StopSylviaBrowne: "Chris DooFrane" and Money-Cleansing Scheme

[RSLancastr]

Another article added to the site:

Email: "Chris DooFrane" and Money-Cleansing Scheme (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/email_doofrane.shtml)

[Zep]

Your a fair man, Rob!

[RSLancastr]

Your a fair man, Rob!Thanks, Zep.

Sometimes, it's harder than others.

[Garrette]

I think you are fair, Rob, but I would worry about including this kind of thing even with disclaimers. Should Sylvia ever attempt legal action, the inclusion on a Sylvia Browne site of things you admit do not involve Sylvia Browne could be used as an indication of your (alleged) intent to unfairly bias people against her.

[CFLarsen]

I think you are fair, Rob, but I would worry about including this kind of thing even with disclaimers. Should Sylvia ever attempt legal action, the inclusion on a Sylvia Browne site of things you admit do not involve Sylvia Browne could be used as an indication of your (alleged) intent to unfairly bias people against her.

How on Earth could that ever be a legal problem??

"Hey, here's a story floating around about Sylvia being a cold reader. Here are my reasons why I think she is a cold reader. THIS MYTH IS PLAUSIBLE".

"Hey, here's a story floating around about Sylvia being a scammer. I don't see any reason to believe she is behind it. THIS MYTH IS BUSTED".

If anything, it proves that The Lancaster is seeking to be unbiased, and wants his audience to be the same.

[RSLancastr]

I appreciate the worry, Garrette.

But I think that my bases are covered there. Between the quote marks arond the name in the title, to the "imposter" in the preface, to the "Important Note", to the misspelled name in the image, to the Analysis and Conclusion, I think I make it pretty clear it isn't them.

I think they would have a hard time convincing anyone otherwise.

I could very easily have slanted the article in the "I don't know, maybe it's them" direction, but didn't think that would be fair or accurate.

And in the first draft, I didn't reveal it was an imposter until late in the article, because it made for better reading. But again, I thought it unfair and misleading, so I killed the suspense right off the bat, to (I hope) avoid any appearance of trying to even hint that it was them.

Let's hope I covered my bases.

[Garrette]

How on Earth could that ever be a legal problem??I'm not suggesting it would be in and of itself.

I'm suggesting that if Sylvia decides to take legal action, and in doing so tries to establish an unfair bias on RSL's part, this particular tidbit would aid her in doing so.

If anything, it proves that The Lancaster is seeking to be unbiased, and wants his audience to be the same.That may be the intent, but you're viewing it from the standpoint of logic and reason, not American civil law. [Do I need to repeat that I am not a lawyer and am only voicing my layman's opinion?]

[Garrette]

I appreciate the worry, Garrette.

But I think that my bases are covered there. Between the quote marks arond the name in the title, to the "imposter" in the preface, to the "Important Note", to the misspelled name in the image, to the Analysis and Conclusion, I think I make it pretty clear it isn't them.

I think they would have a hard time convincing anyone otherwise.I hope you're right.

[Miss Anthrope]

Good work...man I still owe you pictures. They will come, promise.

[RSLancastr]

I hope you're right.Me too! Thanks for being concerned.

Good work...Thanks!

man I still owe you pictures.I am just going to let everyone imagine that means whatever they think it means... :D

They will come, promise.Whenever you find the time, MissA.

[Skeptic Guy]

(SNIP)
I am just going to let everyone imagine that means whatever they think it means... :D
(SNIP)

As long as you share!
;)

EDIT: By the way, awesome work on our site!

[lylfyl]

So, how did you identify yourself when you brought this to Sylvia's attention? Please say you included a link to your website. :roll:

[RSLancastr]

By the way, awesome work on our site!"Our?" Thanks!

So, how did you identify yourself when you brought this to Sylvia's attention? Please say you included a link to your website. :roll:I actually tried calling them a couple of times last week, but they vidently close earlier than their web site says they do.

Here is what I sent to them:

Mr. DuFresne (or whoever reads this):

In case you weren't aware, someone is running an advertisement in the Enquirer, Globe and Star (and probably elsewhere) which reads:

CHRIS DOOFRANE 1-800-901-1466
Returns lovers passion immediately.
Results in 30 minutes.
If you'd like to see the ad, it is in the current Enquirer, on page 52. Mid-page, a little up and to the right.

They proceeded to run the old "Cursed Money" scam on the woman ("Your money has bad vibrations - send it to us and we'll meditate over it and send it back"), to the tune of a couple grand.

I am writing to you to make sure you know this is going on in your name (though misspelled), and to suggest that you post a prominent warning about it on your web site. I know that the page about readings has a small warning about psychics who talk abuot curses, but perhaps this deserves a more prominent mention than that.

Robert LancasterI sent it via my aol account, which is fairly easily connected to the site. I would have sent it from my SSB account, but I thought they might not bother opening it.

