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

[Ed]

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.


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.

Maybe so. I just think that they are getting the most protection that they can. Hell, I would

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that this has changed. Steve himself has stated that after O'Neill's criticism, the procedures were changed.

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.

Yep, we know this. So, they have a database of people who have been read or even attended a taping. Does that make you wonder if this database could be used for Internet searches? As we have seen from Instig8r's research, this is very likely.

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

I am aware of your fantasies about me, but I would rather you would suppress those. This is, after all, a family board.

 

[BillHoyt]

Maybe so. I just think that they are getting the most protection that they can. Hell, I would

Absolutely true. But now look a bit closer, and keep in mind an attorney looks at all the possible legal pitfalls, and warns the client about them. That's because the law is his or her knowledge domain. But the client needs to inform the attorney about his knowledge domain to help the attorney identify the possible consequences of his client's intended actions. I think that may be part of the reason NoZed zeroed in on the "no factual" clause. What was the conversation behind the scenes behind that clause? What worried the client so that this unusual clause was inserted?

I'd be keenly interested to hear NoZed expound on these points.

Cheers,

 

[Darat]

One thing I do think this contract absolutely clarifies is that the programme "Crossing Over" has to be treated as if all the events are or could be fictional and we should not consider the veracity of any of the content to be a truthful representation of JE's ability to communicate with the dead.

(Consider the Producer has the right to do anything with the material they get, re-arrange it, put it back together again and so on and we can’t just assume that they don’t. Also don't forget that even if a sitter doesn't like what was done with their sitting we now can see that they have signed an agreement that tries to remove any rights to complain about it!)

So the only widely available material that we have (to date) no doubts about its veracity is the Larry King show transcripts; transcripts which have shown he seems not to be able to perform as well, even though he has agreed to the "terms and conditions" imposed by the LK show, as he does when he or his fellow producers can control how his “readings” are put together.


(Edited for a few typos.)

 

[BillHoyt]

One thing I do think this contract absolutely clarifies is that the programme "Crossing Over" has to be treated as if all the events are or could be fictional and we should not consider the veracity of any of the content to be a truthful representation of JE's ability to communicate with the dead.

(Consider the Producer has the right to do anything with the material they get, re-arrange it, put it back together again and so on and we can’t just assume that they don’t. Also don't forget that even if a sitter doesn't like what was done with their sitting we now can see that they have signed an agreement that tries to remove any rights to complain about it!)

So the only widely available material that we have (to date) no doubts about its veracity is the Larry King show transcripts; transcripts which have shown he seems not to be able to perform as well, even though he has agreed to the "terms and conditions" imposed by the LK show, as he does when he or his fellow producers can control how his “readings” are put together.


(Edited for a few typos.)

We also have O'Neill's report about what happened to his reading on CO. That report specifically complains about these points. Hmmm.

Cheers,

 

[renata]

Absolutely true. But now look a bit closer, and keep in mind an attorney looks at all the possible legal pitfalls, and warns the client about them. That's because the law is his or her knowledge domain. But the client needs to inform the attorney about his knowledge domain to help the attorney identify the possible consequences of his client's intended actions. I think that may be part of the reason NoZed zeroed in on the "no factual" clause. What was the conversation behind the scenes behind that clause? What worried the client so that this unusual clause was inserted?

I'd be keenly interested to hear NoZed expound on these points.

Cheers,

All great points, Bill. By the way, don't you think this thread (except for the first dozen posts of useless bickering) would be a great candidate for a Laudie? NoZed's contributions are particularly valuable, but this seems to be another good example of a good skeptical group effort.

 

[TLN]

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.

That's exactly the angle I'm approaching it from. I just looked at another "product" right here on my desk, a bottle of Tylenol.

What would you say about a bottle of Tylenol if printed on the side was the message "Should in no way be considered a pain reliever"?

 

[BillHoyt]

All great points, Bill. By the way, don't you think this thread (except for the first dozen posts of useless bickering) would be a great candidate for a Laudie? NoZed's contributions are particularly valuable, but this seems to be another good example of a good skeptical group effort.

