Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)

[Thanz]

You know what? I don't think that Clancie and Claus like each other.....

Now that we habe the document, I'd like (if possible) to focus on it instead of the Clancie/Claus back and forth.

I have looked at the document, and to be honest I don't see anything that remarkable. It is obviously very one sided (in favour of the Producer) and contains broad releases and indemnities. It also contains strong language against the use of "ringers" or co-operating with JE staff to feed them info in any way. It seems that participants are free to talk about their experiences on the show, unless I have missed something (the jargon gets a little tired even for me after a while).

The document also contains the "entertainment" language that is in the disclaimer, but I would say that this disclaimer excludes JE from its protection. It covers the butt of the Producer and distributors, etc, but says that the statements are "opinions which belong solely to John Edward" in the run down of all the things that the statements are NOT.

So, I'd say that the document provides no evidence against the cold reading hypothesis, but some evidence against the hot reading hypothesis. Not great evidence, but some.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, I can't view the links, but hopefully others can. (And to those whose requests had an affect on you...thanks).

Others can. Go ahead, play the victim, as always.

Claus,

Reading your post is quite an eye-opener, but I'll resist the bait because, quite sincerely, I think you have a problem and I admit that I don't understand it. The only comment I have to respond to is this one:

I have not "filled your mail box with wild accusations"...ever.[/B]

That's a lie. Remember the posts from August 9-10?

And I haven't PM'd you at all since I started this thread yesterday--an action I took solely because of your non-responsiveness to my question privately of when you were going to post the form.

Who said anything about "yesterday"? Stop misrepresenting what I said. You filled my inbox with wild accusations August 9-10. You want to repeat those accusations here?

After PM'ing you three or four times and getting three or four "answers" indicating to me that you weren't going to post it at all, I decided to start this thread. And that's the last you've heard from me privately.

As you know, I haven't PM'd you about it (or anything else) since then.

That would be difficult, since you have me on ignore...wait, you don't have me on ignore...wait, you could possibly have me on ignore...sorry, Clancie, I kinda lost track of what the status is. Could you tell me what it is?

Nice smear tactic though.

Nope, not "smear tactic". Utter truth.

 

[KelvinG]

Clancie
I think you might want to e-mail Hal or Linda to let them know your "ignore" function is not working. I've noticed you've stated repeatedly that you've placed Claus on ignore, but your responses to him continue.
You may want to see if it's some sort of software glitch or something.

 

[De_Bunk]

All these "Warnings" to each other...All these claims of "Deceptive" posts..

Grow up...

Post it here...and get done with it...

( Darat... you hold no blame for anything )

I cannot see how two interesting posters have gotten theirselves into this....

Im bewildered to see this thread turning into threats and bitterness...


Get real...

Claus...Im surprised at you for responding as you did...


DB

 

[Clancie]

Kelvin, Thanz, DeBunk....Okay! Okay! I get the point.

Really.

Posted by Thanz


So, I'd say that the document provides no evidence against the cold reading hypothesis, but some evidence against the hot reading hypothesis. Not great evidence, but some.

Yes, it certainly shows there is no intent to perpetuate fraud through collusion, at least. And I think that actually seeing the document helps dispute some things that have been rumored about it in the past.

1. First, I meant to put "Non Disclosure" in quotes in the thread title. (Big goof, but oh well). It does NOT have a non disclosure or confidentiality clause, as has sometimes been alleged.

In fact, it shows that people who participate in CO readings are only asked to sign a straightforward, quite conventional, release form only. They are also not forbidden to talk with others (including media) about their readings. I think that's very important to understand.

2. Another important goal of the agreement is for sitters to clearly state that they have not colluded in any way with the producers and that they are not deceiving either the tv audience or the producers in their answers and participation.

That also seems very reasonable.

I looked for the "smoking gun" in the document, but didn't find anything remotely suspicious in it at all.

 

[Thanz]

Good lord. I think that the Claus/Clancie saga has now reached rock bottom.

There should be some sort of rule here (like Godwin's Law): Whenever De_Bunk becomes the voice of reason, the bickering has reached a level of pettiness unparalleled in the internet world and must come to an end.

