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

[SteveGrenard]

Question:I'll accept that nobody IS required to return it in advance of the taping date but this doesn't mean they don't. Does the distribution to the ticket holders include a return address? Does it include a return envelope even, possibly a pre-paid postage one?

Reply: No return reply envelope. Nothing like that. Specific instructions require it be handed in at the door. You can't get in, as someone else said, without it. They do not require or ask for them in advance and you can't return them in advance. If you happen to do so you won't have it at the door and won't get in
unless you make a big deal out of it somehow. The instriction is explicit: bring the guest letter and agreement with you and hand them in at the door.


Question: Which makes your assumptions above, coupled with Claus's comments, all the more unlikely.

Reply: I agree that up to two hours elapses from the time the first one is handed in and the taping begins. I also never said it was not impossible to research some of these names during this time frame.






Question:Why do they send them out in advance? Somewhat dodgy.


Reply: Its quite the opposite of dodgy. It allows all who mght attend to see the agreement in advance, at their leisure, consult a lawyer (LOL) if they want to and decide whether they want to sign and go or not. Not dodgy at all, but the epitomy of extreme courtesy.

Its very amusing to see these arguments ... one arguing you dont see it until the front door of the studio (wrong) and the other saying it is dodgy to send it out in advance so people can read it. All 4 agreements (ticket holder and 3 guests) go to the ticketholder who then distributes them to the three guests.
In advance. Not dodgy.

I agree, that not all ticketholders bring unrelated or even related guests and that the stats of unknowns may be reduced for some groups, in fact even to 0% when no guests are brought.
However, on average they get a full house, and a full house translates to 200 people, 50 of whom (25%) are ticketholders and 150 of whom (75%) are unidentified guests of the ticketholder until 2 hrs or less before taping starts. I have yet to see a new gallery venue with many or any empty seats. Of course the empty seats can be edited out of the shot. Right?

I dont think there is any way to know if the person JE reads is a previouly identified ticketholder or one of the unknown invited guests except when such a guest brings this up in follow-up and they often do. It happens ..... but there is no way to base a statistical analysis of how often based on what we see of this.

 

[Thanz]

Thanz, I did not know you were a lawyer! I might have argued less voiceferously yesterday! I still stand by my uneducated view of the indemnity language and "arising out of". You spend 5 years discussing additional insured claims and then talk to me what is and is not "arising out of"

Hey - argue away. I don't want you to make a "non-argument due to someone else's supposed authority" fallacy (does that exist? I think it should)

Anywhoo, I am mostly a commercial litigator. Thankfully, I have not had to argue about these releases. If you want to know about the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw, 1929, as amended by the Hague Protocol, as amended by Montreal Protocol No. 4, then I'm your guy.

As to "Producers" The word is clearly definded in the document, you are right. But is it possible for John Edward to be a part of "Sixth Avenue Productions" in the first place in his capacity as executive producer? I think that is what Claus is trying to get at- I think he is confusing JE's job as executive producer and usage of "Producer" in the contract (amateurs! ) , but it is possible he is not too far off in his questioning on that issue.

Claus is definitely confusing the two. It matters not what JE's position is (for the most part) within Sixth Avenue, if he even has one. As NoZed has stated, there are some times when you go around a corporate shiled ("piercing the corporate veil") and others where Directors and Officers may be personally liable for some things, but we don't want to open those cans of worms. They don't really have anything to do with this document.

Oh, and Thanz- you can get a T Shirt made: I survived a mini Larsen list!

Don't tell anyone, but I think I have survive a couple. Shhh. The trick is to keep them mini.

 

[SteveGrenard]

neo: What about the people who end up getting read? Are they required to sign a second release form when they go back and do the post analysis taping? Or is this the only one? ......neo


Don't know as none of our group of 4 were read. However, there are folks around on various forums who were, so perhaps we can get an answer from one of them. I would think if they send a crew to the house or do a separate taping, it would require a separate release.

 

[Instig8R]

That would be me, Steve. My bad! My memory was not clear on this point, and I'm glad that you were here to set the record straight.

What about the people who end up getting read? Are they required to sign a second release form when they go back and do the post analysis taping? Or is this the only one? ......neo

Hi, Neo-- Thanks for clarifying that point. I still can't decide which scenario I think is worse: JE having access to people's personal information two weeks prior to their appearance at the CO Gallery -or- JE coercing people into signing a self-serving 4-page Appearance Release a mere two hours before the show is taped.

I guess it would be in JE's best interest to be able to show that the audience members had several weeks to contemplate signing the Release. If people have the documents in their possession for a couple of weeks, they can't reasonably claim that they were deprived of the opportunity to give it due consideration.

