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

[Instig8R]

O.K., Clancie, here is the appropriate section of the NY Penal Law:

"§ 165.35 Fortune telling:
A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement."

Note: A violation of of this law is a Class "B" Misdemeanor.

 

[Instig8R]

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.

Hi, Garrette-- That is a good point you made. The chef's name is Ignazio Leone, but his nickname is Yan-Yan. I don't recall how JE claims to have gotten the "double-name" information. I do know that according to neo, JE usually gets names clairaudiently.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, Instig8r, I know neo claims that. Except when it's better for him to have gotten it clairvoyently or clairsentiently or whatever.
I'm being a bit harsh without meaning to, but time is always short.

Anyway, I started another thread on this question so this one can remain focused on the release form.

 

[Clancie]

Thanks, g8r. I appreciate having that (emphasis added below):

"§ 165.35 Fortune telling

A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement."

Note: A violation of of this law is a Class "B" Misdemeanor.

I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

You do??? Really??

Since you emphasize the following:

• guilty of fortune telling
• holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters

you also admit that JE is doing this - but that he gets away with it by calling it "entertainment or amusement."

I have to admit that I am impressed with your candor here. You actually admit that JE is circumventing the law. You also admit that he is dabbling in "occult powers", something you took offense to earlier, when I referred to JE's actions as "necromancy".

How things change, depending on the circumstances.

 

[TLN]

I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

Clancie, wouldn't the simplest explanation be John Edward isn't really communicating with dead people and that’s why he needs this disclaimer?

 

[Ed]

Thanks, g8r. I appreciate having that (emphasis added below):

I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

"he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters"

In other words if a person is not the real deal, they are in violation of the law. It seems to me that the law only applies to "phony" psychics.

 

[Ed]

You do??? Really??

Since you emphasize the following:

• guilty of fortune telling
• holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters

you also admit that JE is doing this - but that he gets away with it by calling it "entertainment or amusement."

I have to admit that I am impressed with your candor here. You actually admit that JE is circumventing the law. You also admit that he is dabbling in "occult powers", something you took offense to earlier, when I referred to JE's actions as "necromancy".

How things change, depending on the circumstances.

Dammit, not quick enough on the trigger. Yeah, what Claus said.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

In other words if a person is not the real deal, they are in violation of the law. It seems to me that the law only applies to "phony" psychics.

Ed, I don't think the law is prepared to distinguish between "phony" and "real" psychics.

Hence, the need for the disclaimer...to be on the safe side legally.

 

[Ed]

Ed, I don't think the law is prepared to distinguish between "phony" and "real" psychics.

Hence, the need for the disclaimer...to be on the safe side legally. [/B]

This is a potential minor thing that could result in 10000 posts and it sure ain't worth it.

My point is that the wording indicates that purporting to be a psychic (insert appropriate paranormal thing here) when in fact one is not is illegal. IE. real psychics are OK. I guess that the law was PC in it's day, not wanting to offend the "True" psychics.

If I were JE I'd probably opt for the "etertainment" out since it is legally simpler, ie. no demonstration of "powers". Between you and me, he also knows he'd screw the pooch if he were actually tested.

 

[Instig8R]

Ed, I don't think the law is prepared to distinguish between "phony" and "real" psychics.

Clancie, you are correct that the law doesn't care to distinguish between phony and real psychics. What the law does care about is if any money is paid to the psychic by the client.

When you bolded out the parts of the Penal Law, you neglected to place the emphasis on the key words:

"§ 165.35 Fortune telling:
A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to..."

As I tried to explain earlier, fortune-telling is a crime against property in New York. It is grouped with other types of theft in the Penal Code. I once posted (at TVTalk) the written Charges to the Jury from a NY fortune-telling case, which made it very clear that the issue was one of theft. The money is a vital element of the crime and, without it, no crime has taken place in NY.

Hence, the need for the disclaimer...to be on the safe side legally.

