of money, securities, postage or revenue stamps, or other instruments, certificates or licenses issued by the government, New Jersey Prescription Blanks as referred to in R.S.45:14-14, or part of an issue of stock, bonds or other instruments representing interest in or claims against any property or enterprise, personal identifying information or an access device. Forgery is a crime of the third degree if the writing is or purports to be a check. Forgery is a crime of the third degree if the writing is or purports to be 15 or more forged or altered retail sales receipts or universal product code labels.
Otherwise forgery is a crime of the fourth degree.
– See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-21/2c-21-1#sthash.ZaUqJKBx.dpuf
Then there is the question of the restaurant and whether, beyond firing Morales if the story is proven to be true, it could seek damages to its reputation etc. My guess is that it would not seek such a case even if it could make out the elements.
Finally, there are all those people who gave enhanced tips to support Morales. Theoretically, they could try a class action against the restaurant for its failure of investigation. The restaurant promised to match donations but did not, it appears, check the receipts or charges. It would be a tough case, however. This is particularly due to Morales’ promise to donate tips to a charity. Thus, the customers knew that they were giving money to charity, even if the impetus of the visit was allegedly fraudulent.
Then there is the couple. Morales told ABC that the wife of the couple insulted her when she first introduced herself. That basically says that the customers are bigots and would raise defamation potential. However, they were not named and have kept their names out of the press. Even for a defamation per quod case, it would be weak to establish damages.
The most immediate issue for Morales is criminal liability, though prosecutors could use their discretion in not pursuing the case. Fraud and forgery would be difficult due to the donation of tips as noted above. In a strange way, it is very similar to the Stolen Valor cases. Instead of benefiting socially by claiming to be a decorated hero, she allegedly made herself into a social hero under false pretenses. While we have seen various cases of prosecuted fraud for people collecting money under false claims that they are dying or have lost a loved one (here and here and here and here and here and here), these people are usually found to have pocketed the money. There is the question of whether she had any travel paid for by the media for hotels or flights etc. That would constitute a benefit for establishing the elements of crimes like fraud. Any book deals or movie deals, including early rights payments, would obviously be sufficient. State law actually contains a broad definition of benefit, including benefiting others:
2C:21-8.1.
“Benefit derived” means the loss resulting from the offense or any gain or advantage to the actor, or coconspirators, or any person in whom the actor is interested, whichever is greater, whether loss, gain or advantage takes the form of money, property, commercial interests or anything else the primary significance of which is economic gain.
In the end, if the story is proven true, Morales could walk with simply the ignobility of the disclosure of the hoax. I have written before that such social isolation and condemnation is sufficient in Stolen Valor cases where no money was accepted. For people who want to be heroes, the status as a social pariah is a heavy sanction. She allegedly not only undermined the claims of true discrimination victims but used the fight of equality to benefit herself. Morales would not require a criminal charge to feel the judgment of society in such a case.
“YO ALL,
DID ANYONE SEE THE JEWISH PINK ELEPHANT ON THE BLOG!”
luckylarry,
If, as I assume, you are referring to me let me assure you that I am neither obese, nor do I have a long nose. I guess you might refer to my skin as pink since I have a fair complexion. The imprecision of your imprecations matches the lack of intelligence and thought behind them. It is no doubt horrible to be in your skin and to spend ones life in the throes of hatred for people. Also, since the intelligence level you exhibit seems quite marginal I would advise you that most keyboards have “Caps Locks” and that your writing might improve, however marginally that would be possible, by turning the “Caps Lock” off.
Juliet,
Perhaps oxygen deprivation?
nick,
It only hurts because it’s true.
LuckyLarry,
Go defrock thyself with a spork ….. Then…. Do the same to the left and right eye…. It’s better to do that than….. Well you know….
YO ALL,
DID ANYONE SEE THE JEWISH PINK ELEPHANT ON THE BLOG!
HE GOES BY THE NAME OF MIKEY.
HE HAS A HABIT OF “FARTING”, SO STAY DOWN-WIND OF HIM!
AY-YAY-YAY.
Who the fcuk is this guy and what the fcuk is his problem, Mike?
Yo Mike Spindell aka Spin-all,
HUMAN SACRIFICE & THE BLOOD LIBEL
Now let’s look at the relevant cite from the Babylonian Talmud.