Good suggestion, renata. I haven't even started the nominations threads yet this month. Gotta get crackin'...

Cheers,

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Absolutely true. But now look a bit closer, and keep in mind an attorney looks at all the possible legal pitfalls, and warns the client about them. That's because the law is his or her knowledge domain. But the client needs to inform the attorney about his knowledge domain to help the attorney identify the possible consequences of his client's intended actions. I think that may be part of the reason NoZed zeroed in on the "no factual" clause. What was the conversation behind the scenes behind that clause? What worried the client so that this unusual clause was inserted?

I'd be keenly interested to hear NoZed expound on these points.

I do not feel that I really get into the intent behind this too much -- it is possible that the author may have added those types of things without specific instructions, for example. I was really not attempting to look at what lies behind the language when I read through. Instead, I was looking at what the language actually promises (or what restrictions it places).

The paper itself was interesting simply because it expressly sets out that the person, by signing, accepts that the information being given to him is not factual, is not accurate, and may be later edited to change the meaning of the information at will.

I do not believe that the paper, by itself, provides any evidence for or against JE, except to the extent that the person signing certainly does seem to be supplying some information to JE/his staff prior to the show. That isn't evidence that the information is used -- it is just one reason why the shows cannot be considered any type of proof, and why only situations with proper controls should be used in testing this type of claim (IMO).

The "not factual/could be fictional" language is along similar lines. It simply shows that nothing on the show can be used uncritically or accepted as true -- not even JE is making the claim that it is accurate, it seems.

I hesitate to read anything more negative into the language, however. It may be that the intent is simply to avoid suits or claims involving people who later become dissatisfied with a reading or whose memory becomes faulty, for example. I do not find that argument very compelling, given the language used, but I am not prepared to say that there is no other explanation.

Of course, the explanation that the clause is a cynical addition because JE and his staff know they could get into real trouble without the "entertainment only" type of language is, IMO, a front-runner. But there is nothing conclusive here. The language raises questions, but I don't think that it provides any "smoking gun," to borrow a phrase from someone above (Clancie? Thanz?).

I do disagree with the one or two posters that indicate that the paper somehow makes hot reading less likely or reads in JE's favor. At best (for JE), I see the document as neutral on that issue. Creating a self-serving "paper trail" to look good is a long-respected and long-practiced art in the business world; this document is no different in that respect than dozens of other that are created for the same purpose -- CYA.

NA

 

[Clancie]

Quickly, here's a bit from the JREF Challenge application (emphasis added is mine):

from "Challenge" Application

• Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.
  
• When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes.
  
  This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.
  
• JREF will not entertain any demand that the prize money be deposited in escrow, displayed in cash, or otherwise produced in advance of the test being performed. JREF will not cater to such vanities.

In other words...

• Randi, like JE, insists on having no limits placed as to how he will use the image of the participant and their results;
  
• Randi and JREF hold themselves not liable in any way for any damage or loss of any kind to participants, for any reason whatsoever;
  
• Randi and JREF will not, for any reason, '"produce the money in advance of the test being performed".

The point?

That legal language is often needed in contracts to

(1) give the person in charge (CO producers or Randi) unlimited control over the images and information that result, with no guarantees for the participants;

(2) clearly protect them (CO or Randi/JREF) from being sued if a participant is embarrassed or hurt in any way; and

(3) re the money. Even innocent stipulations can look suspicious if one is intent on coming at them with a suspicious mindset.

 

[TLN]

Creating a self-serving "paper trail" to look good is a long-respected and long-practiced art in the business world; this document is no different in that respect than dozens of other that are created for the same purpose -- CYA.

Can you clarify this for an audience with no business or legal sense?

 

[neofight]

On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that this has changed. Steve himself has stated that after O'Neill's criticism, the procedures were changed.

Claus, sometimes you fail to make any sense at all. John describes in "Crossing Over", the book, how after that whole Times article came out, they made sure that those people attending tapings understood that they were not to talk about anything relating to whom they wanted to hear from, etc. So why on earth would he change the procedure in the other direction, by taking off-stage breaks??? In an effort to put an end to criticism, they were looking to *tighten* the controls, not loosen them.