Still, not everyone gets advance notice of the Appearance Release. For example, unless Basil the Garage Guy knew that he would be summoned to the CO studio for a reading, he didn't have two weeks to contemplate his Appearance Release form. Likewise, the people who were read at Westbury Music Fair last year didn't get two weeks' notice either.

 

[renata]

Still, not everyone gets advance notice of the Appearance Release. For example, unless Basil the Garage Guy knew that he would be summoned to the CO studio for a reading, he didn't have two weeks to contemplate his Appearance Release form. Likewise, the people who were read at Westbury Music Fair last year didn't get two weeks' notice either.

Instig8R, that is a good point. Did you have to sign anything when you went to the seminar? Do you know if the people who were read had to sign anything?

 

[Instig8R]

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

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.

Hi, Clancie-- I understand the point you are trying to make regarding the necessity of protection from lawsuits. However, you are comparing the legalese in Randi's challenge for a challenger, to an "Appearance Release" by audience members who may or may not be potential recipients of JE's readings. These are unrelated situations and are not a good comparison.

However, if you want to really appreciate how much overkill is contained in JE's "Appearance Release", you should compare it to a standard Appearance Release form. I have frequently used them and signed them. I found a typical one online, and I am providing a link:

Standard "Appearance Release" Form

JE's "Appearance Release" is quite unusual, IMO.

 

[neofight]

Instig8R, that is a good point. Did you have to sign anything when you went to the seminar? Do you know if the people who were read had to sign anything?

Hi, renata. Instig8R and I went to that seminar together, and no, we didn't have to sign anything at all. Naturally, those audience members who ended up getting read were asked to remain after everyone else left, and the "CO" crew taped a post-analysis segment where they talked about their reading, at which time they also signed release forms......neo

 

[Instig8R]

Instig8R, that is a good point. Did you have to sign anything when you went to the seminar? Do you know if the people who were read had to sign anything?

Hi, renata--

No, I didn't have to sign anything, because I wasn't read. Only people who received readings were asked to remain after the seminar ended, presumably for post-reading arrangements, and possibly to take care of the necessary paperwork.

Another thing that I find highly amusing is the fact that JE needs to maintain a database of people who receive gallery readings, to make sure that they don't get back into the gallery for another reading. When I went to Westbury Music Fair for the seminar, nobody cared to ask if I had ever been read before.

However, how did JE know that Basil the garage guy was never read in the gallery?

And, how did JE know that Russ Brunelli was never read before when he called him and read him on the telephone, when Chef Yan-Yan Leone was in the gallery?

And, why does the "Appearance Release" prohibit mentioning businesses on CO, and yet the Brunelli reading was all about Brunelli's Restaurant, and JE even did a follow-up at those premises?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Instig8r

However, if you want to really appreciate how much overkill is contained in JE's "Appearance Release", you should compare it to a standard Appearance Release form....JE's "Appearance Release" is quite unusual, IMO.

But one could also say, of course, that what JE does is quite unusual. Personally, I read much of the language in the CO release form as being fairly typical protection from lawsuits for people who are volunteering advice to others (plus we've discussed the fortune telling law. And, I don't suppose you still have that NY phrasing handy from your original post way back, do you? )

Here's a website that says it uses experts, yet still has a disclaimer (bottom of page) saying, essentially, don't take this as more than entertainment. Couples Company Disclaimer

I think for Sixth Avenue Productions to protect themselves like this is actually very wise. And, if audience members find the agreement too oppressive it would be...for what reason?

That they don't want to give anyone the right to use their image in any way?

Well, that's called "being on television".

That they want the freedom to lie?

Well, why should they come on and lie. Do CO producers want to allow false statements that they could be held responsible for and knowingly permitting?

Or maybe the objection to signing would be that people feel a show on mediumship with a document that says its "entertainment" rather than "this is the bona fide real deal" isn't factual enough for them?

Well, g8r, imagine what would happen if producers instead said it was all factual, that it wasn't just "entertainment" at all.

How long do you think it would take before they're asked to "prove your claim that what JE does is all fact not fiction"?

Not long, I'm sure. So...why on earth would they set themselves up for that?

Frankly, I don't see any surprises or terrible disadvantages for CO audience members in all this legalese, but as Steve says, they have the document well in advance, it's short, and they can decide not to bother if the restrictions on lawsuits, the unlimited use of their image by producers bothers them, or the prohibition on lying to John or the producers really bothers them.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by SteveG

Its very amusing to see these arguments ... one arguing you dont see it until the front door of the studio (wrong) and the other saying it is dodgy to send it out in advance so people can read it. All 4 agreements (ticket holder and 3 guests) go to the ticketholder who then distributes them to the three guests.

I agree, Steve, and it's a good point. Not fair of us to complain both that he gives notice and that he doesn't give notice.

But in either case, he has information before the show in time to do some research.

