He spent some (all?) of his paycheck at that restaurant, getting that meal on the table for his employer despite not actually being able to prepare it.
Non-lawyer talking out my ass here, but even if he did get paid, does fraud have a mens rea requirement in most states? I mean, I can’t imagine it’d come up much — the “yeah, I ran a con, but I didn’t mean to make any money!” defense would generally be a non-starter — but I’d think it’d be relevant here.
Stalking?
Not a lawyer myself, but I don’t think that’s what mens rea means. For instance, in the same way I could say: Sure, I wanted to rob that bank, but the teller I shot - that was completely not my intention. Robin Williams certainly went into this situation full-well knowing all the relevant information. The fact that defrauding his ex-wife of some money was not his primary objective doesn’t take away his mens rea of committing the fraud.
If I’ve got my definition straight, lack of mens rea occurs when the defendant does not have all the knowledge to make him realize he is about to commit a certain crime.
It doesn’t seem like fraud. He did all the work he was hired to do, and she was satisified with his job performance.
At the very least, he was employed under the table (a crime), or he filled out his tax forms using a different name (another crime).
Custodial interference, certainly. Some sort of tax fraud, probably. I also imagine assuming a false identity to gain access to someone’s house who wouldn’t otherwise have let you in is some form of trespass.
Did people do background checks on nannies in the early 90’s? Also, IIRC, the last family ‘she’ worked for was in London(?) and it may have been hard to call them.
Technically, what she accused the other person of was a run by fruiting.
There’s no reason why Mrs Doubtfire couldn’t have collected the money and then reported it as Daniel Hillard. And she/he wasn’t employed for long enough that the case worker could ask to see a W-2.
The only thing I can think of is that there may have been a restraining order involved that he violated. Also, putting the pepper in Stu’s food at the restaurant (if caught) may have resulted in him getting some sort of Aggravated Assault charge (or maybe attempted homicide).
His employer (ex-wife) would have seen a tax form. Unless he was being employed under the table.
This is on tonight and I’m watching it for the first time. Had to search to see if anyone has brought up about how *really *creepy-stalkery the movie comes off today, found this thread.
I haven’t seen the movie in a long long time.
Did he work through a maid service? That is, his boss (the maid service company) would see his W2, not the wife. The wife would pay the maid service a fee, and then the maid service would cut Daniel his check made out to Daniel.
Doh! Zombie!
I doubt there was a maid service involved. The ex-wife placed the classified ad, “Mrs Doubtfire” responded to it and was hired by the ex-wife. Most likely, she paid him/her directly.
I never filled out any tax forms for my housecleaner when I had one. I paid her direct, and it was her responsibility to pay taxes. She was an independent contractor.
Did I violate any laws?
Based on a quick Google search, if you paid your housekeeper more than $2,000 in 2017, you’re supposed to have provided a W2 form.
It’d be easy enough to create a business entity that she would be paying, of which daniel/doubtfire would be an employee.
Probably not. So long as you were not actually employing her.
It’s more than just the financial part, it is also due to job duties.
It’s complicated, but pretty much, it is unlikely that the housekeeper is an employee, but it is possible in some circumstances.
He was certainly guilty of contempt. The judge gave him an order and he disobeyed it. But it’s up to that judge to say it was contempt or not.