email: "Mind your biz"

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, you seem to have tried to model your website "Stop VFF" from Robert's site. Now it appears the student thinks he can teach the master. Clearly this is premature. Your site reeks of a personal animosity toward Anita. Robert still has much to teach you.

The only thing that my site has in common with Robert's is the name. In order to rank higher in the search engines, I needed a name that had VisionFromFeeling in it. To understand what I mean, do a Google search for one of my clients by typing Scottsdale Home Insurance. Near the bottom of the first page of listings you will see www.ScottsdaleCarHomeInsurance.com. Having those keywords in the domain name gives a huge boost to rankings. The reality is that his site is nothing more than a wrapper for the standard State Farm micro-site that all agents have. That domain with a few other SEO tricks got him to #8 out of over half a million sites matching those keywords. I used the word Stop because it seemed appropriate and would give skeptics a clue as to what the site was about.

Beyond that, I did not model my site after StopSylvia in any way, shape or form. I chose to be an advocate and express my personal opinions whereas Robert seems to take a more dispassionate and analytical view. If you think that was accidental, you are mistaken. I made a choice that I thought would be the most effective in my situation just as Robert did.

I also provided a discussion forum and not only invited VFF to come to the site but repeatedly challenged her join the discussions and explain/defend herself. My blog entries allow people to comment both positively and negatively. It's more of a two-way form of communication rather than just a resource for information. I also organized information in a different way. And I have a hidden discussion area where I and several other skeptics discuss things out of the public eye. Where you get the notion that I "modeled" it after his site is beyond me.

But none of this is relevant to this thread. There's a moderated thread here if you care to weigh in on the relative merits of my site. You're also invited to join my site (registration takes just a moment) and voice your opinions in the discussion forum. Feel free to post comments on my blog entries (no registration required).

 

[Uncayimmy]

In the UK the legal definition of fraud is 'obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception'.

No, it's not. That definition was repealed by the Fraud Act of 2006. You can read the text of the law here.

For example, it says that the person must "dishonestly make a false representation." It's not enough to be wrong. One has to know that specific representation to be wrong. Since we're talking about the wishy-washy world of psychics, that's a tough row to hoe.

This is what she's doing, so it is clearly illegal (in the UK anyway, which I guess isn't entirely relevant). The question is, is it provable, could a case be brought against her, and can the police be arsed to do it (especially given her popularity)?

Well, if it's not easily "provable" then it's not "clearly" illegal.

In any case, the purse-snatching analogy is definitely better than your 'bus' or 'money saving information' ones, which are vague and don't imply a malicious agent, which Browne obviously is - I mean, look at the evidence. The fact that purse-snatching is illegal and fortune-telling has multiple legal statuses is trivial and surely besides the point.

Getting hit by a bus is vague? Warning someone that they could lose money or have their heart broken is vague? I don't understand.

But the fact that you mention a "malicious agent" is precisely the reason to avoid the criminal analogy. Whether Sylvia is maliciously fabricating lies or is so mentally ill that she actually hears voices in her head during every reading is irrelevant to whether people should plop down $850 for a 30 minute session. The end result is the same regardless: heartache and financial loss.

So look at your target audience and your goals. I say you will lose some of the audience you are trying to reach if they feel like you are trying to tell them that "wonderful Sylvia" is an evil person (malicious agent). It's much easier for them to accept that she is simply not capable of doing what she says she is doing. Anybody who would clam up and leave because you pointed out she was inaccurate is going to clam up and leave if you call her a criminal. However, the reverse is not true.

And, as you can see, even people who find her actions despicable will object to her being called a criminal. Imagine the reactions of those who think she's a wonderful person and a curious about the website. The focus gets lost.

 

[Pinkymcfatfat]

Dear RSL,

I actually want to take the time today to thank you for what you do.

I mentioned quite a while back that my own Great-Aunt was a 'psychic, dowser, palm reader and pow-wower'. She died when I was a teen, but I can well remember her attitude toward her unfortunate clients. They were little more than human wallets to her.

I often wonder how many sad, broken people she strung along with promises of helping them find a mate, fortune, or worst of all, IMHO, putting them in 'contact' with a dead relative they desperately missed.

