The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

Let me start by saying that I think the FAQ is very interesting, a great resource, kudos overall to Beleth.

Thank you!

Having said that...

Can I say that I am a lawyer,

Uh oh...

Sorry, this makes no sense to me at all. A challenger invites someone to do something. Then that person has got to do it. They have the burden of proof. The challenger just sits back and sees if they can do it. That, in every jurisdiction I am aware of (and I've practiced in several and have had a fair bit to do with many more) makes the challenger the plaintiff.

Exactly. The challenger (Randi) is the plaintiff. Which makes the applicant the defendant.

It's easy to take this analogy too far and add the usual American-law assumption of innocence into the equation. There is no assumption of innocence, or rather, "innocence" is an inappropriate assumption to make. Instead, the assumption is of normality. The applicant is assumed normal until proven paranormal (5.4), and since the applicant is the one claiming paranormality, the burden of proof lies on the applicant to prove his claim.

 

[webfusion]

i don't get it

As someone who has watched an inordinate amount of TV courtroom programs (Judge Judy, Texas Justice, People's Court, Judge Joe Brown, etc) the very first words out of a judge's mouth to the plaintiff is
"Prove Your Case"

There can be no doubt here that the analogy is backwards and JREF is the Defendant. The Applicant/Claimant is the Plaintiff. To even reach the stage of getting into court, the Plaintiff must have something to base his Claim on, and JREF provides for the preliminary testing stage to get past this hurdle. It's kinda like me going to small claims court, I have to fill out an application and provide some sort of rudimentary evidentiary basis for my lawsuit or the action is frivolous and groundless from the outset (a promissory note is a good start).

JREF has to prove nothing. JREF can simply sit there and offer not one word. If the Plaintiff fails in the opening argument and cannot present solid evidence, all that remains for the defendant is to ask the court for summary dismissal (summary judgement in his favor). Again, this is the procedure as I understand it from watching TV, not from any formal legal training.

=================================
N.B. -- the link offered in this thread fails to open the FAQ document in question.
=================================

I would like to know, from Kramer, as a follow-up, has the volume of letters to you increased with the publication of this FAQ? We would be curious to know if this offers you less work from here on out, or more?

 

[Beleth]

Re: i don't get it

There can be no doubt here that the analogy is backwards and JREF is the Defendant. The Applicant/Claimant is the Plaintiff. To even reach the stage of getting into court, the Plaintiff must have something to base his Claim on, and JREF provides for the preliminary testing stage to get past this hurdle.

This is the same argument, with the same faulty assumption, that princhester made and which I addressed in my post two above this.

But you know what? It's out of my hands. The FAQ is a Web page now. If you have an issue with the FAQ as it stands, you are going to have to bring it up with someone besides me.

I would like to know, from Kramer, as a follow-up, has the volume of letters to you increased with the publication of this FAQ? We would be curious to know if this offers you less work from here on out, or more?

What say we let a quarter or two go by before we ask this? We'll get better data that way.

 

[princhester]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

Aaagh. Sorry, a typo by me has added to the confusion. What I should have said was:

A challenger invites someone to do something. Then that person has got to do it. They the applicants have the burden of proof. The challenger just sits back and sees if they can do it. That, in every jurisdiction I am aware of (and I've practiced in several and have had a fair bit to do with many more) makes the applicant the plaintiff.

The applicant is assumed normal until proven paranormal (5.4), and since the applicant is the one claiming paranormality, the burden of proof lies on the applicant to prove his claim.

Which is why the applicant is the plaintiff, because in every Western courtroom, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.

You've got this very very wrong, but I'm sorry that due to a typo I've confused matters.

 

[Beleth]

Yep... I knew I should have gone with the "duel" analogy.


But, like I said, it's out of my hands now.

 

[jmercer]

It's fine. Really.

Well, I've been reading the quibb... er... nitpi... ah... detailed commentary about Beleth's excellent FAQ for a while now, and I thought I'd simply say this:

Anyone who claims they don't understand this incredibly clear FAQ is either lying, or is too stupid to bother with. What else do we need from it?

 

[Metullus]

Beleth,

Very nice! All the picked nits not withstanding its a great effort.

Do you think you can translate it into Wooish? I'm not sure that KRAMER would be so inclined...

 

[Metullus]

Re: It's fine. Really.

Anyone who claims they don't understand this incredibly clear FAQ is either lying, or is too stupid to bother with.

Yup. You wanna start a list?

Paul Carey
Jambo
???

 

[jmercer]

Hm...

