-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cocoa Beach Library books 'courageous' psychic detective
- Thread starter Sherlock
- Start date
Sherlock
Muse
Noreen Renier: False Academic teaching credentials
One further point. The Office of Human Resources at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida has confirmed that Noreen Renier has never been a "adjunct faculty member" as she lists herself on her web site.
One further point. The Office of Human Resources at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida has confirmed that Noreen Renier has never been a "adjunct faculty member" as she lists herself on her web site.
And her present web site goes far beyond just raising her status at small community colleges like Santa Fe Community College.
Noreen Renier continues to deceptively list herself on her web site as an "adjunct faculty member" with "teaching appointments" from major colleges and universities including the University of Florida, the University of Delaware, and the University of Virginia.
Noreen Renier continues to deceptively list herself on her web site as an "adjunct faculty member" with "teaching appointments" from major colleges and universities including the University of Florida, the University of Delaware, and the University of Virginia.
Yet calls made to these major academic centers reveal she was never an accredited faculty member, faculty associate or even faculty assistant.
Among the official adjunct faculty member listings throughout all of the accredited departments across these major universities there are absolutely no listings for Noreen Renier. None. Ever.
So did the Cocoa Beach library book a woman they regarded as an author with a wide academic teaching background? In fact all of Noreen Renier's published books have been extensively written by others including co-author Naomi Lucks. And as Noreen Renier could not recall the name of any high school she attended during testimony --- and she apparently has no academic standing beyond perhaps the 8th grade --- perhaps further checks are warranted.
Last edited:
Great work, Sherlock!
Ernie M
Graduate Poster
Sherlock,
In case you don't hear many "thanks"
for your hard work, research, and (I'm assuming) stressful times,
I want to say "thank you"
for making, and continuing to make, Noreen Renier's false claims public.
It is important and significant for people to have the facts,
and have those facts put into proper context,
so it can be clear what is right, wrong, and all the stuff in between.
You did, and continue to do well, Sherlock. Thank you.
-Ernie Marsh
In case you don't hear many "thanks"
for your hard work, research, and (I'm assuming) stressful times,
I want to say "thank you"
for making, and continuing to make, Noreen Renier's false claims public.
It is important and significant for people to have the facts,
and have those facts put into proper context,
so it can be clear what is right, wrong, and all the stuff in between.
You did, and continue to do well, Sherlock. Thank you.
-Ernie Marsh
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
Awesome work here. I live about an hour and a half up the road from Cocoa Beach.
Sherlock
Muse
Psychic actress Noreen Renier: Credibility issues
Thanks much for all of your interest and comments. Let's see how the library plays this out both with the format in their guest appearance --- comments and questions anyone? ---and their current glorified web site posting.
Thanks much for all of your interest and comments. Let's see how the library plays this out both with the format in their guest appearance --- comments and questions anyone? ---and their current glorified web site posting.
Well done! I was hoping you'd do that.
Sherlock
Muse
Noreen Renier: Bogus nonsense in public lectures
After reviewing several videotaped public lectures and "acting performances" given by former professional actress Noreen Renier ---who now describes herself as a police and FBI psychic investigator--- one thing is clear. She keeps to a tight 40-45 minute well-rehearsed script and gives virtually an identical presentation over and over.
That's made checking her talks before audiences very easy to "chop and check". The same repeated claims in the same repeated sequencing.
For those interested here's a "fiction versus fact" analysis from a lecture she delivered at the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm one of several who did the analysis for the links below. I suspect this performance would become one she's prepared to give in Cocoa Beach. She apparently can't create anything else other than these delusionary tales.
http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/clinton%20school.html
And for more on her college and university "teaching appointments" and academic "scientific testing" see http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Bogus psychic tests and academic status.html
After reviewing several videotaped public lectures and "acting performances" given by former professional actress Noreen Renier ---who now describes herself as a police and FBI psychic investigator--- one thing is clear. She keeps to a tight 40-45 minute well-rehearsed script and gives virtually an identical presentation over and over.
That's made checking her talks before audiences very easy to "chop and check". The same repeated claims in the same repeated sequencing.
For those interested here's a "fiction versus fact" analysis from a lecture she delivered at the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm one of several who did the analysis for the links below. I suspect this performance would become one she's prepared to give in Cocoa Beach. She apparently can't create anything else other than these delusionary tales.
http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/clinton%20school.html
And for more on her college and university "teaching appointments" and academic "scientific testing" see http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Bogus psychic tests and academic status.html
Last edited:
Sherlock
Muse
Brevard County Library "no comment" on psychic booking
The 17-location Brevard County library system includes the Cocoa Beach library which booked discredited 'FBI psychic investigator' Noreen Renier --- a woman who received multiple federal court judgments backing a "not credible" federal court order against her after she "misled" a federal court.
