Psychic attempts 2nd bankruptcy

[amindformurder]

Psychic Noreen Renier, often seen on the Court TV series 'Psychic Detectives' has filed for her second Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 8 years. On August 28, 2007 she filed in Virginia with her largest creditor skeptic John Merrell --- myself! Having recently won a $39,558 federal court judgment I hold 56%+ of her debt, and her own attorney holds much of the rest! I would be very grateful for any information known about income Noreen Renier may have collected from readers of this forum as clients, participants at her psychic lectures, regional expos, bookings, psychic readings, etc. since January 1, 2005. She claims her total net income for 2005, 2006 and 2007 totals under $41,000 for all three years. I would like to showcase to the Court anything she might have overlooked. You may respond at amindformurder@gmail.com and a complete review of her claims and my commentary is at www.amindformurder.com (http://www.amindformurder.com) Thank you.

[quixotecoyote]

Why do you think this is a good place to find her clients?

[Fnord]

Have you perused the contents of Noreen Renier's website (http://www.noreenrenier.com/) yet? The Special Events section might be of interest to you:

Recent Lectures

A.R.E. (http://noreenrenier.com/services/rhine.html)Virginia Beach Conference 2/ 25/07
Rhine Research Center, 6/16/06 (http://noreenrenier.com/services/rhine.html)
International Remote Viewing Association Conference, 4/12/06
Illinois Coroners & Medical Examiners Association, 4/2/06
Virginia Festival of the Book, 3/4/06You might also inquire with:
- Marlene A. Lantz, Coroner McHenry County, Illinois. 2007

Noreen claims to have had teaching appointments at:

Adjunct Faculty Member:
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Reitz Union Leisure Course

Santa Fe Community College
Gainesville, Florida

Rollins College
Winter Park, Florida

University of Delaware
Wilmington, Delaware

Piedmont Community College
Charlottesville, Virginia

University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia

How about asking the fine people at www.StopSylviaBrowne.com (http://www.StopSylviaBrowne.com)? I'm sure Robert Lancaster would be interested.

Happy Hunting!

[this charming man]

Why not file a Request for Production, or schedule a Deposition Duces Tecum?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why do you think this is a good place to find her clients?

Because asking in a believers forum is very unlikely to get any positive results? :boggled:

Why not here?

[quixotecoyote]

Because asking in a believers forum is very unlikely to get any positive results? :boggled:

Why not here?

I'm not telling him to go away. I just don't think you're going to find many psychic clients running around here.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm not telling him to go away. I just don't think you're going to find many psychic clients running around here.

True. But he might find a few folks who keep up with the fakes and scammers and could provide a hint or two. As I note has been done. :)

[tkingdoll]

Geez, talk about washing your dirty laundry.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Geez, talk about washing your dirty laundry.

? :confused:

[amindformurder]

Merrell responds:
Sometimes I have learned looking in places that don't seem the best can be enlightening. In fact I've had about a dozen direct responses from people who claim to have been paid clients. This cross-checking and re-checking often proves fruitful. It's one reason the info I have on my website is as extensive as it is.
Thanks --- and no embarrassment. I consider the facts I have been able to showcase at www.amindformurder.com (http://www.amindformurder.com) well worth all the efforts.

[quixotecoyote]

Geez, talk about washing your dirty laundry.

I think the phrase is 'airing your dirty laundry', especially 'in public'

[Foolmewunz]

I think the phrase is 'airing your dirty laundry', especially 'in public'

What's "dirty laundry" about it? The facts have been on A Mind for Murder for ages. The only new tidbit here is that she's filed once again for financial protection. And since Reiner has book revenues and has once stated that she's too busy to take on new individual clients, it sounds like she's just hiding behind the bankruptcy to avoid paying off on the lawsuit. (The fact that her attorney is the other major creditor is not uncommon. Attorneys will help you in that special little way, especially when they lost the case!)

The guy asked a bunch of renowned Psychic-watchers if anyone heard anything of her whereabouts might they please inform him.