Now that this thread has been De_Bunkified, can we please discuss what is actually in the document?

edited to add: Clancie posted her post discussing the substance while I was composing this message.

 

[Leroy]

Things that caught my eye on page 1


It shows that the person signing the agreement, agrees to allow him/herself to be photographed, filmed, taped, recorded - permission to use his/her name and biographical data.

He/she also agrees that he understands that this becomes the sole property of the producer. And he/she agrees that that, the producer shall have the unlimited right to EDIT, exhibit, use, distribute, etc, said material, in any way the producer desirers.

"it being understood that the program or any derivative works thereof may contain factual and/or FICTIONAL scenes, action and dialogue. "


"I waive any rights I might have to review, inspect or approve any uses of my paricipation in and appearance on the program in which I participate in or appear. "

"I represent and warrent that (i) I have not and will not take any action to deceive Producer and the listening and viewing public by advising employees or producer, any network, distributor or studio involved in the production of the program (or any person whom I know or believe to be in communication with such employees) any information about my "FAMILY TREE" or related to what I expect or hope to occur from any interaction with John Edward; (ii) I will not and have not engaged in any scheme for the purpose of prearranging in whole or in part my interaction with John Edward on the Program;

 

[renata]

Disclaimer
a. I am not a lawyer and am not allowed to give legal advice or quote case law or such
b. I am utterly and entirely unfamiliar with case law in NY, but I am familiar with contracts, indemnity agreements and applications of such in California. What I have to say may not apply to NY at all, feel free to disregard it. But I can say that cases have turned on placements of "the" in contracts, so reading a four page documents and saying one did not see anything amiss in it..well, that is why we are not lawyers

I only glanced at this. But I saw a very nice Hold Harmless and indemnity agreement there. Whatever he is, he has some smart lawyers. It is a long explanation, but in general, these types of things is when they run you over with a truck and you pay them for dirtying their tires. I am exaggerating of course, but it is the crux of the agreement in my eyes.

"I further agree to indemnify, defend, release and hold harmless Producer's Companies And John Edward, his heirs, representatives and assigns, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, injuries, costs, and expenses, (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) of any nature whatsoever...." You sue them, you pay THEIR legal costs, no matter who wins, by contract. And, by the way, what that also means if anyone who signed this is alleged to slander JE, JE can sue them, and they will have to pay his costs, even if they win, by contract they signed, because he will get them for breach also. Once again, I am basing my suppositions on California public policy and case laws about indemnity agreements and breach of contracts, it could be that each state interprets it differently, and I am utterly unfamiliar with case law in NY.

Another smart move is the agreement to arbitrate. Now, being on the defense side I love arbitrations. They tend to stick to the letter of the law, and since in this contract the person waive everything and signs a strong indemnity agreement, this would be open and shut in favor of JE and the producers in pretty much any eventuality I can imagine. All arbitrations I was involved in were confidential, I do not know what is the custom in NY. That might be the reason why we never hear of a suit, but I do not know.

What also struck me was continued references to "entertainment only" "purporting to represent communications from and contact with deceased relativies". I also chuckled at the fact that whoever signed the agreement waived the right to object to having producers edit their voice, image or name in any way they wanted, so pretty much once you are there you could be agreeing be edited to say you dance polka with your dead aunt Nancy, and there is nothing you could do about it

Any lawyers want to take a crack at it? I think we have had enough of amateurs trying to figure it out

 

[Leroy]

btw, thanks for getting this Clancie, and thanks for posting it CFLarsen

MORE:

"(iii) I shall not mention any commercial product, service or venture on the Program, including the name of my employer; and (iv) neither I nor anyone acting on my behalf is giving or receiving monies or other valuable consideration to get me on the Program, to mention anything on the program, to rehearse or script my appearance or to otherwise prearrange the outcome of my appearance on the program.

I am aware that it may be CRIMINAL OFFENSE punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to do anything that would rig or anyway influence the outcome of the program with the intent to deceive the viewing public, and to offer or to accept any information or secret assistance in connection with the program. I agree that I will not participate in such acts or any deceptive or dishonest acts with respect to the program, and I shall immediately notify producer in the event I am approached to undertake any such acts."