How do I know my Great-Aunt was a fake? Because in private around the family, she'd more than admit to it. She'd even tried to recruit a couple of nieces and nephews to help her out with the 'business' after her own daughter refused to join her con game.

 

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH.

Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[kerikiwi]

Well, if it's not easily "provable" then it's not "clearly" illegal.
.

If someone steals from me, but it is not easily provable, the theft is still illegal. The thief just gets away with the illegal act.

Sylvia Browne gains money by deception, but it is not easily provable. It is still illegal to gain money by deception. All that is needed to convict is better evidence.

 

[Senex]

OK, I removed one sentence that out of context could appear mean-spirited.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
The only thing that my site has in common with Robert's is the name.

Yes, and your wish to run a site as good as Robert's.

In order to rank higher in the search engines, I needed a name that had VisionFromFeeling in it. To understand what I mean, do a Google search for one of my clients by typing Scottsdale Home Insurance. Near the bottom of the first page of listings you will see www.ScottsdaleCarHomeInsurance.com. Having those keywords in the domain name gives a huge boost to rankings. The reality is that his site is nothing more than a wrapper for the standard State Farm micro-site that all agents have. That domain with a few other SEO tricks got him to #8 out of over half a million sites matching those keywords. I used the word Stop because it seemed appropriate and would give skeptics a clue as to what the site was about.

I can'y fully wrap my mind aroung this parargraph. Are you saying you use Anita to get more hits on a State Farm website?

Beyond that, I did not model my site after StopSylvia in any way, shape or form. I chose to be an advocate and express my personal opinions whereas Robert seems to take a more dispassionate and analytical view. If you think that was accidental, you are mistaken. I made a choice that I thought would be the most effective in my situation just as Robert did.

Stop VFF still sounds like StopSylvia to me.

I also provided a discussion forum and not only invited VFF to come to the site but repeatedly challenged her join the discussions and explain/defend herself. My blog entries allow people to comment both positively and negatively. It's more of a two-way form of communication rather than just a resource for information. I also organized information in a different way. And I have a hidden discussion area where I and several other skeptics discuss things out of the public eye. Where you get the notion that I "modeled" it after his site is beyond me.

Your super secret hidden discussion area has put me on your side. Where can I sign up? I wish to be a super secret member. Do we get to wear special rings?

But none of this is relevant to this thread. There's a moderated thread here if you care to weigh in on the relative merits of my site.

Yeah, yeah,

The powers that be won't approve any of my posts. Anita is being protected from my flirtation. She could do worse

 

[Uncayimmy]

If someone steals from me, but it is not easily provable, the theft is still illegal. The thief just gets away with the illegal act.

Ah, the Internet, where playing games of semantics when it has nothing to do with the question at hand is par for the course. Look, it's quite simple. We know the who, what, where, when and how of countless psychic readings by Sylvia and countless others. If it is "clearly" a crime, then it needs to be provable. The reality is that it is not clearly a crime despite plenty of evidence.

Sylvia Browne gains money by deception, but it is not easily provable. It is still illegal to gain money by deception. All that is needed to convict is better evidence.

It's not that simple, and the tiny number of fraud convictions considering the size of the practice and the presence of specific statutes to prohibit psychics confirms the notion that it is not clearly covered by general fraud statutes at all.

And thus we're back to essentially accusing by analogy a specific person of crimes. Feel free to keep arguing that it's "clearly" a crime despite all the evidence that says what she and countless other psychics are doing is not "clearly" a crime. Sylvia's followers will be able to relate to that type of thinking.

 

[kerikiwi]

Ah, the Internet, where playing games of semantics when it has nothing to do with the question at hand is par for the course.

Fair enough. It's playing semantics when I make a point. What is it when you play with meanings to counter that point?

 

[dogjones]

No, it's not. That definition was repealed by the Fraud Act of 2006. You can read the text of the law here.

Interesting - thanks for that.

For example, it says that the person must "dishonestly make a false representation." It's not enough to be wrong. One has to know that specific representation to be wrong. Since we're talking about the wishy-washy world of psychics, that's a tough row to hoe.