I am aware of your fantasies about me, but I would rather you would suppress those. This is, after all, a family board.

LOL Whatever it is you're smoking, Claus, I think you had enough! ......neo

 

[Instig8R]

I'm glad that the "Appearance Release" was finally posted. I am not a lawyer, but I once worked in the legal profession. It is my un-professional opinion that this one-sided document falls into the “unconscionable agreement” category. The CO producers are in a superior position of power. Their attorneys drafted a document that is designed to force hapless audience members – without benefit of counsel - to agree to harsh and unfair terms.

The circumstances of execution are abominable, especially considering that (according to literacy surveys) nearly half of Americans have substandard reading skills. I have yet to observe a person read by JE in the CO Gallery that I would mistake for a Rhodes scholar. Even JE has diagnosed many of these people as having psychic amnesia.

It is sad that many of these folks are at a further disadvantage because of emotional vulnerability: They are at the studio, hoping to hear from deceased loved ones, and then suddenly have a 4-page agreement thrust into their faces at the last minute. They are pressured into signing. If they refuse to sign, they will be denied entrance to the studio and the chance of a reading.

The members of the CO gallery are not anonymous prior to the day they show up at the studio for taping. They should be, but they aren't. Given that a letter is sent by CO to designated ticketholders at least 2 weeks before the taping, why aren’t these Releases sent to them in advance, too? This would give people the opportunity to have the document properly reviewed, executed and brought to the studio on the day of the taping.

I find the Release to be way over-the-top and deliberately intimidating in many ways. I have seen less offensive documents set aside by the Courts as void and unenforceable. I would really enjoy seeing this one challenged.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I don't see you address this CO-agreement in a serious manner.

All you have done in this thread is brush it off, while admitting that you haven't really read it. You look for a smoking gun, but doesn't see the required birthdate as a candidate? Or the many mentions of "entertainment only"?

No, you raise doubt about another legal document, which we are not discussing here, and which does not purport to be either entertainment - or performing paranormal stunts, for that matter.

Why don't you address the CO-agreement and the points raised here by the posters? What is your opinion re. the required birthdate? You don't have a problem with the repeated statement that this is not spirit communication, but entertainment only? Do you see anything suspicious about the broad indemnity? Do you have a problem with JE allowing himself to edit the statements as he sees fit, and - if ppl sue - they pay his costs? Do you have a problem with the fact that the audience is - apparently - forced to sign this, moments before they enter the studio? Doesn't that put a very unfair pressure on the audience, especially for those (and they are the majority, let's not kid ourselves here!) under emotional stress to get in touch with their dearly departed?

How many people in the audience do you think reads this document? Given the very harsh conditions and the profound consequences hereof, do you consider this a fair document, especially when considering that JE actually claims that he is talking to dead people? Would you sign this document, now that you have learned its content and the consequences hereof?

You complain - loudly - that this agreement is not made public, so it can be discussed. Then, when it turns out that it is not as innocent as you immediately tried to assert, you clam up and try to redirect the discussion.

We are discussing the CO-agreement, not anything else. You started this thread. It would be so nice if you would join us.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Can you clarify this for an audience with no business or legal sense?

I just mean that people who create forms usually draft them in their favor, and it is common for people to place self-serving language into them. The declarations here that no cheating has occurred, etc. are not, IMO, evidence of any nefarious intent -- buit neither should they be taken as some sort of positive evidence that hot reading is somehow less likely because the forms say so.

I was just surprised that one or two people took that language and came to the conclusion that the forms were somehow evidence against hot reading merely because the boilerplate says so. A "Well, its right there on paper - he doesn't get information from the people. If he just said it, we'd doubt it -- but dang it, he's gone and typed it; it MUST be true" kind of thing.

