U.S. Federal court rules against psychic

[amindformurder]

Noreen Renier, a police psychic who regularly appears on the Court TV Psychic Detectives series, lost a federal court ruling on November 16, 2006. Following a breach-of-settlement lawsuit brought by skeptic John Merrell after Renier published her book A Mind for Murder, a U.S. federal judge in Washington filed an order noting "The court rejects Ms. Renier's claim that she did not breach the Settlement Agreement because her statements in A Mind for Murder are, according to her, true... ...In light of its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, the court finds that Ms. Renier breached the agreement by publishing A Mind for Murder... ...[Additionally] The court therefore grants summary judgment against Ms. Renier's tortious interference counterclaims [emphasis added]."
The court has ordered a mediation to occur tomorrow (Tuesday) in part to resolve the damages, which according to the original settlement agreement must also cover all litigation costs by the party who breaches the settlement. Those costs (now to become entirely Renier's) exceed $100,000. Additional damages will be determined or the case will proceed for a jury to determine the damages, with that trial now set for February 6, 2007. However, even if that occurs, U.S. District judge James Robart wrote in his court order that "Ms. Renier has no triable counterclaims" so she may only attempt plead her case against high damages. She would enter the court room still with the federal judgment against her. As I am a relative new user I cannot on this website point you to my link. However it is the same title as her book AMindforMurder. There you will find an update on the case. Thank you - John Merrell.

[This Guy]

You'd think she woulda known the outcome!

Here's the link :)

http://www.amindformurder.com/

Welcome to the forum!

[Rodney]

You'd think she woulda known the outcome!

Here's the link :)

http://www.amindformurder.com/

Welcome to the forum!

The court decision begins:

"Ms. Renier is a psychic; Mr. Merrell is a skeptic. Although the existence and scope of Ms. Renier’s paranormal abilities are beyond the court’s purview, there is no dispute that she has at least attempted to use her abilities to assist law enforcement agencies. While she was living in Oregon in 1985, a local newspaper wrote an article about her pursuits. The article captured the attention of Mr. Merrell, who sent a letter to at least one newspaper detailing his reasons for believing Ms. Renier to be a charlatan. Mr. Merrell sent the letter as a representative of the 'Northwest Skeptics Organization.' Ms. Renier sued Mr. Merrell in Oregon state court, alleging that his letter defamed her. She won a $25,000 jury verdict."

So, Mr. Merrell could not prove that Ms. Renier was a charlatan, and lost $25,000. The present case has nothing to do with Ms. Renier's psychic ability, but whether she violated the terms of a settlement with Mr. Merrell. The court summarizes its decision as follows:

"1) Mr. Merrell can recover no more than nominal damages for pecuniary injury, as Ms. Renier demonstrated that he has no evidence of out-of-pocket loss.

"2) Unless he proves that Ms. Renier’s remarks were not of public concern, Mr.
Merrell cannot recover for non-pecuniary injury (non-pecuniary reputational loss and emotional distress) without proving that Ms. Renier’s statements were false.

"3) The court will not award Mr. Merrell disgorgement of Ms. Renier’s profits from A Mind for Murder.

"4) Mr. Merrell has no claim arising from the publication of the Posner article.

"5) Ms. Renier has no triable counterclaims."

[Kelly]

Noreen Renier, a police psychic who regularly appears on the Court TV Psychic Detectives series, lost a federal court ruling on November 16, 2006. Following a breach-of-settlement lawsuit brought by skeptic John Merrell after Renier published her book A Mind for Murder, a U.S. federal judge in Washington filed an order noting "The court rejects Ms. Renier's claim that she did not breach the Settlement Agreement because her statements in A Mind for Murder are, according to her, true... ...In light of its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, the court finds that Ms. Renier breached the agreement by publishing A Mind for Murder... ...[Additionally] The court therefore grants summary judgment against Ms. Renier's tortious interference counterclaims [emphasis added]."



That's great news, John!

[Garrette]

The court decision begins:

"Ms. Renier is a psychic; Mr. Merrell is a skeptic. Although the existence and scope of Ms. Renier’s paranormal abilities are beyond the court’s purview, there is no dispute that she has at least attempted to use her abilities to assist law enforcement agencies. While she was living in Oregon in 1985, a local newspaper wrote an article about her pursuits. The article captured the attention of Mr. Merrell, who sent a letter to at least one newspaper detailing his reasons for believing Ms. Renier to be a charlatan. Mr. Merrell sent the letter as a representative of the 'Northwest Skeptics Organization.' Ms. Renier sued Mr. Merrell in Oregon state court, alleging that his letter defamed her. She won a $25,000 jury verdict."