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:
3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
Rabbi Dr. Freedman
Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:
5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)
5. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)
Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages concerning:
* the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,
* which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,
* which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and
* how children may be sacrificed without violating Leviticus.
A TALMUDIC JEWISH EXPLANATION FOR OFFERING HUMAN SACRIFICES TO MOLOCH TODAY!
Comparing DavidM to the Aryan Nation is not hyperbole, it is vile. And, you keep making the same accusation vis a vis the warning being directed solely @ me and when proof is requested, you never put up. The personal stuff was flying around here by MANY people. It has ceased for the most part. I’m merely trying to keep it that way. You seem to be doing your part. Keep it up.
“Comparing DavidM to the Aryan Nation is not hyperbole, it is vile. And, you keep making the same accusation vis a vis the warning being directed solely @ me and when proof is requested, you never put up.”
Nick,
I agree with you that the comparison wasn’t meant by me as hyperbole, however, the only vile thing about is is David’s bigotry which I was responding to. As to Professor Turley’s warning it was aimed specifically at you Nick, as your actions follow it have shown. You nave been virtually a “New Nick” ever since, after spending months out of control. You have actually been contributing more than mere throwaway attacks. Great, you got the message which was sent so as not to specifically single you out on the threads. All I can say is keep up the good work, you are actually beginning, albeit slowly, to start making positive contributions.
Let them just eat each other…. Something’s you just can’t control……
It seems you fail to realize that warning was directed at nick spinelli and that there is a direct connection between bigotry based on skin color and bigotry based on sexual orientation. Bigotry is bigotry. The extent to which a person acts on their bigotry is a matter of scale. Does Mike exaggerate? Sure. There is no evidence David has ever murdered someone for any reason let alone simply because they are a homosexual. However, the last time I checked there was not a rule against hyperbole.
I have worked in prison where the Aryan Nation are probably the most powerful and ruthless gang ever. To compare DavidM to the Aryan Nation is demeaning to this the accuser, DavidM, and this blog. You obviously have no idea what murderous, vile, people are members of the Aryan Nation. I’ve seen them up close and personal. As Joseph McCarthy was poignantly asked, “Have you no shame, sir?” It seems the personal attack warning by Mr. Turley has a short shelf life.
“As Joseph McCarthy was poignantly asked, “Have you no shame, sir?” It seems the personal attack warning by Mr. Turley has a short shelf life.”
Nick,
Once again your deficient reading skills lead you astray. What I wrote was this:
“The truth is that you are a bigot, with more intelligence than perhaps than the average member of the Aryan Nation. The difference is that the Aryan Nation is at least proud of their hatred, while you prefer to mask it with verbiage. You and Lucklarrysilverstein have much in common. You’re just a lot smarter.”
It’s what known as an analogy Nick. The Aryan Nation are primarily known for their bigotry. One doesn’t have to be a prison guard to known that they are uniformly disgusting people. However, it is their bigotry I was obviously comparing with David’s bigotry and not their criminal activities, with David’s lifestyles.
You also make the false presumption that I was merely engaging in an ad hominem upon David. It’s is not ad hominem if it is attacking David’s argument and it clearly was.
David’s argument in this thread is threefold. First that homosexuals are not to be trusted to deal honestly with people. Second, that liberals use homosexuality (as they use the rights of women and people of color) as hypocritical political manipulation. Third is that by accusing anyone of bigotry, the accuser is a bigot, despite the fact that the accused IS a bigot as proven by their own words. David has consistently shown that he has bigoted feelings towards homosexuals. He has also displayed bigotry towards other groups which consist primarily of women and poor people.
Bigotry is to be judged ones belief system and not on that persons personality. David might be a perfectly nice man, kind to children and beloved by family and friends. That doesn’t make his bigotry any less. So please Nick, I would urge you to mediate you immediate impulse to attack me, by the facts of the situation. You have been behaving yourself of late, while spoil it with an imprecise argument that you can’t win?
Um, davidm, Am I attacking you based on your sexuality OR your previously stated opinion against people like me?
You’re a big boy… you can figure this out.
Max-1 wrote: “Am I attacking you based on your sexuality OR your previously stated opinion against people like me?”
What previously stated opinion have I made against people like you? I don’t know you, so I am not aware that I am against people like you. Are you the type of person who takes advantage of being a specially protected class of citizen?
At this point in time, I have no animosity toward you. You are virtually unknown to me.