As of 4:00pm Eastern time today there was "no comment" on its controversy surrounding its internal public displays and external web site promotions referencing Noreen Renier's upcoming September 25th appearance.
Apparently the Brevard County library system bases its descriptive marketing directly from its chosen paranormal speakers and perhaps the latest National Enquirer headlines.
The 17-location Brevard County library system includes the Cocoa Beach library which booked discredited 'FBI psychic investigator' Noreen Renier --- a woman who received multiple federal court judgments backing a "not credible" federal court order against her after she "misled" a federal court.
As of 4:00pm Eastern time today there was "no comment" on its controversy surrounding its internal public displays and external web site promotions referencing Noreen Renier's upcoming September 25th appearance.
Apparently the Brevard County library system bases its descriptive marketing directly from its chosen paranormal speakers and perhaps the latest National Enquirer headlines.
Sherlock
Muse
Attempts to reach the Brevard County Libraries Director as listed on their web site as [email protected] continue to fail. If anyone can manage to get through to anyone please pass this along under my name below. Thank you.
Dear Ms. Schweinsberg:
The Cocoa Beach Public Library notes it has booked "renowned" psychic Noreen Renier for a September 25th appearance at 6:30pm. The Office of Human Resources at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida has confirmed that Noreen Renier has never been an "adjunct faculty member" as she lists herself on her web site.
But her present web site http://noreenrenier.com/services/academic.htm goes further. Ms. Renier deceptively lists herself as an "adjunct faculty member" with "teaching appointments" from major colleges and universities including the University of Florida, the University of Delaware, and the University of Virginia. Yet calls made to these major academic centers reveal she was never an accredited faculty member, faculty associate or even faculty assistant. Among the official adjunct faculty member listings throughout all of the accredited departments across these major universities there are absolutely no listings for Noreen Renier. None. Ever.
On April 18, 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against Noreen Renier. Its three judges ordered a judgment fully supporting an earlier Virginia U.S. District Court ruling against Renier after that U.S. District court had in turn ordered its own judgment against Renier after agreeing with a third federal court which ruled Noreen Renier had "misled" the court and was not credible! And yet a fourth federal court in Washington also ruled against Ms. Renier noting “it is impossible that Ms. Renier breached [a Florida State court] agreement in this case without some level of fault. She knew or should have known of the agreement, and breached it nonetheless. . . The court rejects Ms. Renier's claim that she did not breach the Settlement Agreement because her statements in [her book] A Mind for Murder are, according to her true." Incredibly Noreen Renier has failed to show proof of even a single law enforcement agency having directly hired her across years of work even while claiming during those years that "70-80%" of her work was directly booked by police agencies.
See http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinqu...t%20exist.html Please also see http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/clinton%20school.html
Thank you. -John Merrell
Dear Ms. Schweinsberg:
The Cocoa Beach Public Library notes it has booked "renowned" psychic Noreen Renier for a September 25th appearance at 6:30pm. The Office of Human Resources at Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida has confirmed that Noreen Renier has never been an "adjunct faculty member" as she lists herself on her web site.
But her present web site http://noreenrenier.com/services/academic.htm goes further. Ms. Renier deceptively lists herself as an "adjunct faculty member" with "teaching appointments" from major colleges and universities including the University of Florida, the University of Delaware, and the University of Virginia. Yet calls made to these major academic centers reveal she was never an accredited faculty member, faculty associate or even faculty assistant. Among the official adjunct faculty member listings throughout all of the accredited departments across these major universities there are absolutely no listings for Noreen Renier. None. Ever.
On April 18, 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against Noreen Renier. Its three judges ordered a judgment fully supporting an earlier Virginia U.S. District Court ruling against Renier after that U.S. District court had in turn ordered its own judgment against Renier after agreeing with a third federal court which ruled Noreen Renier had "misled" the court and was not credible! And yet a fourth federal court in Washington also ruled against Ms. Renier noting “it is impossible that Ms. Renier breached [a Florida State court] agreement in this case without some level of fault. She knew or should have known of the agreement, and breached it nonetheless. . . The court rejects Ms. Renier's claim that she did not breach the Settlement Agreement because her statements in [her book] A Mind for Murder are, according to her true." Incredibly Noreen Renier has failed to show proof of even a single law enforcement agency having directly hired her across years of work even while claiming during those years that "70-80%" of her work was directly booked by police agencies.