Reiner's another Sylvia, just smaller scale. And it may well be thanks to Merrell's work that she didn't get any bigger. The thought that someone here might have come across her at a "gig" somewhere seems very possible, and as the man says, he's gotten answers from surprising places in the past.

[quixotecoyote]

Hey, I'm just semantically correcting an idiom. If you've got an issue with the content, you should be quoting teek.

[Foolmewunz]

Hey, I'm just semantically correcting an idiom. If you've got an issue with the content, you should be quoting teek.

Nope! Last person who criticized Teek? Well, let's just say they're still finding body parts in trash bags somewhere outside of Reading.

:spjimlad:

[quixotecoyote]

Dammit, I knew $200 was way too cheap. Now I know why.

[tkingdoll]

Both parties in this case are extremely fond of loudly and publicly declaring their woes/triumphs via emails and the internet even when there's no further info and even if instructed by the courts not to do so. This case has been going on for so long, it feels more like a personal vendetta than anything else. I've seen communications from both sides and frankly the level of pettiness is like nothing else. It does skepticism no good to crow about bankrupting a 70-year old woman.

My idiom is correct, quixotecoyote, yours is an alternative version. However I think mine is the original, certainly Wilde's quote uses that version (and also logically more correct as by the time you air your laundry, it's clean, surely. Who airs dirty laundry? Washing it in public would show everyone how dirty it is, which is rather the point of the idiom).

[quixotecoyote]

Well there's nothing wrong with airing clean laundry, after all. It's only the dirty stuff that you shouldn't show.

[fls]

It does skepticism no good to crow about bankrupting a 70-year old woman.

It looked to me like he is suspicious that she is far from bankrupt. If she were truly bankrupt, I think she'd get left alone (this is merely an impression on my part).

Who airs dirty laundry?

Before the days of automatic washers, used clothing and linens were freshened by airing them out, rather than by the frequent washings we are used to.

Linda

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Both parties in this case are extremely fond of loudly and publicly declaring their woes/triumphs via emails and the internet even when there's no further info and even if instructed by the courts not to do so. This case has been going on for so long, it feels more like a personal vendetta than anything else. I've seen communications from both sides and frankly the level of pettiness is like nothing else. It does skepticism no good to crow about bankrupting a 70-year old woman.


Somehow I seem to have a completely different take on this.

Merrell exposed Renier as a phoney and a lier but lost the court case in 1986 that Renier brought against him for libel and that loss essentially established the validity of her psychic abilities.

Later evidence supported Merrell. Renier, by continuing the fight eventually gave Merrell a legal opening to get back at Renier (and why not given the injustice done to him?). This case he has won and Renier has been ordered to pay costs. Renier claims she has no money and yet she has made claims in the past of making 100s of dollars and hour and lecturing and consulting to TV. Merrell asks for help in identifying her sources of income. He would like to get paid as ordered by the court. Where is the problem?

It does skepicism no good to roll over if someone plays the age card. If she truely does not have the money, then let's have proof of this. Renier was perfectly happy to try and bankrupt Merrell in the first case and since, he wasn't allowed to, I presume he had to pay the $25,000.

I don't see any crowing in the original post. :confused:

[tkingdoll]

Gord, every single one of John's posts here have been about Noreen. And Noreen has a mailing list doing exactly the same thing in return to people she feels might be sympathetic. This has been going on for years.

I don't believe it's possible to prove a negative, by the way.

[RSLancastr]

It does skepticism no good to crow about bankrupting a 70-year old woman.I should be so lucky. :)

[Rodney]

Merrell exposed Renier as a phoney and a lier but lost the court case in 1986 that Renier brought against him for libel and that loss essentially established the validity of her psychic abilities.
So, Gord, how many other court cases have you heard of where someone exposes another person as a "phoney" and a "lier" (are those the Canadian spellings? ;)) and yet manages to lose the case?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gord, every single one of John's posts here have been about Noreen. And Noreen has a mailing list doing exactly the same thing in return to people she feels might be sympathetic. This has been going on for years.

I don't believe it's possible to prove a negative, by the way.