Very true. Although it actually says a 'false representation' is false if [(a) it's untrue and] (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Some interesting ambiguity there - I'm sure a good case could be made that she has given out information that she knows may not be true. But yes, a tough row to hoe indeed. Theoretically doable though, possibly with surveillance. But this is not high on the priorities of most police depts. I know - I was an insurance fraud investigator for a while in the UK. We uncovered some huge fraud networks of people claiming for cars that didn't exist; still the police did not want to know.

Well, if it's not easily "provable" then it's not "clearly" illegal.

Not true. Lots of things are clearly illegal but not easily provable (to the standard the law requires). Rape, for example.

Getting hit by a bus is vague? Warning someone that they could lose money or have their heart broken is vague? I don't understand.

In terms of a punchy analogy, yes, these are vague.

Question: What business is it of yours what Browne is doing?
Answer 1: Think of it like me warning you not to be hit by a bus.
Answer 2: Think of it as if I'm just telling you I can save you money.

Neither answers have immediate impact because not all the elements of each correlate with those in the question. In the first one, what, Browne is the bus? But in what sense does she run people over? In the second, how are you saving my money? Money is there to be spent eventually, and she can talk to my dead dad, so that's money well spent.

Answer 3: The same as it would be my business if I saw a purse-snatcher robbing you.

This answers the question quite succinctly I think.

But the fact that you mention a "malicious agent" is precisely the reason to avoid the criminal analogy. Whether Sylvia is maliciously fabricating lies or is so mentally ill that she actually hears voices in her head during every reading is irrelevant to whether people should plop down $850 for a 30 minute session. The end result is the same regardless: heartache and financial loss.

Well, sure, the motivations of a purse snatcher could be just as unclear - a mentally ill guy who thinks he must kill the alien spawn residing in your change pocket? A desperate father robbing for his kids? A run of the mill thug?

So remove 'malicious' from 'agent' then. You have an agent divesting you of your money and giving you nothing in return. This is robbery, whatever the motivations are. The analogy holds.

So look at your target audience and your goals. I say you will lose some of the audience you are trying to reach if they feel like you are trying to tell them that "wonderful Sylvia" is an evil person (malicious agent). It's much easier for them to accept that she is simply not capable of doing what she says she is doing.

Well it's not like the website has "Sylvia is EVIL" in flashing red letters. The site is unfailingly polite. This analogy is just in response to a very specific question about RSL's motivations, not Sylvia's. The people asking this question want to know, why are you doing this? The analogy answers it - the focus of it is not really on SB. But if it leaves some people with a lingering image of a purse-snatcher when they think of her, well...

I also suspect that most of the people who really come round and see they have been duped by her, do not tend to see her as a nice-but-rich deluded woman.

Anybody who would clam up and leave because you pointed out she was inaccurate is going to clam up and leave if you call her a criminal. However, the reverse is not true.

And, as you can see, even people who find her actions despicable will object to her being called a criminal. Imagine the reactions of those who think she's a wonderful person and a curious about the website. The focus gets lost.

But the thing is, no-one is 'calling' her a criminal. Analogies are made in every day life all the time, and most are far more extreme than this.

Really the only way to settle this is with data on who found the analogy more offensive than effective, and vice-versa... or have two sites, one without the analogy and one with and compare conversion rates... I'm not sure this would be worth the time!

DJ

 

[Uncayimmy]

Fair enough. It's playing semantics when I make a point. What is it when you play with meanings to counter that point?

Somebody said that what Sylvia is doing is a "clearly" a crime and then within the same paragraph said that there were difficulties proving it. What I countered is that if it's not easily provable then it is not "clearly" a crime. And than long came a pedant to take a single sentence and examine it as a universal truth while ignoring the surrounding context.

You chimed in about how if your purse is stolen, then there was clearly a crime. Well, that's because you defined the action (stealing) within your premise that it was a crime. Duh! You really didn't try to address the point at hand. You took one part of what I was saying and attempted to treat it like it was some blanket statement. Really, do you think I was saying that if we find a dead body sliced up by a knife with a pentagram carved in the chest that it's not "clearly" a crime even though we may not know who did it?

The heart of the issue is that we don't know if a crime was committed in the first place when it comes to what Sylvia does. Thus, we cannot say it is "clearly" a crime. Sure, we'd like it to be, and some jurisdictions have written laws specifically to address this activity. But it does not "clearly" fall under fraud statutes.