---snip---

The court summarizes its decision as follows:

"1) Mr. Merrell can recover no more than nominal damages for pecuniary injury, as Ms. Renier demonstrated that he has no evidence of out-of-pocket loss.

"2) Unless he proves that Ms. Renier’s remarks were not of public concern, Mr.
Merrell cannot recover for non-pecuniary injury (non-pecuniary reputational loss and emotional distress) without proving that Ms. Renier’s statements were false.

"3) The court will not award Mr. Merrell disgorgement of Ms. Renier’s profits from A Mind for Murder.

"4) Mr. Merrell has no claim arising from the publication of the Posner article.

"5) Ms. Renier has no triable counterclaims."As much as I dislike Renier, and as much as I generally disagree with Rodney, he has more of the spirit of the ruling than anyone so far. As I understand the judgment, it is basically saying "Yes, Renier violated the Terms of the Settlement, but not to such a degree that it amounts to anything, so other than Renier paying costs, nothing changes."

Here's the part I snipped from above:

So, Mr. Merrell could not prove that Ms. Renier was a charlatan, and lost $25,000. The present case has nothing to do with Ms. Renier's psychic ability, but whether she violated the terms of a settlement with Mr. Merrell

It would be more accurate to say it like this:

First case: Merrell couldn't prove Renier was lying

Second case: Renier couldn't prove she was telling the truth

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The mills of the Gods grind slow but they grind exceedingly fine!

[Rodney]

As much as I dislike Renier, and as much as I generally disagree with Rodney, he has more of the spirit of the ruling than anyone so far. As I understand the judgment, it is basically saying "Yes, Renier violated the Terms of the Settlement, but not to such a degree that it amounts to anything, so other than Renier paying costs, nothing changes."

Here's the part I snipped from above:

It would be more accurate to say it like this:

First case: Merrell couldn't prove Renier was lying

Second case: Renier couldn't prove she was telling the truth
Thanks for your support, but I don't see how you draw the second conclusion. I agree with the judge that, even if Renier is telling the truth about Merrell, she violated the terms of the settlement. However, I don't see where the judge ruled on whether Renier proved that Merrell was lying.

[Garrette]

However, I don't see where the judge ruled on whether Renier proved that Merrell was lying.You may be right. He spends a fair amount of time discussin whether it matters from a legal perspective if she is telling the truth. I gathered he determined it did and that she hadn't proven it.

But it was fairly legalistic and I could be wrong.

[Kopji]

we need a good lawyer in here

(I thought that might sound really funny if I wrote it, and yup it did!)

[amindformurder]

From Merrell: Actually in the original Oregon trial we avoided all questions of whether Noreen Renier had psychic abilities. In the present order by the federal judge its noted that I began my work on Renier triggered by an article appearing. That is incorrect. I began my investigation of Noreen Renier in 1985 after a letter from Nancy Uzdavinis was written asking for assistance concerning Noreen Renier. Five years later I was able to show positively (with a handwriting expert) that the letter signed by Nancy Uzdavinis had actually been written by Noreen Renier using her sister-in-laws name. Noreen Renier never admitted that she had pursued my assistance during the original Oregon trial, nor does she address this peculiar means to investigate herself in her book A Mind for Murder, though she certainly provides the impression that I may have begun it with a phone call out-of-the-blue. That phone call came months after her letter. This latest case is interesting since she has recently indicated she would win, not have multiple losses. And given her psychic abilities, why would she spend more than 20 years writing a book to simply have the publisher pull it? Having lost her book, and lost her counter claims, and now with a Summary Judgment in my favor --- this doesn't seem to be on the cutting edge of foresight. And if you have any doubt about her psychic abilities, read my website regarding her claims of finding the crashed aircraft. That alone was worth discovering after 20 years. -John Merrell

[RemieV]

Ah, Renier. She's in one of my woo books... *goes to get it* It's a skeptical woo book, btw. Well, it tries to be. Jane Goldman's X-files Book of the Unexplained Vols 1 & 2.

According to this, Renier's PR engine (actually calls it that, too) frequently cites two predictions... an assassination attempt, and an assassination. Then it lists a bunch of her misses. (bwahahaha)

She was invited to speak at Quantico by Robert Ressler (the famous profiling dude). Now that's kind of sad.

Hey, there's a chapter on Randi in this book... complete with a photo of him with a spoon ;)