Suing psychics or slandering them intentionally

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I was wondering why no one tries to sue the "psychics" for false claims,false advertisments or anything like that? Why haven't a bunch of hot-shot lawyers gotten together to put a law suit against people like sylvia brown?

Also why is it that people like Penn & Teller can't say they are con-artists and frauds outright? Inorder for someone like Sylvia brown to sue them,Sylvia Brown would need to prove the claims Penn & Teller make are false. Now how is she supposed to do that?

Given a smart enough lawyer we could easly get Sylvia Brown,Keven Tradeau,Or any other con artists labled a Fraud outright by the court or even suied for damages by people who took their wrong medical advice and was injured.

[Azrael 5]

I think it something to do with the amount of money needed to contest such cases.Even if P&T were to be taken to court by Browne for example,it would cost them money.Im no lawyer so I dont fully grasp it,but someone once briefed me(no pun intended).I would have thought all costs could be re-claimed but maybe not.Id like to know if a member of public could sue them for fraud-would they have grounds?

[eri]

I seem to remember P&T saying on their show that they've already been sued numerous times, even though they can't say 'fraud'. But I've been wondering the same thing myself. Can't Sylvia and the others just claim it was for 'entertainment value' only? Loophole there?

[Azrael 5]

I seem to remember P&T saying on their show that they've already been sued numerous times, even though they can't say 'fraud'. But I've been wondering the same thing myself. Can't Sylvia and the others just claim it was for 'entertainment value' only? Loophole there?
Wouldnt they have to have it stated somewhere like Edwards does on his shows? If it were a live theatre show,then it would need to state on the tickets.

[Marc L]

I was wondering why no one tries to sue the "psychics" for false claims,false advertisments or anything like that? Why haven't a bunch of hot-shot lawyers gotten together to put a law suit against people like sylvia brown?


I think it has to do with disclaimers. I know on som 900 Psychic lines, it say that it's for etertainment purposs only. In other situations, they may bring Freedom of Religion into it. For instance, why hasn't anyone sued the Jehovah's Witnesses for inaccurately predicting the end of the world-several times?

Marc

[MWare]

I was wondering why no one tries to sue the "psychics" for false claims,false advertisments or anything like that? Why haven't a bunch of hot-shot lawyers gotten together to put a law suit against people like sylvia brown?


She was convicted in 1992. There's details somewhere around here on the JREF.

[Red Siegfried]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_28/ai_n6361823

She was convicted for investment fraud and grand theft. Since she is fully aware that she is a fraud and a thief, she pleaded no contest.

Sylvia Browne is a convicted felon who is a fraud and a thief. It's a matter of public record and no one could be sued successfully for libel for saying it unless the judge and/or jury were bought off. She's also a liar and it can be proven on so many occasions that it's pointless to even start listing them.

Maybe someone should call into Larry King the next time she's on and just ask whether the audience is aware that she is a convicted felon who used her claim of having psychic powers to defraud money from investors and that she pulled an Enron and got off with a slap on the wrist.

[Elind]

I was wondering why no one tries to sue the "psychics" for false claims,false advertisments or anything like that? Why haven't a bunch of hot-shot lawyers gotten together to put a law suit against people like sylvia brown?


There have been criminal convictions against such people when they have defrauded someone vulnerable. However if a fool wants to be parted from their money and they are sane and otherwise competent, then they probably got what they paid for, which is not illegal.

[Psiload]

She was convicted in 1992. There's details somewhere around here on the JREF.

I outlined the details in an earlier post, but I can't seem to find it.

Anyhoo... here are the details:

Sylvia's "church", The Nirvana Foundation, was initially funded with the proceeds of a scam that was perpetrated by Sylvia and her ex-husband. A criminal complaint, filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, on May 26, 1992, alleged that the Browns sold securities in a gold mine venture under false pretenses. Although telling investors that their $20,000 investment was to be used for immediate operating costs, the Browns instead transferred the money into an account for their Nirvana Foundation for Psychic Research. One month later they declared bankruptcy in the venture.

Sylvia and her husband pleaded no contest, and were convicted of "sale of security without permit"(a felony). They made partial restitution, served one year probabation, and Sylvia did 200 hours of community service.