As evidence we have decades with generic fraud statutes on the books and and decades of psychics conducting their business openly. There have been very few convictions or even trials despite the same types of transactions happening on a daily basis. Only the most egregious and obvious frauds like the "put your money in a sack and leave it with me to grow" result in police action.

What Sylvia does is pretty much legal, whether we like it or not. We know who, what, when and where the activity happens. If it were "clearly" a crime, we'd have convictions because we clearly know what occurs.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Not true. Lots of things are clearly illegal but not easily provable (to the standard the law requires). Rape, for example.

Like in the previous post, you are asserting that a crime has been committed (rape) and saying therefore it's illegal. That's a logical fallacy just as it is a logical fallacy to say that since Sylvia makes psychic readings they must be psychic readings. In order for something to be a crime, you have to establish that a crime has been committed. You can't on one hand say it is "clearly" a crime and the other hand say you cannot prove it's a crime. You can, of course, prove some event is a crime but be unable to prove who did it. That's why prosecutors have the dual burden to establish what as well as who. With Sylvia they have the who, but they can't prove that the what is actually against the law.

In terms of a punchy analogy, yes, these are vague.

Question: What business is it of yours what Browne is doing?
Answer 1: Think of it like me warning you not to be hit by a bus.
Answer 2: Think of it as if I'm just telling you I can save you money.

Neither answers have immediate impact because not all the elements of each correlate with those in the question. In the first one, what, Browne is the bus? But in what sense does she run people over? In the second, how are you saving my money? Money is there to be spent eventually, and she can talk to my dead dad, so that's money well spent.

Having read this three times, I'm still scratching my head wondering what you're driving at. My analogy works because what StopSylvia does is provide information to people so that they can make better decisions. That's what happens when you shout to someone about a bus or warn them about a rip-off.

StopSylvia does not actually get involved in the transaction as the analogy to purse snatching implies. StopSylvia doesn't actually intervene in the event. StopSylvia offers information to those who will listen.

Answer 3: The same as it would be my business if I saw a purse-snatcher robbing you.

Which takes us back to the fact that what she is doing is not illegal nor is she doing it against the "victim's" will. RSL is not actually stopping a reading from occurring like he might intervene in an actual crime.

So remove 'malicious' from 'agent' then. You have an agent divesting you of your money and giving you nothing in return. This is robbery, whatever the motivations are. The analogy holds.

First off, divest is not the correct word. This is an exchange of services for money, not a theft. Second, you are still presuming it's a crime when the reality is that even the police hire psychics. You wanting it to be a crime is not the same thing as it actually being one. Get over it.

Well it's not like the website has "Sylvia is EVIL" in flashing red letters. The site is unfailingly polite. This analogy is just in response to a very specific question about RSL's motivations, not Sylvia's. The people asking this question want to know, why are you doing this? The analogy answers it - the focus of it is not really on SB. But if it leaves some people with a lingering image of a purse-snatcher when they think of her, well...

And thus my pragmatic objection to the analogy. Sigh. I've already explained this. If it looks like a personal attack on Sylvia (she's a purse snatcher going after innocent victims) you'll lose a lot people you could otherwise help. If you're okay with that, fine.

I also suspect that most of the people who really come round and see they have been duped by her, do not tend to see her as a nice-but-rich deluded woman.

So? If they come around, they're not going to be sending e-mails to RSL telling him to mind his own business. They are not the target audience and neither are the skeptics. Well, maybe they are, in which case you can bash Sylvia all you want.

But the thing is, no-one is 'calling' her a criminal. Analogies are made in every day life all the time, and most are far more extreme than this.

The very fact that people are questioning whether RSL even has the right to "attack" Sylvia like that is evidence to the contrary.

Really the only way to settle this is with data on who found the analogy more offensive than effective, and vice-versa... or have two sites, one without the analogy and one with and compare conversion rates... I'm not sure this would be worth the time!

There have been at least three skeptics who found it offensive enough to speak up even though they despise what Sylvia does. I think I've presented a pretty good argument that pro-Sylvia people just starting to question themselves would be put off by the implication that Sylvia is criminal whereas they would be more receptive to being told that they are being offered information so they can make a better decision. If you need a "study" to give that notion credence, then there's not much else to say.