Well, to be on the safe side, legally, JE doesn't need to give the disclaimer on TV-- he isn't taking money from the gallery or people viewing the program at home. (It is also questionable whether the program lives up to the word "entertainment", lol)

There were unconfirmed reports over at TVTalk that JE did not give the "for entertainment purposes" disclaimer prior to doing private readings at his Long Island office. If this is true, this is a blatant violation of NY law... This is because JE charges people $300 per reading, and not because he is phony or real.

(edited to correct a "quote" mistake)

 

[Instig8R]

My point is that the wording indicates that purporting to be a psychic (insert appropriate paranormal thing here) when in fact one is not is illegal. IE. real psychics are OK. I guess that the law was PC in it's day, not wanting to offend the "True" psychics.

Hi, Ed-- These fortune-telling cases are only prosecuted when someone has been cheated out of a lot of money.

There is supposed to be separation of church and state, and there are many new age religions nowadays that use psychics, mediums, etc. Also, older religions, (like Spiritualists), may engage in mediumship, etc.

The State of NY has no interest in getting involved in trying to determine who is a real psychic-medium and who is not. They just don't want people to be bilked out of their life's savings by these people.

What is odd about JE's disclaimer on CO is the following: He is using a disclaimer to protect him against a criminal prosecution, when he really needs a disclaimer to protect him against civil litigation.

 

[Instig8R]

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.

Hey, Clancie-- I forgot to answer this post earlier. I went to the couples.com website. However, I don't see any correlation between the website and CO. Likewise, I see no parallel whatsoever between the couples.com Disclaimer and the JE's 4-page Appearance Release being discussed in this thread.

There is a big difference between CO, (a tv show), and a couples.com, (a website). The website actually invites people to e-mail personal questions to their experts for advice. The various experts (legal, medical, psychiatric, et al) actually respond with specific advice on marriage, finance, family law, health, etc. This website absolutely needs their disclaimer, and they have covered the liability issue nicely with their one paragraph Disclaimer.

CO, on the other hand, is a program that depicts JE supposedly communicating with spirits. However, everyone in his gallery has to sign an oppressive 4-page Appearance Release in which they give up all rights concerning the use of their own image, acknowledge that they are informed that the program is not factual, and assume responsibility for all damages that may occur due to their participation in what is essentially admitted to be a dishonest production.

I fail to see why you view the website's disclaimer and JE's Appearance Release as being on a level that they are comparable.

Are you confusing the JE's Appearance Release with his Disclaimer at the end of the tv show?

 

[neofight]

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.

No problem Garrette. By "quite often" I mean that it is not at all unusual for someone who has been read to mention in the post-reading analysis how it is that they came to be at the taping.

To be more specific, I remember one woman who said that she was given a ticket or tickets by her neighbor, who had become ill just prior to the day of the taping. It turned out that she was read, and her son came through for her.

It was the reading where John mentioned to her that her son wanted her to know that the time she thought that she heard her son call out to her, it was not her imagination, and then she validated that by recounting the time, early in the morning, when she had heard her son's voice, clear as a bell, and had gone into the living room to look around and saw the votive candle next to his picture flare up just at that very second. She said that she had felt a very strong sense of her son's presence, and she sat down on the couch for a few moments to reflect.

And then, as Clancie says, Michael O'Neill was also given an extra ticket that someone had. He was not the one who called in for the tickets.

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?

Not at all, Garrette. I'm sure it would be enough time for someone to do a bit of research. I just don't believe that there's a need to cheat, when JE can just do his mediumship thing.

Besides, I very much doubt JE would find the sort of things that he told this woman, and countless other people, floating around on the internet.......neo

 

[RC]

Besides, I very much doubt JE would find the sort of things that he told this woman, and countless other people, floating around on the internet.......neo [/B]

I agree, but I reach a different conclusion. I remember the reading you are describing quite well. And I think cold reading could very easily apply. JE said nothing about getting up early in the morning or about the votive candle. He talked about the woman hearing her son call out to her. She filled in the rest.