White Lion
turtle
OneInchRist
???

 

[Beady]

Re: It's fine. Really.

Anyone who claims they don't understand this incredibly clear FAQ is either lying, or is too stupid to bother with.

Then I guess I'm either a liar or stupid. But I'm not as much of one as the people who insist on trying to rewrite the dictionary and the rules of evidence.

This FAQ, now that it has obtained official status, can cause problems unless it is corrected. It states, quite plainly, that JREF is the plaintiff and the applicant is the defendent. That means it is JREF who has to prove something, which in turn means it is JREF who has to present evidence. And that, in turn, means that anyone can claim to have a paranormal power and legitimately claim the Prize unless JREF can prove they don't have that power.

Yes, the official rules say something different, but the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules. With $1 million at stake, is it inconceivable that someone won't risk a couple thousand $ in a *real* court? These are people who claim they can talk to the dead, for crying out loud, or "see" what's on Jupiter! What the hell makes you think one of them won't think it reasonable to make a stab at the Prize in court? Which would be easier, proving to JREF that they can talk to the dead, or convincing a jury that JREF has made a $1 million semantic mistake? In a legal system that awards millions to people who spill hot coffee in their own laps, are you absolutely certain a legal challenge like I describe is out of the question, or that JREF would easily win?

And here's something else to consider. Randi has enemies in the paranormal and pseudoscientific world. Even if they don't win, and have no intention of winning, wouldn't this be a great avenue for a nuisance lawsuit by either themselves or a sock puppet, to embarrass JREF and Randi, to take them down a peg? These are people who can afford such a venture, and who have large followings, fame, and are already media darlings. In the court of public opinion, who would come off looking more foolish?

I'm perfectly aware that these scenarios are unlikely to occur. My point is that this is a completely unnecessary chink in JREF's armor, easily repaired if anyone cares to take the trouble. And, unlikely as my scenarios may be, they are not impossible. To sum up, we're talking about people who, collectively, believe they can do virtually anything, and we're talking about other people who would just love to give Randi a poke in the eye; we're also talking about a legal system that gives both of these groups a measurable chance of winning. To say that my scenarios are impossible would be an argument from faith, which seems a hell of a position for a skeptic to take.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

Then I guess I'm either a liar or stupid. But I'm not as much of one as the people who insist on trying to rewrite the dictionary and the rules of evidence.

I don't think you're either stupid or a liar unless you're seriously saying that you don't understand the point the FAQ is trying to make by it's analogy. And I doubt that.

I could quibble about plaintiff and defendent simply by saying "J' acuse!" and pointing you to French law where the burden of proof is on the defendent and not the accuser. But I won't, if for no other reason than I'm taking your concern seriously.

Aside from the fact that the application and not the FAQ is the legal instrument - and the only one that has any power of enforcement for either party - you stated that the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules. That's serious, if you're correct - so please identify via quotes the parts of the FAQ and Official Rules that are in conflict. Then we can have a real discussion on it.

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

I could quibble about plaintiff and defendent simply by saying "J' acuse!" and pointing you to French law where the burden of proof is on the defendent and not the accuser. But I won't, if for no other reason than I'm taking your concern seriously.

Your argument would be irrelevant, anyway, since JREF is an American organization on American soil under American jurisdiction, and both legal and customary usage place the burden of proof on the accuser. If JREF is ever involved in a case within French jurisdiction, then we can discuss the Code Napoleon.

...you stated that the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules. That's serious, if you're correct - so please identify via quotes the parts of the FAQ and Official Rules that are in conflict.

The whole tone of the Rules places the burden of proof upon the claimant. Even so, it's hard to find this explicitly stated, but this is down at the bottom: "Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. " In other words, it is the claimant who must present evidence. In fact, defendants are under no obligation to present evidence.

But, in the FAQ: " If this were a court of law, the JREF would be in the role of plaintiff and the person who applies for the Challenge is in the role of defendant." And, "Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. " Now, suddenly, defendants are required to produce evidence.

So, does the claimant have to provide evidence, or doesn't he? If he is in the role of defendant, then he does not, under any applicable legal system. If you're going to insist on legal terminology and analogy, and since someone has to provide evidence, the only other party is JREF. In sum, if you're going to insist that a legal terminology is appropriate, and if you're going to insist that the claimant is the defendant, then it is encumbent upon JREF to prove that the claimant is not what he says he is. That's according to the FAQ, which is in direct conflict with the Challenge Rules, which demand that it is the claimant who must present evidence via demonstration.

Both documents are now "official." Which would win in a real court (one that isn't in France)? At the very least, a claimant could argue that it was the FAQ that drew him to accept the Challenge, and he was justified in believing it was up to JREF to prove he was wrong. And, as I noted above, since the Rules are not that explicit about the burden of proof, it's quite possible that a judge and/or jury who just finished awarding someone a settlement for spilling hot coffee in their own laps, could be persuaded to award the Prize to the claimant because JREF couldn't reconcile its Rules with its FAQ. Matter of fact, it would be a matter of public record, following this thread that, despite warnings, JREF refused to recognize that the two needed to be reconciled.

 

[princhester]

Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

I don't think you're either stupid or a liar unless you're seriously saying that you don't understand the point the FAQ is trying to make by it's analogy. And I doubt that.

Doubt no more. I am a lawyer and I have no idea what point the analogy is attempting to make. In fact, I have contemplated asking Beleth to explain, because I just don't get it. At all.

I could quibble about plaintiff and defendent simply by saying "J' acuse!" and pointing you to French law where the burden of proof is on the defendent and not the accuser. But I won't, if for no other reason than I'm taking your concern seriously.

Except that would be silly because the words plaintiff and defendant are apt only to civil proceedings, and in French civil proceedings the onus is on the plaintiff.

Right back at you.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

Your argument would be irrelevant, anyway, since JREF is an American organization on American soil under American jurisdiction, and both legal and customary usage place the burden of proof on the accuser. If JREF is ever involved in a case within French jurisdiction, then we can discuss the Code Napoleon.



The whole tone of the Rules places the burden of proof upon the claimant. Even so, it's hard to find this explicitly stated, but this is down at the bottom: "Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. " In other words, it is the claimant who must present evidence. In fact, defendants are under no obligation to present evidence.

But, in the FAQ: " If this were a court of law, the JREF would be in the role of plaintiff and the person who applies for the Challenge is in the role of defendant." And, "Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. " Now, suddenly, defendants are required to produce evidence.

So, does the claimant have to provide evidence, or doesn't he? If he is in the role of defendant, then he does not, under any applicable legal system. If you're going to insist on legal terminology and analogy, and since someone has to provide evidence, the only other party is JREF. In sum, if you're going to insist that a legal terminology is appropriate, and if you're going to insist that the claimant is the defendant, then it is encumbent upon JREF to prove that the claimant is not what he says he is. That's according to the FAQ, which is in direct conflict with the Challenge Rules, which demand that it is the claimant who must present evidence via demonstration.

Both documents are now "official." Which would win in a real court (one that isn't in France)? At the very least, a claimant could argue that it was the FAQ that drew him to accept the Challenge, and he was justified in believing it was up to JREF to prove he was wrong. And, as I noted above, since the Rules are not that explicit about the burden of proof, it's quite possible that a judge and/or jury who just finished awarding someone a settlement for spilling hot coffee in their own laps, could be persuaded to award the Prize to the claimant because JREF couldn't reconcile its Rules with its FAQ. Matter of fact, it would be a matter of public record, following this thread that, despite warnings, JREF refused to recognize that the two needed to be reconciled.

French, American - it really doesn't matter, because the reference is an analogy created to make a point.

And if you feel as legal counsel that the FAQ needs to be reconciled - a point I'm not qualified to argue, since I'm not a lawyer - then can you suggest altenative wording to make the same point?

That can then be forwarded to Kramer and Randi with a suggestion that the modification to the FAQ be made, and why.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

Doubt no more. I am a lawyer and I have no idea what point the analogy is attempting to make. In fact, I have contemplated asking Beleth to explain, because I just don't get it. At all.



Except that would be silly because the words plaintiff and defendant are apt only to civil proceedings, and in French civil proceedings the onus is on the plaintiff.

Right back at you.

Good grief. The analogy is designed to point out that the relationship between JREF and the applicant is adversarial in nature. Secondarily, it's to point out that the applicant must produce evidence of his/her claims, as if they were in court disputing something with JREF.

So if it bugs you guys so much, switch defendant and plaintiff!

 

[princhester]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

Good grief. The analogy is designed to point out that the relationship between JREF and the applicant is adversarial in nature. Secondarily, it's to point out that the applicant must produce evidence of his/her claims, as if they were in court disputing something with JREF.

The topic under discussion is that the plaintiff and defendant are the wrong way round. I don't get why Beleth thinks that putting plaintiff and defendant the way round s/he has them illustrates anything (or anything that isn't ass backwards, more to the point).

So if it bugs you guys so much, switch defendant and plaintiff! [/B]

Good grief, jmercer, that's what we've been saying for two pages now.

I must say the impression I am forming of you from this and the last debate we had is that you are someone that will go on finding something to argue about long after you've conceded the point.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Defendant and Plantiff

The words defendant and plantiff should really be taken out. Keep in my mind that the people who usually apply to the challenge don't have college degrees and aren't usually the most critical thinkers.

The whole "defendant" analogy would scare some of them off, which would not benefit anyone, but those who perpuate nonsense. It's a loaded word, that while correct in the court sense and even in the analogy, is going to be perceived negatively by someone less educated. Such words like agent, partaker, or participant with burdern of proof might work better.

These people don't want to "defend their claims," but prove it. They might use that as yet another excuse.

 

[webfusion]

what happened from point A to point B?

Beady has it 100% right!!!

"Yes, the official rules say something different, but the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules."

Going back to the original remark made by James Randi (as mentioned by KRAMER in his post), when Beleth first proposed writing the FAQ ----

• "Randi doesn't want potential applicants spoonfed. I agree with him. Every possible question is answered in the Challenge rules, if one is capable of - or willing to - understand them. Hence, the proposed FAQ has been deemed unnecessary, as it merely re-words answers to questions that need not be asked, IF one has carefully read the Challenge rules. Perhaps those unable to understand the rules, as concise as they are, should not apply.

This was what specifically prompted Beleth to abandon her writing, and call the project "dead" (in her FAQ FAQ edited OP). This is a matter of record.

Now, here we are, two weeks later and I am really getting frustrated, for a number of reasons:

1. In the original $$$$$$$$$$ thread discussing the propriety of putting up a FAQ, my expressed opinion was that a posting by Devil's Advocate was quite appropriate:

Devils Advocate neatly summed up (on Feb 8th) the downside for a set of extra questions and answers, both from a legal standpoint and from a linguistic standpoint as well:
"...My guess for a backfire is based on the concept that the FAQ may open possible contradictions or questions of the rules. This is what happened in this case: a summary or description of the Challenge rules led Sean to raise serious questions about the Challenge rules themselves..."


2. Now, it might be worthwhile for us to go over to that thread and read the last posting offered today, by Shera, who has been following this closely, as a registered member of Sean Connelly's website. She reveals something absolutely stunning about the FAQ as it appears in the final official version.

What prompted this discussion originally about a FAQ with more clarifications being needed at all? It was Sean Connelly (peebrain) asking if the prize was going to be in bonds.

He was totally Vilified. Skewered. Shish-Kebab. Roasted.

All along the way, everyone (including me) has been saying "NO!!!!" and all along the way (especially in the FAQ as written by Beleth) we have all been going along with the assumption that the prize would not be bonds, but a million dollars of money.

• Wrong.

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.3

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

 

[Darat]

At the beginning when this idea was floated the JREF had said it didn’t want an FAQ. However Beleth, by actually doing the bulk of the work, produced something that made the JREF change its mind. So much so that they adopted it as the base of an official FAQ that they had edited, added to and placed it on the website just a few days after Beleth posted the draft FAQ available.

I would suggest if anyone has any complaints or ideas of how it should be improved they draft something and send it to KRAMER. That approach has been proven to get their attention and even to get them to change their minds. Constructive criticism is fine but doing something positive is even better.

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

French, American - it really doesn't matter...

I'll bet it would have if I'd conceded the point.

... because the reference is an analogy created to make a point.

As should be obvious by now, the people in this thread who are apparently most familiar with the terms being used are united in their opinion that the analogy is completely wrong and inappropriate. It therefore cannot make the intended point

And if you feel as legal counsel that the FAQ needs to be reconciled - a point I'm not qualified to argue, since I'm not a lawyer - then can you suggest altenative wording to make the same point?

First, let me reiterate that I am not a lawyer. As I explained earlier in the thread, I am a Federal employee who works with the law, and my job is somewhat analogous to Kramer's. I decide whether to approve or deny applications made to the government, and my decisions are made according to Federal law. Whether I approve or deny, I must be able to justify my decision by pointing to a provision of law and saying "That's why." My denials must be in writing and must be able to stand up in court before a judge, should the applicant appeal my decision.

Second, the entire analogy should be thrown out. It seems to me the rest of the FAQ makes the point quite well without it, and its presence is not only unnecessary, it causes confusion. As I've described, there's also an outside chance this confusion could be detrimental to the Challenge, and to JREF as a whole.