Sylvia Brown later dropped the husband, and picked up the e at the end of her name. She has also subsequently changed the name of her "church" to:

Sylvia Browne Corporation
Society of Novus Spiritus
Sylvia Browne Enterprises

http://www.sylvia.org/home/contact.cfm

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well it seems to me that many lawyers work for free unless they actually win the case. Meaning if someone is suing someone else and they get a lawyer,You don't actually pay the lawyer unless you win the lawsuit. I think alot of lawyers do that.

Also skeptics being smart people,Im sure there are dozens of hotshot skeptic lawyers more than willing to offer their time and effort for free,Just to see people like Sylvia Brown go down the crapper.


I also want to point out that many religous foundations HAVE been sued and/or charged in crimes dealing with criminal negligence mostly.

What Sylvia Brown is doing is definitely criminal negligence. She is putting people at rick by giving them mis-information including medical misinformation with no formal education in medicine. Meaning she could also be sued for fraud.

I think someone like James Randi or other famous skeptics need to urge people who have been taken advantage of by these so called "psychics" or "mediums" to take them to court and sue them. If people like Sylvia Brown continue to get sued she will have no choice but to stop cheating people out of their money.

fraud
n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud.

www.dictionary.law.com

Also if someone INTENTIONALLY commits libel against some of these people in publications and the psychics try to sue the person who did it...The Burden of proof automatically switches to the psychic to prove that the claimers are indeed lying about their claims. They can only get damages if they prove the claim about him/her was a lie. Meaning it's impossible for them to possibly prove the claim was a lie since it's not,Meaning they can't possibly legally get damages in the libel suit.


It is my belief that we could possibly drag dozens of these fraudsters into court and sue them for fraud,Which would result in a court battle over wether psychics really exist or not. Where if the skeptics side has smart enough lawyers they can make the case that psychics do indeed not exist and that anyone claiming to be a psychic and getting people to pay them for their service is guilty of fraud.
Considering this has massive medical implications I do not see it as much of a stretch. So called psychics are telling people they have a disease or don't have a disease and are convincing them they don't need medical care when in fact they do,Thus causing these people to go through pain or possibly die.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Even if you could successfully sue these people I don't think it would do much good. There are PLENTY of fools out there who are ready to fall for the crap produced by the Sylvia Brownes of the world and puting 1 or 2 or even 10 of them in jail won't stop others from doing exactly the same thing. Wherever you find idiots with money you'll find scam artists willing to take it off them.

This is not to say people shouldn't try to shut these cockroaches down but, overall, I don't think you're ever going to have much effect in stopping it. The only think likely to have much effect is education but even that has limited usefulness.

Most people are willing to listen to anyone who tells them what they want to hear, (look at religion), and a depressingly large number of them are happy to pay to hear it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Even if you could successfully sue these people I don't think it would do much good. There are PLENTY of fools out there who are ready to fall for the crap produced by the Sylvia Brownes of the world and puting 1 or 2 or even 10 of them in jail won't stop others from doing exactly the same thing. Wherever you find idiots with money you'll find scam artists willing to take it off them.

This is not to say people shouldn't try to shut these cockroaches down but, overall, I don't think you're ever going to have much effect in stopping it. The only think likely to have much effect is education but even that has limited usefulness.

Most people are willing to listen to anyone who tells them what they want to hear, (look at religion), and a depressingly large number of them are happy to pay to hear it.



I think that if for instance the James Randi Education Foundation went after these people with lawsuits and used the money to further skeptical education it would do a heck of alot.

I think alot of people will not believe she's a psychic anymore if she goes to court and gets sued for fraud and actually looses.(Again and again)


Are there any Lawyers out there who can clear this up for me?

Is it possible for an Education Foundation like JREF to actually take people like Sylvia Browne to court for fraud charges if they get victims to come foward and testify?

Could the JREF in essence round up dozens of victims of sylvia browne's con's and actually have a case against her?

[Marc L]

I think that if for instance the James Randi Education Foundation went after these people with lawsuits and used the money to further skeptical education it would do a heck of alot.

I think alot of people will not believe she's a psychic anymore if she goes to court and gets sued for fraud and actually looses.(Again and again)


Are there any Lawyers out there who can clear this up for me?

Is it possible for an Education Foundation like JREF to actually take people like Sylvia Browne to court for fraud charges if they get victims to come foward and testify?

Could the JREF in essence round up dozens of victims of sylvia browne's con's and actually have a case against her?