Neo, I know you haven't had what you would call any kind of ADC experience, but there is nothing uncommon about this. Whether it's in our head, or true ADC, many people including me have reported hearing a spirit call out our name. I heard it the weekend after my partner died. If you have read the books about ADCs, you'll see that it is a very common experience.

There really is nothing very specific or compelling about what JE said, in my opinion. He is aware of what people who have lost loved ones have reported in terms of ADCs. I think it's possible that he just tossed it out as a guess.

Now, when we look at the readings where JE says the name "Vuola" or knew the sitter had met Gladys Knight, then I'd really like to know about the potential for hot reading.

 

[Garrette]

Neo, thank you for the answer. A follow-on question, though (as if you expected otherwise).

You say this:

To be more specific, I remember one woman who said that she was given a ticket or tickets by her neighbor, who had become ill just prior to the day of the taping. It turned out that she was read, and her son came through for her.

First, having the transcript would be helpful (no, I'm not asking for you to get it) before analyzing this hit.

Second, my real point is this:

If the original ticket-holder had not gotten sick and had instead gone to the taping, and JE had said the same thing he had said to the neighbor who DID attend, then it is reasonable, given hits from other shows, that the ticket-holder would have validated it as a hit, saying something like "Yes! That's my neighbor's son! She really wanted to come today!" (You could even leave off the last bit).

I think you and others would still have counted it as a hit.

Does that suggest anything to you? That the same information given to two different people would be counted just as strongly as a hit?

 

[neofight]

I agree, but I reach a different conclusion. I remember the reading you are describing quite well. And I think cold reading could very easily apply. JE said nothing about getting up early in the morning or about the votive candle. He talked about the woman hearing her son call out to her. She filled in the rest.

Hi, RC. Yes, I think that's what I said.

Neo, I know you haven't had what you would call any kind of ADC experience, but there is nothing uncommon about this. Whether it's in our head, or true ADC, many people including me have reported hearing a spirit call out our name. I heard it the weekend after my partner died. If you have read the books about ADCs, you'll see that it is a very common experience.

Well, exactly how common is 'very common', RC? We know that this sort of thing does not happen to everyone, so the fact remains that if JE had said this to the woman, and she told him that she had no idea whatsoever of what he was talkling about , he wouldn't have looked too good. The point is that he is very often so right about the things that he says. More often, IMO, than someone who is merely cold-reading.

There really is nothing very specific or compelling about what JE said, in my opinion. He is aware of what people who have lost loved ones have reported in terms of ADCs. I think it's possible that he just tossed it out as a guess.

Yes, RC. Of course, anything is *possible*.

Now, when we look at the readings where JE says the name "Vuola" or knew the sitter had met Gladys Knight, then I'd really like to know about the potential for hot reading.

Yes, those were good hits, but I don't know how you would check out the "hot-reading" angle. I wish there were a way, so you could finally know one way or another about those two hits, RC. lol ......neo

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, exactly how common is 'very common', RC?

I'd say about the same as "quite often."

NA

 

[neofight]

I'd say about the same as "quite often."

NA

LOL NA! Hey, I answered Garrette's question!

By "quite often" I mean that it is not at all unusual....

......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

And then, as Clancie says, Michael O'Neill was also given an extra ticket that someone had. He was not the one who called in for the tickets.

Just a clarification. O'Neill was given an extra ticket from family members:

Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.
Jaroff, Time Magazine

Dead grandfather comes through, no matter who in the family attended. Go figure.

Not at all, Garrette. I'm sure it would be enough time for someone to do a bit of research. I just don't believe that there's a need to cheat, when JE can just do his mediumship thing.

Incredible. Simply incredible....

Besides, I very much doubt JE would find the sort of things that he told this woman, and countless other people, floating around on the internet.......neo

Nevertheless, we can find what he tells people, "floating around on the internet".