More later

Any comments?

 

[Leroy]

What also struck me was continued references to "entertainment only" "purporting to represent communications from and contact with deceased relativies".

Continued references? How many times was "entertainment only" referenced in this agreement? I have only read 1 and 1/2 pages so far.

What pages are the "entertainment only" references made on?

I also chuckled at the fact that whoever signed the agreement waived the right to object to having producers edit their voice, image or name in any way they wanted, so pretty much once you are there you could be agreeing be edited to say you dance polka with your dead aunt Nancy, and there is nothing you could do about it

Can you believe it! Do these people really read these agreements before signing them? Probably not.

 

[Thanz]

And, by the way, what that also means if anyone who signed this is alleged to slander JE, JE can sue them, and they will have to pay his costs, even if they win, by contract they signed, because he will get them for breach also.

Good post, Renata. I do have a question though. Where are you getting this from? Is there some "no slander" clause in the agreement? If there is, I missed it on my quick review.

 

[renata]

Good post, Renata. I do have a question though. Where are you getting this from? Is there some "no slander" clause in the agreement? If there is, I missed it on my quick review.

In my non lawyer reading of it there doesn't have to be a "no slander" clause. Slander and libel is actionable in itself. The beauty of the indemnity agreement is that the person who signs it agrees to indemnify and defend them out of any claim or legal action arising out of the show. A side effect of that may be that any comments after the show may have to be positive, if there is a thread of slander suit, which you will pay for one way or the other. In California we have had cases in which people were sued for negligence, and then got nailed with attorney fees due to strong indemnity agreements, but in California we have very interesting laws about indemnity agreements which may not apply in New York, so please please please do not rely on my reading of this. I know JREF is practically teeming with lawyers, where are they??



Leroy- yes, people frequently just glance at legalese and do not understand at what they sign away. I believe entertainment only type language was mentioned 3 times, perhaps "continued references" and that struck me.

 

[Thanz]

Renata -

I don't think that the indemnity is that broad. The first part deals with "any breach of my representations, warranties or obligations under this agreement", which interestingly would cover any person saying that they colluded with JE or his staff prior to the show, but not just saying "I was there and JE sucked".

The second part of the disclaimer MAY cover a slander suit by JE, but I think that it is really directed at any third party lawsuits (from people who did not sign the agreement). Basically, if uncle Fred sues JE because JE said Fred was a fall down drunk, whoever he was reading at the time foots the bill for JE's legal costs.

 

[renata]

Renata -

I don't think that the indemnity is that broad. The first part deals with "any breach of my representations, warranties or obligations under this agreement", which interestingly would cover any person saying that they colluded with JE or his staff prior to the show, but not just saying "I was there and JE sucked".

The second part of the disclaimer MAY cover a slander suit by JE, but I think that it is really directed at any third party lawsuits (from people who did not sign the agreement). Basically, if uncle Fred sues JE because JE said Fred was a fall down drunk, whoever he was reading at the time foots the bill for JE's legal costs.

Thanz, read the part I quoted in my first post

""I further agree to indemnify, defend, release and hold harmless Producer's Companies And John Edward, his heirs, representatives and assigns, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, injuries, costs, and expenses, (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) of any nature whatsoever...."

Can't get much more broad than that, can you? While it goes on to discuss third party suits, it does not limit to them "including but not limited to those involving any charge by third persons..". I think this sentence is really a catch all. Whether it may be against public policy and perhaps unenforceable is a different matter entirely.

What I really need to do is print it out and read it with a pen about 10 times to understand it..and learn NY case law. No promises on the latter .

Lawyers! We need you! You know, lawyers really hate it when amateurs discuss contracts. And if there is one thing that was beaten into me was to never discuss case law without a law degree- ever ever ever.

As to hot reading- I am not convinced it eliminates that possibility, I think it just shifts the responsibility unto the ringer from the producer.