I spoke about not being surprised about this type of fraud in the article, then you spoke about not being surprised that straights have a history of murdering gays. Your next post was a rant insinuating that I don’t understand being personally persecuted, to which I disagree.
Truth is that homosexuals have won the culture war. They are not a persecuted class of citizen anymore. Society protects and coddles homosexuals. Same thing with minority races. Society now acts toward the evil white man, the religious, the moral, and the economically successful businessman the way it use to act toward blacks and homosexuals… with animus and hatred.
Self made
millionairevictim, often… ?There is that.
“Isn’t that happening to me right now, in this forum? Not just by you. If you look, someone else called me a homophobic bigot.”
DavidM,
It is not bigotry to identify someone for who he is. You are a homophobic bigot and have proven it yourself over and again in much you have written. When it comes to homosexuals you are akin to the KKK. Then again you would probably say that I would be “unfair” to call them racists.
“homophobe is an epithet that can actually be spoken in public and is considered a fashionable form of hate speech.”
Sadly DavidM, you probably get a frisson thinking yourself so clever by trying to turn around your bigotry to claim you are the one discriminated against. The truth is that you are a bigot, with more intelligence than perhaps than the average member of the Aryan Nation. The difference is that the Aryan Nation is at least proud of their hatred, while you prefer to mask it with verbiage. You and Lucklarrysilverstein have much in common. You’re just a lot smarter in the way you present your intolerance and hatred.
i forgot to add the handwriting isnt even close take a real good look at the r and b the e and the rest. sorry the waitress made a copy of the receipt or something along those lines and changed it around. probably figured she had suckers along with not thinking it would blow up this big and now she is caught. but its obvious there are those out there who are going to believe the waitress even though the couple has and is showing both their receipt along with the visa bill
Cheryl are you saying. that the couple only paid 93.55 which is all that shows on the waitress copy but changed theirs to 115.55? and they wrote on her copy of the receipt but not theirs? i dont know where you live but im in nyc and the tip is added when they take card not after. i’ve seen both receipts. they are stamped and time coded identical except for the price and the comment. and as for taking something off. all restaurants use pens not pencils so no its not that easy to take something off. i truly believe the waitress is lying and thats her reason for saying she is going to donate the money. how many people in todays economy working as waitresses/waiters can afford to donate a good amount to charity?
oh and on the link i posted is now not only both receipts but the coopy of the visa bill and both say 115,55..
so tell us again who the liar is??
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-jersey-waitress-victim-discrimination-forged-receipt-article-1.1529227
On topic…
… Who signed the merchant copy?
Davidm,
I’ll just say this.
Your time enjoying your “SPECIAL PRIVILEGES” bestowed to “STRAIGHTS” is coming to a close. You will enjoy being on the wrong side of history…
davidm2575
1, November 26, 2013 at 2:37 pm
You can claim that the moon is made out of cheese. Still makes you incorrect.
So, there are more gays that bash and murder other gays than the homophobic public does?
Link it!
I bet you’ve never been rudely yelled at, called derogatory names, and/or have been physically assaulted JUST because of your sexuality…
Care to walk in those shoes? Carry that cross a mile or two? You know, put your faith into action…
Tell me about how your family left you out of Holidays because of their “opinions” about your sexuality.
Tell us about how your employer fired you over his feelings about your sexuality.
Show us your eviction notices due to laws making it legal to evict you because you are gay.
Explain to us how it felt that the nurse won’t let you in to visit your loved one.
WELL?
Max-1 wrote: “I bet you’ve never been rudely yelled at, called derogatory names, and/or have been physically assaulted JUST because of your sexuality…”
Isn’t that happening to me right now, in this forum? Not just by you. If you look, someone else called me a homophobic bigot.
You can imagine the treatment I sometimes get outside this forum. Abuse has included name calling, being mooned in public, spit upon, punched, strangled, and being hit with a baseball bat. Haven’t you heard that homosexual activists invented a special derogatory name for people like me? The word is homophobe. Unlike a word like fa**ot, homophobe is an epithet that can actually be spoken in public and is considered a fashionable form of hate speech. I doubt that a homosexual writing homophobe on a receipt and failing to leave a tip would cause anybody any concern at all. Surely that waitress would not receive a check for $10,000 for her lamentable suffering of being shunned by a segment of society.