However, on average they get a full house, and a full house translates to 200 people, 50 of whom (25%) are ticketholders and 150 of whom (75%) are unidentified guests of the ticketholder until 2 hrs or less before taping starts.

Having a full house or an empty house is irrelevant to the percentage of known audience members. He could have a full house and all 200 of them be known. 25% is the minimum, not the maximum; it therefore can't possibly be the average; it must, by definition, be less than the average.

I have yet to see a new gallery venue with many or any empty seats. Of course the empty seats can be edited out of the shot. Right?

Right, though it does nothing for or against either of our arguments.

I dont think there is any way to know if the person JE reads is a previouly identified ticketholder or one of the unknown invited guests except when such a guest brings this up in follow-up and they often do. It happens ..... but there is no way to base a statistical analysis of how often based on what we see of this.

When they "often do", what do they indicate? Do they say they are the primary ticket buyer or a guest? Can you mention specific shows?

I agree we can't base a statistical analysis on this due to lack of information. Which means your whole point that only 25% are known prior to the show therefore it's not hot reading, crumbles. Right?

 

[neofight]

When they "often do", what do they indicate? Do they say they are the primary ticket buyer or a guest? Can you mention specific shows?

Hello, Garrette. Steve is referring to the several times that you hear a sitter, during their post-reading analysis, explain how they were invited at the very last moment to attend "CO" after some other person had to cancel for some reason.

This happens quite often, and since these tickets are very difficult to get, most people have no problem whatsoever finding three other people who would love to go.......neo

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I think for Sixth Avenue Productions to protect themselves like this is actually very wise. And, if audience members find the agreement too oppressive it would be...for what reason?

That they don't want to give anyone the right to use their image in any way?

Well, that's called "being on television".

I think I mentioned this earlier but this isn't a "standard" rights release. It tries to gain an incredible freedom of how and when the production company could use the material. Look at the telling phrase from the form Instig8R linked to:

Such right will be limited to use in connection with programming or content generally related to the subject matter of the original story and any derivatives of such story.

Sixth Avenue are trying to get the rights to do anything with the material they get from a participant, that is unusual, not bad not good, just a bit different from a standard appearance release.

...snip...
That they want the freedom to lie?

Well, why should they come on and lie. Do CO producers want to allow false statements that they could be held responsible for and knowingly permitting?

The answer to this is quite easy, to make a more entertaining i.e. sellable programme. This is more a matter of now knowing for a fact that there is a possibility that nothing we see on Crossing Over is an accurate portrayal of events. For instance we could see a clip of JE saying "Is there a Matilda here?", and cutting straight to someone nodding vigorously, yet the person shown nodding could have been answering any question and might not even be called "Matilda"!

We don't know if this happens or not, but we now have evidence that means JE’s claimed appearance of being able to communicate to the dead on Crossing Over can be explained by totally mundane theories i.e. clever editing.

Nothing that is shown on Crossing Over can now be considered evidence of communication with the dead, this release form quite simply puts the nail in the coffin for being able to say "on Crossing Over he gets hits, these form part of a reason for believing that he can communicate with the dead" because everything we are shown could be a total fabrication.

The only evidence we now have, that is available to a wide public, are the LK transcripts. Do these show someone who performs in such a manner that the most likely explanation is that he can communicate with the dead?

...snip...
Or maybe the objection to signing would be that people feel a show on mediumship with a document that says its "entertainment" rather than "this is the bona fide real deal" isn't factual enough for them?

Well, g8r, imagine what would happen if producers instead said it was all factual, that it wasn't just "entertainment" at all.

How long do you think it would take before they're asked to "prove your claim that what JE does is all fact not fiction"?

And your point being? Why shouldn't they have to prove what they claim is "factual" are you really saying that they have to put "entertainment" in the release so that they don't have to provide proof but it is still real?

...snip...
Not long, I'm sure. So...why on earth would they set themselves up for that?

Because it would be telling the truth? Do you think it is OK for people to lie because it's "easier"? That seems to be what you are saying.

The simple fact is that the Sixth Avenue have, through this agreement removed the show "Crossing Over" from being able to be used as any kind of evidence of anything to do with communicating with the dead.

...snip...
Frankly, I don't see any surprises or terrible disadvantages for CO audience members in all this legalese, but as Steve says, they have the document well in advance, it's short, and they can decide not to bother if the restrictions on lawsuits, the unlimited use of their image by producers bothers them, or the prohibition on lying to John or the producers really bothers them.

I certainly don't consider a 4 page release form short, secondly it contains a threat that has nothing to do with the contract itself i.e. the "criminal offense", which it even puts in bold, thirdly it seeks the rights to do anything with the material it obtains which is unusual.

It would be very interesting to know when Sixth Avenue started using this contract - anyone know?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by neofight

Steve is referring to the several times that you hear a sitter, during their post-reading analysis, explain how they were invited at the very last moment to attend "CO" after some other person had to cancel for some reason.