Also from the indemnity agreement, another beauty "and from and against any and all claims or causes of actions asserted by third persons and arising out of my possible interaction with John Edward, the Statements, the negligence of any of the Producer's Companies, any false and misleading statements I may make during the course of the program. "

Emphasis mine. Whoever signs the form just took upon themselves responsibility for their own acts, but also took responsibility for negligence of the Producers, in suits against JE's show. Nicely hidden in the text, no? Smart lawyers.

 

[Thanz]

Renata -

You are missing the qualifying language that comes later in that brutally long sentence: "arising out of or in connection with my participation in and on the Program". One would have to say that the slander was in connection with the participation on the program - which may be easy to do, but may not considering the rest of the language that follows this part. I could see a fight over whether it would apply to a slander claim against the participant.

 

[CFLarsen]

On page 4, we read:

PLEASE CONTINUE ONTO THE NEXT PAGE

What comes after page 4? It says that there are 4 pages, so what does this mean? I cannot imagine that such a glaring error is allowed on a legal document.

I am aware that it may be a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to do anything that would rig or anyway influence the outcome of the Program with the intent to deceive the viewing public, and to offer or to accept any information or secret assistance in connection with the Program. I agree that I will not participate in such acts or any deceptive or dishonest acts with respect to the Program, and I shall immediately notify Producer in the event I am approached to undertake any such acts.

This effectively rules out any skeptics. As we know, skeptics have an ability to influence paranormal phenomena, such as necromancy.

 

[renata]

Renata -

You are missing the qualifying language that comes later in that brutally long sentence: "arising out of or in connection with my participation in and on the Program". One would have to say that the slander was in connection with the participation on the program - which may be easy to do, but may not considering the rest of the language that follows this part. I could see a fight over whether it would apply to a slander claim against the participant.

Thanz, yes, I just got a printer and have not hooked it up. It is hard to read contracts on screen, and I hope to print it out later today and examine which part of sentence belongs to what. Perhaps my interpretation will change! But I chuckle at " arising out of", about 20% of my job consisted of interpreting that phrase in various situations, there are about 20 cases on that pharse alone here. Law? Pedantic, detail oriented? Nahhhh.....

Long story short, I submit that arising out of would apply to anything having to do with the JE show. Had a person not been on the show, there would be no slander suit. Courts tend to interpret that generously, at least they have done so here. Perhaps in NY they have not.

 

[hgc]

btw, thanks for getting this Clancie, and thanks for posting it CFLarsen

MORE:

...

I am aware that it may be CRIMINAL OFFENSE punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to do anything that would rig or anyway influence the outcome of the program with the intent to deceive the viewing public, and to offer or to accept any information or secret assistance in connection with the program...

...

Any comments?

Just one question: What keeps JE out of jail?

 

[renata]

On page 4, we read:



What comes after page 4? It says that there are 4 pages, so what does this mean? I cannot imagine that such a glaring error is allowed on a legal document.

Bigger screw ups have happened, it could be just a clerical error. But you remind me of a funny story. I was training this very green adjuster. Part of our job, first thing really is reading contracts. And the first thing we read is indemnity agreements- the crux of the contract. In our trade, there are always indemnity agreements, and our clients are always over the barrell. Sometimes, if we luck out, the clients did not do the job, or the contracts are lost and so we do not owe for contractual causes of action.

Anyway, she runs to me, breathless, says :"Guess what, I have this contract, it does not have an indemnity agreement in it! Do you know what that means!!!"
Heartless me: " Yeah, it means you are missing that page".
Like taking the air out of a baloon...

 

[CFLarsen]

Just one question: What keeps JE out of jail?

The fact that JE makes the audience sign this contract, not the other way around. He walks, simply because he absolves himself from all blame, and puts the onus on the audience.

By signing this, JE makes it a crime for the audience to rig the show. He makes sure that he can rig it, any way he wants. He can edit it to his pleasure, even present himself in a better light. And there is not a gawddurn thing anyone can do about it.

This should raise a VERY red flag, considering that he himself claims to - really - be talking to dead people.

Amazing that people cannot find anything remotely suspicious in it at all. Simply amazing.

It's a "Cover-JE's-Ass document", pure and simple. And his believers fall for it. Willingly.