 

[dogjones]

Like in the previous post, you are asserting that a crime has been committed (rape) and saying therefore it's illegal. That's a logical fallacy just as it is a logical fallacy to say that since Sylvia makes psychic readings they must be psychic readings.

No. I'm saying that something can be clearly illegal and yet not easily provable, thereby countering your assertion that something must be easily provable to be 'clearly' illegal.

Your examples of 'fallacies' are actually tautologies and I'm not sure what your point is there. My statement "rape is a crime and not easily provable" is not a tautology. Is this more bad analogizing on your part?

In order for something to be a crime, you have to establish that a crime has been committed. You can't on one hand say it is "clearly" a crime and the other hand say you cannot prove it's a crime. You can, of course, prove some event is a crime but be unable to prove who did it. That's why prosecutors have the dual burden to establish what as well as who. With Sylvia they have the who, but they can't prove that the what is actually against the law.

You are confusing universals with specifics.

You seem to think that prosecutors have the burden of establishing a universal 'what' - ie, that "all psychic readings are crimes". You are wrong. We already have the 'universal what' - namely that 'all fraud is crime'. Prosecutors actually need to determine whether even just one of SB's psychic readings amount to fraud. This is difficult but possible, through surveillance, etc etc. As I said before it would depend on their priorities and budgets.

In the example of rape, suppose Fred has left a trail of crying women in his wake, yet many women are enthralled by him. There are reasonable suspicions that the crying women have been abused in some way, yet none of it has been proven. The enthralled women ask you what business is it of yours whether they are enthralled by him, and you respond with a rape analogy.

I think this could be fair enough.

There are reasonable suspicions that what SB does amounts to fraud.

Having read this three times, I'm still scratching my head wondering what you're driving at. My analogy works because what StopSylvia does is provide information to people so that they can make better decisions. That's what happens when you shout to someone about a bus or warn them about a rip-off.

So your second analogy has now become "a warning about a rip-off". Are you calling Sylvia a rip-off artist? This is unfounded - suppose she's just deluded?

StopSylvia does not actually get involved in the transaction as the analogy to purse snatching implies. StopSylvia doesn't actually intervene in the event. StopSylvia offers information to those who will listen.

Which takes us back to the fact that what she is doing is not illegal nor is she doing it against the "victim's" will. RSL is not actually stopping a reading from occurring like he might intervene in an actual crime.

This is getting silly. It's an analogy. An analogy is a rhetorical device and not meant to be a perfect analogue. The purse snatching analogy is a punchy and simple one.

First off, divest is not the correct word. This is an exchange of services for money, not a theft.

Useless services though. The ADE-651 was an exchange of a device for money, not a theft... yet the owner of the company has been arrested for fraud. What analogies should we have used with that one prior to the arrest?

Second, you are still presuming it's a crime when the reality is that even the police hire psychics. You wanting it to be a crime is not the same thing as it actually being one. Get over it.

So what if the police hire psychics? Are you saying the police would never hire a fraudster, or a bent cop, or use a dodgy lawyer? Again, you are confusing universals with specifics.

And thus my pragmatic objection to the analogy. Sigh. I've already explained this. If it looks like a personal attack on Sylvia (she's a purse snatcher going after innocent victims) you'll lose a lot people you could otherwise help. If you're okay with that, fine.

Well, yes – this actually seems to be your only objection to the analogy, and it is possibly a good one. But in the context of the site as a whole, which as we know is pretty much unfailingly polite and objective, I think it has a little punch which may have as much a positive effect as a negative one. Who knows?

There have been at least three skeptics who found it offensive enough to speak up even though they despise what Sylvia does. I think I've presented a pretty good argument that pro-Sylvia people just starting to question themselves would be put off by the implication that Sylvia is criminal whereas they would be more receptive to being told that they are being offered information so they can make a better decision. If you need a "study" to give that notion credence, then there's not much else to say.

I wasn’t really demanding a study to give that notion credence – I give it credence already. But I also give credence to the notion that a little bite can be equally effective. I was just highlighting the difficulty of knowing for certain, and the fact that it comes down to an difference of opinion which is unprovable one way or the other. The only thing left to say is that I am right in this instance, as I have always been in the past, and as I always will be, unfailingly, universally and eternally.

Been fun arguing. Worky time!