Right, neo. In fact, that was how Michael O'Neill wound up at a CO taping.

 

[TLN]

Right, neo. In fact, that was how Michael O'Neill wound up at a CO taping.

Fine, so for every person who cancels at the last minute and gives their tickets to someone else there are, what, maybe a dozen that go ahead as palnned? The point is totally moot. There will still be plenty of trackable people in the audience.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by NeofightHello, Garrette. Steve is referring to the several times that you hear a sitter, during their post-reading analysis, explain how they were invited at the very last moment to attend "CO" after some other person had to cancel for some reason.

Thanks, neo. Can you define "quite often?" I won't press the point too much--even one reference is enough to show it happens. Just interested in how you come to quantify it.

Is it your contention, neo, Steve, and Clancie, that the two hours before taping that the staff are in possession of the release forms of these unknown guests is insufficient time to allow any research?

 

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

Very good points.

How JE can waiver his demand that nobody previously read - or even attended a taping - can be allowed into a seminar - or even read - is a good question. Impractical? Why not just drop it altogether?

I looked at the appearance release form you linked to, and nowhere does it require a date of birth. They only ask you to confirm that you are 18+, and if not, get the guardian or parent to sign it.

Which is pretty standard indeed.

Things that make you go mmmmmm........

Clancie,

What is JE an "expert" of? Giving advice? Is he a grief counsellor? Or does he speak to the dead? If he is, indeed, an "expert" at this, then your argument falls flat, because fortune telling is illegal in NY.

Why do you skirt the issue of SAP demanding the right to edit people's statements to SAP's liking? Is that not a terrible disadvantage for the audience members?

 

[Lurker]

I also went to a seminar and can corroborate neo's and instig8tr's sworn testimony that no release was required of audience members.

I think the discussion on what percent of people are known to JE ahead of time is quite interesting. It would be interesting to compare these two percentages:

(people read known beforehand) / (people known beforehand)

vs

(people read not known beforehand) / (people not known beforehand)

All things being equal, these two percentages should be roughly equal. If we see the first percentage much higher than that might be indicative of JE selecting his targets because he knows information about them and thus can get a better reading with them.

Lurker

 

[Instig8R]

-snip-

I think the discussion on what percent of people are known to JE ahead of time is quite interesting.

-snip-

I was very suspicious of the fact that when Chef Yan-Yan Leone and his cousins from Brunelli's Restaurant on the upper East Side were read on CO, JE began making statements that Yan-Yan knew could be meant for his cousin, Russ Brunelli. JE then had Yan-Yan call Russ at the restaurant, and JE proceeded to read Russ Brunelli over the telephone.

We later learned (in a post-reading segment) that Russ was supposed to be at the CO gallery, and gave up his ticket because he claimed he was too busy at the restaurant. Funny how the reading still went to him, via telephone. (Hint: The restaurant bears his name.)

Something that made me more suspicious was the fact that this was a restauranteur who hired a public relations firm. The restaurant was the focal point of the reading... Great publicity on national television. The agent was working for them at the same time this reading took place, and I wondered if it could have been a prearranged reading as a favor. There was a follow-up, which again showcased the restaurant in a positive way. I am more suspicious now, because of the Release forms -- and I don't know what to make of the supposed prohibition against promoting one's business on CO.

The reading was not spectacular, except that JE saw his familiar symbol for the food business: "cornicopia". He also knew that someone had a double name ("Yan-Yan", the chef - whose picture appears online). JE also knew that Russ Brunelli honored his father somehow in the restaurant - His father's photographs are on the restaurant menus... also depicted online.

I'd like to stress, again, that except for the few hits that could be hotreading, this reading was as mediocre as the standard CO fare that needs editing in order to "flow".

 

[Instig8R]

-snip-

And, I don't suppose you still have that NY phrasing handy from your original post way back, do you? )

Hi, Clancie--

I still have the Penal Law section. I'll locate it and will re-post. Please note, however, that the law specifically pertains to people who are being charged a fee for the reading. Therefore, according to NY law, the readings on CO do not require a "for entertainment purposes" disclaimer. This is because the audience is not being charged for their readings.

The anti-fortune-telling law in NY law is categorized with "theft of property" statutes. It is designed to prevent people from being cheated out of their money by fortune-tellers, psychics, mediums, etc. This is why "money" is central to the disclaimer issue. In all other instances, NYS couldn't care less if people go to mediums.

 

[Garrette]

He also knew that someone had a double name ("Yan-Yan", the chef - whose picture appears online).

I'm interested to hear how JE gets the idea of a double name.
I would think it's not clairaudiently; I don't see how it could be clairvoyantly. What image would he get? What sound would he hear?

Edited to add

Sorry. Don't want to hijack this thread. I'll pose the question somewhere else.