IANAL, so I couldn't say for sure. However, I would say that it's not likely they would. The victims would have to come forward themselves and want to sue. I suppose the JREF could put out an offer similar to the Challenge, that it's inviting people who've been swindled by frauds to sue them. On the other hand, does JREF deserve the winnings, or should they go directly to the parties involved? And if the latter, why don't the victims just sue on their own?

Marc

[Azrael 5]

I mentioned this earlier.Could I(representing Joe Public)take a medium to court,saying their reading/show was a pack of lies and info they told me likewise? Is this fraud? If I claimed to be an electrician and a customer complained to police I lied surely Id be prosecuted?

[Outhere]

It is a hopeful sign that Mr. T got fined $2 million by the FCC and forbidden to sell products on TV, though he can still hawk his books. Is this the beginning of the end for him, or will he prove as slippery as Ms. Browne, Edwards, et. al?

[Dunstan]

Is it possible for an Education Foundation like JREF to actually take people like Sylvia Browne to court for fraud charges if they get victims to come foward and testify?

Could the JREF in essence round up dozens of victims of sylvia browne's con's and actually have a case against her?

It's doubtful that the JREF could sue in its own name and collect damages. There's a legal doctrine called "standing" that means, in essence, that only the injured party is allowed to sue. Some states have consumer protection statutes that weaken or do away with that requirement in certain contexts, so it's not impossible.

The JREF probably could do your second option -- round up actual plaintiffs. But suing psychics for fraud is probably a bad idea.

First, as others in this thread have pointed out, you whack one psychic and ten more show up to take his/her place.

Second, it wouldn't be a slam-dunk case. No, I'm not a woo. Fraud requires intent. It's not enough to show that Sally Psychic claims to have psychic powers but doesn't. You'd have to show (among other things) that Sally KNOWS she doesn't have psychic powers. You'll notice that even Randi acknowledges that the typical JREF prize applicant is usually just mistaken -- they've never tested their "ability" under appropriate conditions, so they convince themselves that they really do have powers.

You'd also have to show that the plaintiff believed in and relied on those representations.

That means that there's a lot of ways for the psychic to win that lawsuit. She doesn't need to prove to a jury that she has powers. She only needs to get them to believe that she thought she did. Yes, if you catch her in Popov-like shenanigans it will be hard for a jury to buy even that, but if she's just a garden-variety cold-reader, you'll have a harder time. She can also win by convincing the jury that the plaintiff didn't really believe in psychic powers either, and was just there for "entertainment." How many members of an average jury will have had psychic readings done themselves, or check their horoscopes? You're not likely to get a jury full of skeptics.

Now, if Sally Psychic wins the lawsuit based on one of the above arguments, do you think the news reports of the case will accurately reflect why she won? Nope. They'll say "Psychic wins lawsuit against skeptic" and give readers the impression that the jury actually found she has psychic powers. Certainly Sally's web site and PR person will make it sound that way. So there's a very serious downside to risking the JREF's reputation on a lawsuit against any individual psychic.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I mentioned this earlier.Could I(representing Joe Public)take a medium to court,saying their reading/show was a pack of lies and info they told me likewise? Is this fraud? If I claimed to be an electrician and a customer complained to police I lied surely Id be prosecuted?


By definition yes.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's doubtful that the JREF could sue in its own name and collect damages. There's a legal doctrine called "standing" that means, in essence, that only the injured party is allowed to sue. Some states have consumer protection statutes that weaken or do away with that requirement in certain contexts, so it's not impossible.


The JREF probably could do your second option -- round up actual plaintiffs. But suing psychics for fraud is probably a bad idea.

First, as others in this thread have pointed out, you whack one psychic and ten more show up to take his/her place.

Second, it wouldn't be a slam-dunk case. No, I'm not a woo. Fraud requires intent. It's not enough to show that Sally Psychic claims to have psychic powers but doesn't. You'd have to show (among other things) that Sally KNOWS she doesn't have psychic powers. You'll notice that even Randi acknowledges that the typical JREF prize applicant is usually just mistaken -- they've never tested their "ability" under appropriate conditions, so they convince themselves that they really do have powers.

You'd also have to show that the plaintiff believed in and relied on those representations.