 

[Uncayimmy]

No. I'm saying that something can be clearly illegal and yet not easily provable, thereby countering your assertion that something must be easily provable to be 'clearly' illegal.

I am talking about one statement: "This is what she's doing, so it is clearly illegal (in the UK anyway, which I guess isn't entirely relevant). The question is, is it provable, could a case be brought against her, and can the police be arsed to do it (especially given her popularity)?"

We know all the details of the transactions (she even gives people recordings), but the one element we lack is the element that would show that what she is doing is illegal. Therefore, it is not clearly illegal. It's that simple.

You seem to think that prosecutors have the burden of establishing a universal 'what' - ie, that "all psychic readings are crimes".

I have no misconception and what I wrote makes that clear. Then again, you seem to be having difficulties with the meaning of clear.

There are reasonable suspicions that what SB does amounts to fraud.

Yep.

So your second analogy has now become "a warning about a rip-off". Are you calling Sylvia a rip-off artist? This is unfounded - suppose she's just deluded?

The rantings of a lunatic are not worth $1,700 per hour. Therefore, it is a rip-off, and a rip-off is not a crime.

This is getting silly. It's an analogy. An analogy is a rhetorical device and not meant to be a perfect analogue. The purse snatching analogy is a punchy and simple one.

I know what an analogy is and none is even needed to justify why the website. I said as much already though.

Useless services though. The ADE-651 was an exchange of a device for money, not a theft... yet the owner of the company has been arrested for fraud. What analogies should we have used with that one prior to the arrest?

None. Simply explaining that the device is based on junk science is sufficient. Like I said, we had a thread about analogies not too long ago. They can be useful to give a rough idea of a difficult concept. Beyond that, they can cause more trouble they are worth. This is a great example. You asked who the bus was. So, who is the criminal snatching a purse and who is the victim having something forcibly taken away? In order for the analogy to be effective, people have to believe Sylvia is a criminal, which is an unproven accusation in regards to her readings. People also have to believe that those who voluntarily get on a waiting list to willingly pay for a service are comparable to victims unexpectedly having something forcibly taken. Again, not likely.

So what if the police hire psychics? Are you saying the police would never hire a fraudster, or a bent cop, or use a dodgy lawyer? Again, you are confusing universals with specifics.

No, I'm not confusing universals with specifics. I'm telling you that in the specific case of Sylvia there are no fraud convictions based on her psychic practice and in general, there seem to be no convictions for people doing what she does, and that's not because they go unnoticed. I also pointed out that jurisdictions that have fraud statutes already have chosen to write specific laws to go after psychics. Do you wonder why?

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's hard to go after woo-mongers on the basis of a generic fraud statute because we have to show intent to deceive, and it's generally assumed that woo-mongers believe in the woo they're selling.

 

[Uncayimmy]

It's hard to go after woo-mongers on the basis of a generic fraud statute because we have to show intent to deceive, and it's generally assumed that woo-mongers believe in the woo they're selling.

It's also a bit tricky when you pay someone who is "a Spiritual, soul-level healer. She reaches into your soul, washes out the pain, repairs the damage, then gives you the courage and direction to continue your journey through life. Everything Sylvia does is by the grace of God."

And, "While Sylvia or Chris is doing a reading for you, they psychically reach into your soul, pull out your Chart, and then recite back to you those things you have already planned for yourself. There is nothing mysterious about this; it is simply their gift from God, one that they have perfected to a very high degree."

 

[Dr H]

Has she been convicted in regards to her psychic claims? Tried? Or do you think that she has slipped under the radar? Or maybe the authorities are on her payroll. She was convicted of investment fraud, yes, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

In order for any of that to happen, the laws have to be enforced.

There are jay-walking laws in the town I live in. They are enforced so rarely that it usually makes the paper when someone gets busted for jay-walking. Nonetheless, the 5000+ people who jay-walk every day with impunity are still, in fact, breaking the law, and if a cop happens to see you doing it, and if the mood happens to be upon him, he can certainly hand you a citation which at the very least is going to cost you a 90-minute wait in traffic court, early some Friday morning, and possibly some $$$ besides.

When you have a law that has a low-enforcement priority, the most usual way it gets applied is when someone files a complaint. Drawing attention to the fraudulent nature of Brown's activities may eventually motivate one of her victims to file such a complaint.

As much as I would like to see psychics regulated or more stringent case law available to convict them of fraud, I don't think it's appropriate to say what she's is doing is illegal. Saying it should be illegal, sure. If that's the thrust, then take it to the legislature and protect everybody from every psychic instead of picking on "poor Sylvia."

There was a time when there were national laws against fortune-telling. To the best of my knowledge all of those have long since gone by the board. Many states, counties, and municipalities still maintain such laws, however. The question would be whether such laws are on the books in those places in which Brown practices her con.

ETA: Sure, there are local laws here and there. If she has violated those laws, then by all means bring them to the attention of authorities. But if somebody rides a motorcycle without a helmet in Arizona, don't go calling them a criminal because you live in Maryland.

The significant difference is that helmetless motorcycle riding is essentially a victimless crime; fraud is not.

It is illegal to crap on the sidewalk in my town; it is not in some of the surrounding towns. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it, even in those towns.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In order for any of that to happen, the laws have to be enforced.

So, the answer is no. She's been at this a while. She's widely known - famous, really. She sticks people for $850 for a 30 minute session. And yet, what?

And the fact of the matter is you'd be hard pressed to find any generic fraud statute prosecutions for this type of activity because they are not going to win the cases. You see fraud prosecutions when the fraud is, I dunno, clearly fraud. You know, the old "if this egg is rotten or has blood in it, you have a disease that will cost you $3,000 to cure" or the, "your money is evil, so tied it up in a sack and leave it to be healed by the spirits" routines.

And thus what she does is not "clearly" fraud. You can make all the excuses you want, but this fact doesn't change. Truth is, you have as much evidence for crime as her followers do that she's contacting spirits. But I guess because you're a skeptic, you can skip all that critical thinking and evidence nonsense.

There was a time when there were national laws against fortune-telling. To the best of my knowledge all of those have long since gone by the board. Many states, counties, and municipalities still maintain such laws, however. The question would be whether such laws are on the books in those places in which Brown practices her con.

Where were these laws? Do you have some evidence? There was the Fraudulent Mediums Act in the UK, which as I recall hardly had any prosecutions. Thing is, the act had the same sticky problem, which is that it required "intent to deceive." To what other statutes are you referring? Why were they repealed? How were they enforced? And, most importantly, how is that relevant if Sylvia Browne was not doing her thing in a jurisdiction where it was illegal?

The significant difference is that helmetless motorcycle riding is essentially a victimless crime; fraud is not.

That's no the least bit relevant to my point, which was that just because something is illegal in one jurisdiction doesn't make it a crime in another jurisdiction. That's all that was offered.

Of course, dogjones should pay close attention to what you just did. You took my example, ignored the context, and rejected it because one of the elements didn't match. That's exactly why the purse snatching analogy is bad. Thanks for illustrating my point.

It is illegal to crap on the sidewalk in my town; it is not in some of the surrounding towns. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it, even in those towns.

So what? Desertgal, Brattus and I have all said that we disapprove of what she does and would like to see specific statutes to address it. Until then, it's simply wrong to call it a crime when in fact what is happening is not against the law.

 

[Dr H]

Okay. You say that fortune telling is against the law in a "lot of places" and you cite an article that states it is illegal in Montgomery County, Maryland.

<shrug> That was just one example. Literally hundreds, if not thousands of cities and towns can be found that have such ordinances on the books. In some places it is state law:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Consolidated Laws:
Penal

Section 165.35 Fortune telling

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Revised Statutes:
9.10.080 Restricted activities.

A. Occult Arts.

1. “Occult arts” means the use or practice of fortune telling, astrology, phrenology, palmistry, clairvoyance, mesmerism, spiritualism or any other practice or practices generally recognized to be unsound and unscientific whereby an attempt or pretense is made:

a. To reveal or analyze past incidents or events;
b. To analyze or define the character or personality of a person;
c. To foretell or reveal the future;
d. To locate by such means lost or stolen property; or
e. To give advice or information concerning any matter or event.

2. No person shall for hire or profit engage in the practice of occult arts, either public or private, but no charge shall issue under this subsection unless upon the complaint of a person who has thereby suffered physical or mental injury or monetary damage in excess of $50.00.