Again, I think Ed is largely correct when he says that this document is worthless as pro or con JE. I still think the document is slightly negative because of the "fiction" statement and the "entertainment" clauses. While not overpowering, it places a question mark on the whole deal. I think you're point about the Tylenol label is valid. Certainly, not anything definite, but a questionable bit of language used there.

[edited to add: I would not sign the form over the indemnity and waiver issues, personally -- this has nothing to do with JE as medium, I just don't like the whole editing/fiction/waiver thing.]

NA

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Claus, I think you're only being half-fair on this.

Clancie's point about the JREF document is a valid one, with regard to the use of the data and waiver issues. While not identical in language or effect, Clancie's point was that the reservation of rights language is not itself evidence of anything with regard to JE. While I find the language overly broad in the JE document, I tend to agree that the one section, objectionable or not, has little to do (by itself) with the mediumship issue.

I think you are right when you point out that the most troubling points regarding mediumship issues were not addressed, yet -- the fiction/entertainment only language, the personal information given to JE, and the editing with no recourse or claim to be truthful.

You may or may not get better results by simply asking specifically for Clancie or someone else to address that specific point. but you'd sure sound more reasonable asking for it in that manner.

I realize that you two do not get along* and that you both now react to the other's messages like fingernails are being scraped across a blackboard, and that makes it difficult for communication -- but lets try one more time?

NA

* Is there a special award for understatements on the forum?

 

[CFLarsen]

I realize that you two do not get along* and that you both now react to the other's messages like fingernails are being scraped across a blackboard, and that makes it difficult for communication -- but lets try one more time?

I don't have a problem with that, as I have repeatedly offered truces. I have even offered that Clancie could set the terms. She doesn't seem at all interested, though. You could ask her, of course. She might have changed her mind. That has been known to happen!

 

[De_Bunk]

JE should keep it simple...

" This whole show is total fabrication...Sign Here"

Trouble is..people would still turn up even if he told them he was lying..

He's become that big he could say that and still make $$$$$


DB

 

[SteveGrenard]

Inst8r: why aren’t these Releases sent to them in advance, too? This would give people the opportunity to have the document properly reviewed, executed and brought to the studio on the day of the taping.

The document in question, 4 copies in fact, IS sent to the primary ticketholder (person who scored the tix with the phone in) several weeks in advance. It is up to the ticketholder who received them to distribute them in advance to the other 3 guests so they have time to read them. All copies can be signed in advance but they are handed in at the door on arrival. Nobody is required to return it in advance of taping date.

Hence 75% of the persons handing in their forms at the door are unknown to CO until that point which can be anywhere from 1.5 to 2 hrs before the taping begins .....a time frame in order for everyone to get their water/sugar fix and bathroom breaks in.

What you suggets Int8r is a means by which 100% of the attendees would be known in advance to CO. They do not do this. They obviously have to know who one such person is in order to get them out there in advance, however. Your comment doesn't make any sense. Perhaps one way to do this would be to have the document on the internet and ticket holders and their guests can download it anonymously .... of course then some net savvy critic would say when somebody does this they can be tracked through their e-mail address so that won't work. Then we can come back and say okay, have one non-attendee do the downloading and print out copies for everyone. Er..it starts getting complicated in the area of security insured by anonymity
by now.



Did I miss a comment somewhere above that nobody sees this document until they get to the front door? this is patently incorrect based on my own attendance at a CO taping. The agreements were in hand in advance, having been sent in the package to the identified ticket holder.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Just a clarification: It is not "75% of the persons handing in their forms at the door are unknown to CO". It can be, but hardly likely, since we cannot rely on all of the primary ticketholders find 3 guests. So, the minimum percentage of known IDs is 25%. I'd say about 30-40%, probably not more.

However, when they are let in, they know the identity of each and every attendee, along with a birth date and addresses. That's 100%, Steve. And 2 hours is more than enough to do a few Internet searches.

Why do you think they need the date of birth, Steve?
What happens to those who don't hand in a signed agreement? They don't get in, do they?
Do you have a problem with JE stating that he is allowed to edit, any way he sees fit?

Just one of many relevant questions...which will probably ignored. That, in itself, will be answer enough.