See http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinqu...t%20exist.html Please also see http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/clinton%20school.html
Thank you. -John Merrell
Last edited:
Sherlock, have you tried commenting on the library's Facebook page?
https://www.facebook.com/cocoabeachlibrary
https://www.facebook.com/cocoabeachlibrary
Sherlock
Muse
Tried it earlier but no response from that corner either. But thanks.
Sherlock
Muse
Should a public library be held liable by engaging in falsehoods?
Here's a question. Let's suggest that a public library somewhere in North America promotes a psychic born in the Antarctica as a courageous and noble source for solving crimes by paranormal means and/or through their powers of contacting the dead to gain insight as to how a murder happened.
Perhaps the public library even promotes this person as renowned and allows them a public platform inside the library to extend their bogus claims of having “hundreds” of direct police hiring’s and an ability to contact dead victims to discover insights.
Or a public library that promotes a professional actress who claims amazing God-like powers and claims to communicate with eye-witnesses not available to police --- such as a grove of coconut trees who can be talked with at the scene of the crime.
And during the library sponsored public forum members of the public hear from this library endorsed psychic that while communicating with the coconut trees its been learned that a murder took place with descriptions of faces as witnessed by several younger coconuts.
Maybe the public library through its marketing promotions essentially endorses someone who claims the ability to "read" visions off the toothbrushes or uses pendulums hanging over maps to find missing persons.
Or a public library that allows their guest speaker to solicit a young mother in the audience to locate that mothers missing daughter through paranormal means for a fee of $2500 --- just minutes after the lecture ends.
Now let’s take a circumstance where this person promoted by the library was found to be either not credible by a court, and/or deemed by their statements as delusional after being presented with mismatched realities versus their claims; and/or has been discovered to be a con-artist adept at milking the public by charging $15-$25 a minute fees for psychic visions.
Should the public library and its management officers and involved personnel be held legally liable for potential injuries and hardships arising from broken psychic business promises and any failure to deliver reasonable return on their claimed abilities? Or cause a real crime figure to be overlooked amid confusion and claims?
What about having been prior advised of such concerns when a public library does nothing?
Here's a question. Let's suggest that a public library somewhere in North America promotes a psychic born in the Antarctica as a courageous and noble source for solving crimes by paranormal means and/or through their powers of contacting the dead to gain insight as to how a murder happened.
Perhaps the public library even promotes this person as renowned and allows them a public platform inside the library to extend their bogus claims of having “hundreds” of direct police hiring’s and an ability to contact dead victims to discover insights.
Or a public library that promotes a professional actress who claims amazing God-like powers and claims to communicate with eye-witnesses not available to police --- such as a grove of coconut trees who can be talked with at the scene of the crime.
And during the library sponsored public forum members of the public hear from this library endorsed psychic that while communicating with the coconut trees its been learned that a murder took place with descriptions of faces as witnessed by several younger coconuts.
Maybe the public library through its marketing promotions essentially endorses someone who claims the ability to "read" visions off the toothbrushes or uses pendulums hanging over maps to find missing persons.
Or a public library that allows their guest speaker to solicit a young mother in the audience to locate that mothers missing daughter through paranormal means for a fee of $2500 --- just minutes after the lecture ends.
Now let’s take a circumstance where this person promoted by the library was found to be either not credible by a court, and/or deemed by their statements as delusional after being presented with mismatched realities versus their claims; and/or has been discovered to be a con-artist adept at milking the public by charging $15-$25 a minute fees for psychic visions.
Should the public library and its management officers and involved personnel be held legally liable for potential injuries and hardships arising from broken psychic business promises and any failure to deliver reasonable return on their claimed abilities? Or cause a real crime figure to be overlooked amid confusion and claims?
What about having been prior advised of such concerns when a public library does nothing?
Last edited:
Sherlock
Muse
Should a public library be held liable by engaging in falsehoods?
Here's a question. Let's suggest that a public library somewhere in North America promotes a psychic born in the Antarctica as a courageous and noble source for solving crimes by paranormal means and/or through their powers of contacting the dead to gain insight as to how a murder happened.
Perhaps the public library even promotes this person as renowned and allows them a public platform inside the library to extend their bogus claims of having “hundreds” of direct police hiring’s and an ability to contact the dead victims.
Even communicate with eye-witnesses such as coconut trees at the scene of the crime.
And the public hears that this library endorsed psychic in communicating with the coconut trees has learned about a murder and other similar devastation as witnessed by several younger coconuts.
Maybe the public library through its marketing promotions essentially endorses someone who claims the ability to "read" visions off the toothbrushes or uses pendulums hanging over maps to find missing persons.