3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or prevent:

a. A duly organized and recognized religious organization which promulgates religious teachings or beliefs involving spiritualism or similar media from holding its regular meetings or services.
b. A school, church, fraternal, charitable or other benevolent organization from utilizing occult arts for a bazaar or other money-raising project; provided, that all money so received is devoted exclusively to the organization sponsoring the affair. In such case, the money so received shall be considered as a donation for benevolent and charitable purposes.

Violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class C misdemeanor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Code:

§ 7104. Fortune telling.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree if he pretends for gain or lucre, to tell fortunes or predict future events, by cards, tokens, the inspection of the head or hands of any person, or by the age of anyone, or by consulting the movements of the heavenly bodies, or in any other manner, or for gain or lucre, pretends to effect any purpose by spells, charms, necromancy, or incantation, or advises the taking or administering of what are commonly called love powders or potions, or prepares the same to be taken or administered, or publishes by card, circular, sign, newspaper or other means that he can predict future events, or for gain or lucre, pretends to enable anyone to get or to recover stolen property, or to tell where lost property is, or to stop bad luck, or to give good luck, or to put bad luck on a person or animal, or to stop or injure the business or health of a person or shorten his life, or to give success in business, enterprise, speculation, and games of chance, or to win the affection of a person, or to make one person marry another, or to induce a person to make or alter a will, or to tell where money or other property is hidden, or to tell where to dig for treasure, or to make a person to dispose of property in favor of another.

(b) Advertising as evidence.--Any publication contrary to this section may be given in evidence to sustain the indictment.

(c) Competency of witnesses.--Any person whose fortune may have been told shall be a competent witness against the person charged with violating this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does the law in Maryland or any of these other places apply to Sylvia Browne? Can you be more specific?

If she engages in fortune-telling in any of those places the law would apply to her. If she is simply broadcasting from an area in which fortune-telling is legal into an area in which it is illegal, then it becomes more problematic. Might be an interstate trade issue at that point, if someone in the illegal area is sending her money for her predictions.

She's doing something immoral and unethical...illegal is another story.

Sure.

Browne likely has a team of lawyers instructing her how to conduct herself within the limits of the law. Do you have some evidence as to what specific law she has broken, and when, where, and how, to back up your statement that she has done something illegal?

I probably have as much evidence for that as you have for the assertion that she has a legal team on retainer.

The point was that fortune-telling is a crime in a lot of places, and has traditionally been considered such on national, state, and local levels. I don't see that what the specific statutes are where her butt happens to be seated at the moment is particularily relevent to that observation. There are a lot of things that are illegal in most places, yet legal in a few. Selling drugs on the street; prostitution; and off-track betting come to mind, just to name a few.

 

[Dr H]

So look at your target audience and your goals. I say you will lose some of the audience you are trying to reach if they feel like you are trying to tell them that "wonderful Sylvia" is an evil person (malicious agent). It's much easier for them to accept that she is simply not capable of doing what she says she is doing. Anybody who would clam up and leave because you pointed out she was inaccurate is going to clam up and leave if you call her a criminal. However, the reverse is not true.

And, as you can see, even people who find her actions despicable will object to her being called a criminal. Imagine the reactions of those who think she's a wonderful person and a curious about the website. The focus gets lost.

OK, that's a fair point.

My own particular bugaboo is quack medicine, in which the actions of practitioners can have life-and-death consequences, so I tend to see these things a bit more starkly than a particular variety of woo perhaps warrants.

Still, fortune-telling is not the same as holding a bake-sale for the cub scouts. Depending on where she is doing what she is doing Brown may well be breaking the law. All I intended to do was point that out, and so I did.

 

[Dr H]

In order for something to be a crime, you have to establish that a crime has been committed.

Um, UncaYimmy, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. You do not have to establish that someone has actually carried out a particular action in order to forbid that action by defining it as a crime. The only thing necessary for something to be a crime is that it be defined as a crime in the legal statues. Whether the statute is actually enforced, or convictions actually obtained, is irrelevant as to whether the "something" in question is a crime.

Laws are passed all the time which make certain theoretical activities criminal, even though there may have never been an example of such an activity ever having been indulged in. I could give a half-dozen local examples.

In short, if the law says it's a crime, then it is a crime.