[Skeptic Guy]

Sorry, sorry, sorry, I meant YOUR site. I really did. I was taking a very quick break from work and was in a hurry to get ready for a conference call and missed the "y" key.

Very sorry...your site.

[RSLancastr]

Sorry, sorry, sorry, I meant YOUR site. I really did. I was taking a very quick break from work and was in a hurry to get ready for a conference call and missed the "y" key.

Very sorry...your site.:) Hey, if you did think of it as "our" site, I would take it as a compliment anyway. :)

[CFLarsen]

I'm not suggesting it would be in and of itself.

I'm suggesting that if Sylvia decides to take legal action, and in doing so tries to establish an unfair bias on RSL's part, this particular tidbit would aid her in doing so.

That may be the intent, but you're viewing it from the standpoint of logic and reason, not American civil law. [Do I need to repeat that I am not a lawyer and am only voicing my layman's opinion?]

No. Do you know of any prior cases where this applied?

[enjoytheview]

I'm suggesting that if Sylvia decides to take legal action, and in doing so tries to establish an unfair bias on RSL's part, this particular tidbit would aid her in doing so.

That may be the intent, but you're viewing it from the standpoint of logic and reason, not American civil law. [Do I need to repeat that I am not a lawyer and am only voicing my layman's opinion?]


If Sylvia ever decided to take legal action, it would be smarter to place the names of each article in a hat and draw out a random article to use to claim unfair bias than it would be to use this article as an example. I dunno what American civil court is like, but you'd have to be pretty daft (or biased yourself) to miss all the times where it states that the reader shouldn't assume any link between Sylvia and the scam.

Personally i'd consider it a public service, and if anything, it promotes the author as being an all round good samaritan.- proof that websites can be deceiving. (only joking RS)

[Mojo]

Could Browne argue that her target audience isn't smart enough to understand RSL's disclaimer? ;)

[enjoytheview]

Haha that would be a reasonable argument.
Come to think of it, RSL you should provide a translation of your disclaimer into (insert 50+ languages) just to cover yourself.

[RSLancastr]

Personally i'd consider it a public service, and if anything, it promotes the author as being an all round good samaritan.- proof that websites can be deceiving. (only joking RS)Why, thank y- huh? :)

Could Browne argue that her target audience isn't smart enough to understand RSL's disclaimer? ;)Ouch.

Haha that would be a reasonable argument.
Come to think of it, RSL you should provide a translation of your disclaimer into (insert 50+ languages) just to cover yourself.Perhaps some links to Babelfish? :)

[Garrette]

No. Do you know of any prior cases where this applied?Specifically, no.

My concern comes from my experience as a director of security and in conducting in-house investigations.

Notebooks used while investigating are a sensitive item. I might take perfect notes of my investigation on pages 1 through 17, but if on page 18, which also has case-related notes, I scribbled the number to Great Local Pizza Place and the info about my kid's school problems that my wifed called me about, then the opposing side questions the integrity of the notes.

If I keep my pizza and kid notes on a totally separate page in the same notebook, the same objection applies though to a lesser degree. If I tear out those irrelevant pages because I know they aren't relevant, then I raise the spectre of objections about the possibility I have destroyed relevant evidence that supports the other side.

As I said, I am not a lawyer. I do not intend to get drawn into a large debate about this nor to do research to satisfy you. I raised a possible concern to RSL. He says he is not concerned. That's fine by me.

[Garrette]

If Sylvia ever decided to take legal action, it would be smarter to place the names of each article in a hat and draw out a random article to use to claim unfair bias than it would be to use this article as an example. I dunno what American civil court is like, but you'd have to be pretty daft (or biased yourself) to miss all the times where it states that the reader shouldn't assume any link between Sylvia and the scam.American civil law is not about what is smart or scientific or even true. It is about what each side can convince either the judge or the jury is legal or illegal, biased or unbiased.

For my last word on this topic: We all know someone who says all the right things about how they are fair and honest and how they really like us and would never talk about us behind our backs but who, in reality, are the exact opposite of how they portray themselves.

RSL is not this way, nor is his site, but I suggested that inclusion of that article could open him up to the accusation.

That's it.

[Moochie]

Robert,

I think your site is an excellent example of how such a site should appear.

Congratulations!

M.

[RSLancastr]

As I said, I am not a lawyer. I do not intend to get drawn into a large debate about this nor to do research to satisfy you. I raised a possible concern to RSL. He says he is not concerned. That's fine by me.I understand, Garrette. You were expressing a concern, not filing a legal brief.

And again, I appreciate your bringing it up. Please don't hesitate to bring up other concerns in the future. I am interested in hearing them, whether or not any precedents in jurisprudence are cited. :)

I think your site is an excellent example of how such a site should appear.

Congratulations!Thanks, Mooch!