Or a public library that allows their guest speaker to solicit a young mother in the audience to locate that mothers missing daughter through paranormal means for a fee of $2500 --- just minutes after the lecture ends.
Now let’s take a circumstance where this person promoted by the library was found to be either not credible by a court, and/or deemed by their statements as delusional after being presented with mismatched realities versus their claims; and/or has been discovered to be a con-artist adept at milking the public with $1000 fees with exaggerated claims.
Should the public library and its management officers and involved personnel be held legally liable for potential injuries and hardships arising from broken psychic business promises and any failure to deliver reasonable return on their claimed abilities? Or if a real crime figure was overlooked amid the bogus claims?
What about having been prior advised of such concerns when a public library does nothing?
Here's a question. Let's suggest that a public library somewhere in North America promotes a psychic born in the Antarctica as a courageous and noble source for solving crimes by paranormal means and/or through their powers of contacting the dead to gain insight as to how a murder happened.
Perhaps the public library even promotes this person as renowned and allows them a public platform inside the library to extend their bogus claims of having “hundreds” of direct police hiring’s and an ability to contact the dead victims.
Even communicate with eye-witnesses such as coconut trees at the scene of the crime.
And the public hears that this library endorsed psychic in communicating with the coconut trees has learned about a murder and other similar devastation as witnessed by several younger coconuts.
Maybe the public library through its marketing promotions essentially endorses someone who claims the ability to "read" visions off the toothbrushes or uses pendulums hanging over maps to find missing persons.
Or a public library that allows their guest speaker to solicit a young mother in the audience to locate that mothers missing daughter through paranormal means for a fee of $2500 --- just minutes after the lecture ends.
Now let’s take a circumstance where this person promoted by the library was found to be either not credible by a court, and/or deemed by their statements as delusional after being presented with mismatched realities versus their claims; and/or has been discovered to be a con-artist adept at milking the public with $1000 fees with exaggerated claims.
Should the public library and its management officers and involved personnel be held legally liable for potential injuries and hardships arising from broken psychic business promises and any failure to deliver reasonable return on their claimed abilities? Or if a real crime figure was overlooked amid the bogus claims?
What about having been prior advised of such concerns when a public library does nothing?
Last edited:
Sherlock
Muse
Added info on my comments directly above
Concerning my comments in '
Should a public library be held liable by engaging in falsehoods?':
While Noreen Renier was not born in the Antarctica she has made the following claims:
1. Having inner entities who help her contact the dead and uncover the reasons and events behind murders. Two of these she claims are called Robert and "an Oriental" named Sing.
2. Being hired directly by law enforcement agencies on "70-80" of cases. Of which all evidence including her income filings with a bankruptcy court show zero income and zero hirings from police agencies across years even while she was making similar claims.
3. Claims of offering a skilled and valid means to locate missing persons by watching pendulums swing over maps. Not surprisingly she's scored zero actual findings using this method.
4. In one of her co-authored books she claims multiple amazing God-like powers including the means to communicate with eye-witnesses not available to police --- such as trees who she talks with and has learned are witnesses to horrific events of the past. Coconuts not specifically identified as a source.
5. Claims the ability to "read" visions off the toothbrushes.
6. Has charged multiple Florida families $1000 fees for a few minutes of "visions" in finding their lost children --- with zero results in actually resolving any single law enforcement agency listed lost child case --- and in providing various paranormal visions across an estimated $250,000.00 and greater in collected fees.
For more see http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Quick%20reference%20of%20claims.html
Concerning my comments in '
Should a public library be held liable by engaging in falsehoods?':
While Noreen Renier was not born in the Antarctica she has made the following claims:
1. Having inner entities who help her contact the dead and uncover the reasons and events behind murders. Two of these she claims are called Robert and "an Oriental" named Sing.
2. Being hired directly by law enforcement agencies on "70-80" of cases. Of which all evidence including her income filings with a bankruptcy court show zero income and zero hirings from police agencies across years even while she was making similar claims.
3. Claims of offering a skilled and valid means to locate missing persons by watching pendulums swing over maps. Not surprisingly she's scored zero actual findings using this method.
4. In one of her co-authored books she claims multiple amazing God-like powers including the means to communicate with eye-witnesses not available to police --- such as trees who she talks with and has learned are witnesses to horrific events of the past. Coconuts not specifically identified as a source.
5. Claims the ability to "read" visions off the toothbrushes.
6. Has charged multiple Florida families $1000 fees for a few minutes of "visions" in finding their lost children --- with zero results in actually resolving any single law enforcement agency listed lost child case --- and in providing various paranormal visions across an estimated $250,000.00 and greater in collected fees.
For more see http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Quick%20reference%20of%20claims.html
Last edited: