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

[renata]

That is my first run-through. I'd want to spend more time with it to actually parse the language in detail, but those are the points that drew my eye first.

NA

A real lawyer! Thanks for a great post, NoZed! I will run in shame now.



Does anyone know when the contract is supposed to be signed? Right before the show, after the show or days or weeks before the show? The date of birth escaped me entirely, but now I am wondering.. if the contract is supposed to be signed prior to coming on the show, the producers will have a lot of information from the contract alone.

 

[TLN]

TLN,

You asked an interesting legal question on the other thread--what would happen if you went on CO and lied in order to discredit JE. Since NoZed Avenger, a lawyer, answered you, I wanted to put his post here, too:

Thanks Clancie, though I think the far more interesting question is why Edward needs a legal document to prohibit me from trying this ruse.

 

[TLN]

4. It is noted at least twice that the opinions being given by JE are not intended to be a form of advice, instructiuon, counsel, or factual statement in any way whatsoever, but is produced for entertainment purposes only.

This seems a bit of a stopper. You agree that nothing being said is meant to be factual?!

No one has a problem with that? Really?

I'm dying to hear a believer address this point.

 

[CFLarsen]

I would also want to hear about why a date of birth is needed.

What possible reason could the producers (of which JE is one) have for this?

 

[renata]

I'm dying to hear a believer address this point.

Hey, my favorite was" purporting to represent communications from and contact with deceased relativies"

Three guesses on whether the people who drafted this believe in JE...

 

[renata]

I would also want to hear about why a date of birth is needed.

What possible reason could the producers (of which JE is one) have for this?

The key would be when the contract is signed. If it signed right before the show, I cannot imagine it is much use. However if it is mailed in before the show, the potential for mischief is enormous indeed. Now would be a great time to e-mail Jim Underdown

Have enough material for your article now?

 

[Ed]

I think JE is a fraud and should burn in hell. However I see nothing wrong with this contract. It (rightly) protects his intellectual property (of which your performance is a part) and gives up very little. There is no point in him avvering that what he does is factual, why should he? As far as the venue being NY, well, it has to be somewhere. As far as arbitration goes, I'd take that (and have) over going to court any day.

Move on folks, nothing to see here.

 

[CFLarsen]

Have enough material for your article now?

Oh, I have no problems admitting that I was wrong and Clancie was right: This definitely should be debated before the article is written!

Funny that we haven't heard much from Clancie yet. She was the one wanting to see this published - almost to the point of badgering! Yet she keeps eerily quiet.

Perhaps she maintains that there she "didn't find anything remotely suspicious in it at all".

Uh-huh.

The key would be when the contract is signed. If it signed right before the show, I cannot imagine it is much use. However if it is mailed in before the show, the potential for mischief is enormous indeed. Now would be a great time to e-mail Jim Underdown

You greatly underestimate the power of Internet database searches. It takes a few minutes, if you have the right scripts. No biggie.

 

[renata]

You greatly underestimate the power of Internet database searches. It takes a few minutes, if you have the right scripts. No biggie.

How long does each recording session last again? Does JE take breaks? Is there an introduction? I suppose it is possible that while people are sitting down and if there is an introduction, and during first few readings some searches are run. Assuming the tapings are long enough, and he takes breaks, and they have access to some databases thay can gather some info on some people. I assume only a portion of the audience is read. Of course from the few shows I myself have seen, all can be explained by cold reading anyway, but there is great potential for mischief. Interesting...

 

[Thanz]

Whoa...What "lies"? That JE is not talking to the dead? Sorry, JE has to prove that. Claiming that he is not is not a "lie".

That JE has been caught hot reading? Not a lie. He has.

What "lies" are you talking about?

A sitter lying through his teeth about whatever he says to JE.

If JE is a real medium, he could merely dazzle them with a few special hits for them.

And if he is someone like TBK, they would be ignored and the sitter would continue to lie.

JE is also a producer. We have been through this.

He is not a capital "P" Producer as that term is defined in the Agreement.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I think JE is a fraud and should burn in hell. However I see nothing wrong with this contract. It (rightly) protects his intellectual property (of which your performance is a part) and gives up very little.

I don't think it proves anything about JE as a medium -- as I stated, I don't think that it favors either side in the hot reading debate.

I would still advise a client not to sign it, given the defamation and "fictional scenes" problem noted above. When reading a contract, I am not trying to decide if anyone is a good guy or bad guy -- I just look for language that could be used against you in the event that the person decides to use it against you. That language is unaccepatbly broad, IMO. I would not accept those conditions.

I do have a question about the "truth" language. while he may not be required to tout his truthfulness, that is a far cry from having someone sign a waiver admitting that they know you are not asserting anything as true.

I also question the large amount of information given - especially the date of birth. I do not say anything is being done with the inforation, necessarily, but I found it curious. If you were trying to ensure that no "hot" information was being given, you'd certainly limit this type of information.

NA

 

[CFLarsen]

renata,

According to Steve Grenard, it takes around 2 hours between people entering the studio and the taping starts. There are several breaks, but Steve claims that JE doesn't leave the stage. We do not know if this is something that happens during every taping.

When do they sign this contract? I don't know. I cannot for the life of me imagine that this takes place during the tapings, though. It has to be done well in advance before the tapings. How else are they going to prevent the people from attending a taping, who are not entitled to do so?

If they did it immediately prior to the taping, it would make a mockery of the whole legal document.

Steve should be able to tell us this. Unfortunately, Steve has gone missing since he got floored in his "Jacqui Poole Murder Case" thread.

Let's hope neither Steve or Clancie go missing for good. It would be a shame to lose such eloquent spokespeople for skepticism.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

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.

Ah - I thought I had read this, but could not find the post when I went back after looking at the documents. JE is definitely included in this. The sentence states that the opinions are his (and not those of the Producers, etc.), but then goes on to state that the opinions are "not intended to be a form of advice, instructiuon, counsel, or factual statement in any way whatsoever," but is produced "for entertainment purposes only."
Those clauses/limitations do apply to JE directly.

NA

 

[neofight]

A real lawyer! Thanks for a great post, NoZed!

Yes, thanks NoZed Avenger. My eyes were glazing over reading that document. Not being a lawyer, I'm not qualified to say, but I have to wonder whether the language of this release form means anything one way or another. I guess formalities like this are necessary because we are such a litigious society, and everyone wants to cover every possible scenario.

Does anyone know when the contract is supposed to be signed? Right before the show, after the show or days or weeks before the show?

I thought that these releases were signed just prior to the show, but even if one were sent to the person who obtained the tickets, there are still another three people who may show up for the taping, and they would have to fill theirs out in the studio.....neo

 

[CFLarsen]

A sitter lying through his teeth about whatever he says to JE.

But, as TLN said, wouldn't JE know this? He does say when the sitter is wrong. And, as we know, what JE says, goes.

And if he is someone like TBK, they would be ignored and the sitter would continue to lie.

How come? JE insists that it is "psychic amnesia" and the miss goes unchallenged.

He is not a capital "P" Producer as that term is defined in the Agreement.

Oh, please! He is an executive producer!! How big a "P" do you want???

 

[Darat]

Hi Darat,

It sounds like all four pages were posted exactly as sent. You have the hard copy, so what do you think of my comment above re: page 4 of 4?



They are asking sitters to elaborate if they said on the earlier pages that they had any prior connections to the show. It makes sense to give them the extra space on the back, if they need it.

It looks as if they are meaning that if necessary continue the "Business or Professional....." section on anther sheet, however it isn't that clear, you’d normally expect something like that to be in parenthesis as a “(if necessary continue on a separate page)”.



Some comments about the release:


I have seen and used many releases but this one is rather excessive in the scope of the release it tries to obtain.

I'm wondering if the participants of Crossing Over are aware that if they want the "producer" could make a comedy show out of their tears and heartache, that if in future they deem it worthwhile they could make a show mocking the participants and they would have no recourse? I would normally expect to see some "substantially similar usage" restriction placed on the Producer. I for one would never sign such a wide ranging release.

(I've just talked to one of my legal team about this release and he agrees that it is very unlikely that a UK court would uphold the contract to the full extent of the release it tries to obtain, especially considering the circumstances under which the agreement would have been signed. )


(Edited to add)

I should have read the rest of the thread before I posted, I hadn't seen NoZed's response!

 

[neofight]

renata,
Steve claims that JE doesn't leave the stage. We do not know if this is something that happens during every taping.

Yes, this is what Steve has stated. Once John is out on stage, he stays out there. There's no reason to believe that the taping Steve attended was unique in this respect.

When do they sign this contract? I don't know. I cannot for the life of me imagine that this takes place during the tapings, though. It has to be done well in advance before the tapings. How else are they going to prevent the people from attending a taping, who are not entitled to do so?

They check your ID before you are allowed to enter the studio, Claus. If you've been read by John before, or if you've been to a taping within the past year, you are not allowed entrance.

Let's hope neither Steve or Clancie go missing for good. It would be a shame to lose such eloquent spokespeople for skepticism.

Yes, Claus, both Steve and Clancie can be quite eloquent. Of course, you would be sorely missed yourself, were you to go permanently missing. ......neo

 

[Ed]

I don't think it proves anything about JE as a medium -- as I stated, I don't think that it favors either side in the hot reading debate.

Welllll....Actually, if someone blows the whistle (ie. feeds him bad stuff) and writes an expose, he can sue. He can also claim "hey, look at the pains I go to to be on the up and up. Minor points, I think, but they are in his favor. Legal question, suppose I sign "Claus Larsen" and then write an expose? Did I tacitly agree to the contract under those circumstances? I suspect that avoiding signing and then attending is no defence..

I would still advise a client not to sign it, given the defamation and "fictional scenes" problem noted above. When reading a contract, I am not trying to decide if anyone is a good guy or bad guy -- I just look for language that could be used against you in the event that the person decides to use it against you. That language is unaccepatbly broad, IMO. I would not accept those conditions.

Problem is that these people are emotionally needy. If they don't sign they are told "take a hike". They'd never do that

I do have a question about the "truth" language. while he may not be required to tout his truthfulness, that is a far cry from having someone sign a waiver admitting that they know you are not asserting anything as true.

Why not ask for it? In the event of any weird suit JE can say "it was for entertainment"

I also question the large amount of information given - especially the date of birth. I do not say anything is being done with the inforation, necessarily, but I found it curious. If you were trying to ensure that no "hot" information was being given, you'd certainly limit this type of information.

SOP. Demographic info for marketing, advertising sales, etc.

NA

 

[BillHoyt]

Oh, please! He is an executive producer!! How big a "P" do you want???

As executive producer and star of the show, I'd think JE could take a "P" anywhere he wants in the studio. Of any size.

Ed
Move on folks, nothing to see here.

I think there's much to see here. The "no factual statement" clause is a hoot. Unfortunately, it is legalese, and therefore, simply self-serving. (Look at your shrink-wrap license on many software packages you buy. The manufacturer does not warrant this product is good for any use. Of course, the courts generally disagree with these clauses when tort action starts.)

Putting together several of the clauses also builds a picture of CO protecting its rights to edit anything you or JE does to say anything JE or the producers want. Again, we could view it strictly as legalese. Then again, we could view it in light of those who've complained about editing to make ships passing on two different oceans look like a hit.

 

[Ed]

Not at all the point. The point is, if I did lie and Edward was really talking to my dead relatives, he'd know. If I made up a completely ficticious relative, he'd know.

But the fact is he can't know, so he has to ask us not to play this trick on him.

I think that you are approaching this from the wrong angle. Think of JE as a product, pure and simple. His corporation wants to do everything possible to protect the value of that product. We are, after all, talking big bucks.