That means that there's a lot of ways for the psychic to win that lawsuit. She doesn't need to prove to a jury that she has powers. She only needs to get them to believe that she thought she did. Yes, if you catch her in Popov-like shenanigans it will be hard for a jury to buy even that, but if she's just a garden-variety cold-reader, you'll have a harder time. She can also win by convincing the jury that the plaintiff didn't really believe in psychic powers either, and was just there for "entertainment." How many members of an average jury will have had psychic readings done themselves, or check their horoscopes? You're not likely to get a jury full of skeptics.

Now, if Sally Psychic wins the lawsuit based on one of the above arguments, do you think the news reports of the case will accurately reflect why she won? Nope. They'll say "Psychic wins lawsuit against skeptic" and give readers the impression that the jury actually found she has psychic powers. Certainly Sally's web site and PR person will make it sound that way. So there's a very serious downside to risking the JREF's reputation on a lawsuit against any individual psychic.


1.What if the victims sued Sylvia Browne for instance for criminal negligence? And it were the Victims theirself opposed to the JREF suing the psychics and the JREF simply supported the victims?

2.In lawsuits is there always a jury? Isn't that only for criminal court?

3.How about commiting libel against them and if they try to sue,They would have to be the one's to prove that what the person said was a lie.

[Azrael 5]

Could they sue for distress and psychological damage? Every lawsuit seems to have this included these days.You spill a cup of McDonald's coffee..distreess and psychological damage,as well as all the other crap.

[Dunstan]

1.What if the victims sued Sylvia Browne for instance for criminal negligence? And it were the Victims theirself opposed to the JREF suing the psychics and the JREF simply supported the victims?.

My previous post was assuming that it was the victims suing (with the JREF perhaps providing assistance but not formally a party to the suit).

If it's a civil suit, "criminal" negligence isn't necessary.

But what's the theory of how a psychic was negligent? For negligence you need a legal duty and a standard of care. Ok, let's assume a court would hold that a psychic assumes a legal duty towards her client to provide "competent psychic services" the same way a doctor has a duty to provide competent medical care and a lawyer has a duty to provide competent legal advice and representation.

A doctor isn't liable for medical malpractice every time a patient dies; a lawyer isn't liable for legal malpractice every time the client loses his or her case. The defendant is usually measured against the "standard of care" for the profession.

So it's unlikely you could sue just on the basis of predictions turning out wrong. (Even if you could, good luck with that given the vague nature of most psychic predictions.)

What's the "standard of care" for the psychic profession? Are you going to have other psychics testify about how the defendant didn't do a proper aura reading or whatever? It's very problematic.


2.In lawsuits is there always a jury? Isn't that only for criminal court?


Depends where you are. In the United States, the Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial (with some exceptions) in civil cases in federal courts. Most (all?) state constitutions have similar guarantees. Someone else will have to comment on other jurisdictions.


3.How about commiting libel against them and if they try to sue,They would have to be the one's to prove that what the person said was a lie.

Let's take your best case scenario: skeptic calls psychic a fraud, psychic sues for libel and loses. Depending on the jurisdiction, maybe the psychic has to pay the skeptic's legal fees. But what else has been gained? Isn't that essentially what happened between Randi and Uri Geller? Didn't Randi prevail on virtually every aspect of Geller's lawsuit(s)? But Geller is still out there claiming psychic abilities.

Most likely a psychic would simply ignore the skeptic the same way they ignore the Million Dollar Challenge.

Don't get me wrong -- I wish the legal system offered a good way to deal with these people. But generally I don't think it does.

[Dunstan]

Could they sue for distress and psychological damage? Every lawsuit seems to have this included these days.You spill a cup of McDonald's coffee..distreess and psychological damage,as well as all the other crap.

Distress and psychological damage are just categories of damage. You still have to prove there was a legal wrong committed that entitles the plaintiff to recover. (In the infamous McDonald's case, the coffee was alleged to be kept at a dangerously high temperature, and the plaintiff suffered third (?) degree burns, not just emotional distress. The amount of the award was substantially reduced on appeal, by the way.)

There is a cause of action recognized in most U.S. states for "intentional infliction of emotional distress," but it requires "extreme and outrageous conduct" or a similarly high standard. And that's based on society's view of what is extreme and outrageous, not a skeptic's. In a world where Edward, Browne et al can have high-rated television shows and rake in the bucks, I can't imagine a jury finding that it's extreme and outrageous to claim psychic powers you don't have. Again, unless you can prove the psychic knows she doesn't have powers, and then you're back to the problems I described above.