Teek,

I must admit this is one of the sillier discusions I have involved myself in in my short time here. :D

Can we not just ignore the personalities and concentrate on the facts? I know this is a long time feud -- I have read about it before much more than once. However, in the case of this post, I saw it as a genuine case of a request for information not some sort of stalking horse for another swip at Renier.

I knew someone would catch me on the "proving a negative" thing. :o A thorough search might have a positive outcome though.

[tkingdoll]

Teek,

I must admit this is one of the sillier discusions I have involved myself in in my short time here. :D

Can we not just ignore the personalities and concentrate on the facts? I know this is a long time feud -- I have read about it before much more than once. However, in the case of this post, I saw it as a genuine case of a request for information not some sort of stalking horse for another swip at Renier.

I knew someone would catch me on the "proving a negative" thing. :o A thorough search might have a positive outcome though.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. I just saw *another* one of these threads and thought "give it a rest already, we know you beat her, ding dong the witch is dead, etc". Publicity fatigue, I guess. We're being asked to help bury the corpse. But it's not all that bad, I could just simply ignore the thread instead. Point taken :)

ETA: You think this is silly? You should have seen the email Noreen sent round protesting the fact that she'd been instructed by the court not to discuss the case...clearly in breach of said instruction...:boggled:

[Reno]

Hold on hold on....ding dong the witch is dead, let's bury the corpse? Don't be so hasty Teek. When Robert S Lancaster finally causes the death (as a psychic, not literally)of Talon Browne, I don't want to bury that corpse. I want to hang it up and gloat over it. I want to parade it all over the world. I want everyone to see it for what it is.

So let's not bury this corpse just yet. If we can rake this bankrupt psychic over the coals one more time for the vulnerable people she has hurt, then I'll be there watching the poor old 70 year old heartless, greedy, lying, thieving charlatan get her come uppance.

[hmmm...]

It does skepticism no good to crow about bankrupting a 70-year old woman.



I'm not so sure about that. Unfortunately this case has become somewhat convoluted, but in general, if a psychic tried to sue someone for calling her a fraud, then had to prove she wasn't - and lost, I for one would certainly be up for at least a small amount of crowing.

[Miss Anthrope]

I should be so lucky. :)

I hope!:cheerleader4

[Foolmewunz]

Glad to see RSL dropped in. I was thinking towards his herculean efforts in re Kaz and Claws while reading this.

If one had looked at RSLs posts during last autumn, one would've thought we had a monomaniac on our hands. All about that Sylvia Browne, Sylvia Browne, Sylvia Browne!

Merrell doesn't post here often, and after a brief and misguided flirtation with being a minor troll, actually opened up and had some good discussions about his site, the case, etc... Except for Posner in Tampa, he's been essentially the one person taking on Noreen, who was just as publicized and dangerous as Sylvia at one point. Hell, they let her lecture at Quantico! Talk about undermining skepticism and critical thinking! The FBI, who are supposed to have the best investigative network in the world, inviting a two-bit Psychic to lecture on how to use paranormal powers to solve crimes.

So? The guy's a one-trick pony? I have no problem with that. I think this case has consumed him, but for many of the right reasons. He started out debunking a fraud. He's continued in that vein. I'm sure that even if he collects the full settlement, it's just going to represent a nice windfall. He could have made more concentrating on his writing/journalism over this period. He's obviously not in it for the money, and I don't think he's in it for a personal vendetta (more a professional, or even moral, one).


> Teek, sorry I forgot that you were pretty well read-up on this story. (I don't really understand why so few people are.) So, sorry if I was a bit "short", back there.

[amindformurder]

I appreciate everyone’s comments. Some additional thoughts.
Since a U.S. District judge ruled in November 2006 that Noreen Renier breached the original settlement contract of silence that she and I had signed in 1992 --- one that provided silence for 13 years --- no further court order (including now) has ever been issued for any public silence. It is because there is no contractual or court agreement active that I have been able to "re-open" my public comments including opening the website on February 26, 2006. Four weeks ago Noreen Renier filed her bankruptcy petition with the Court which indicates an "average income" of $484, and her 1990 Volvo sedan with 99,800 miles her most valued personal property at $1360. The gross amount of income from her employment, trade, profession, and from the operation of her business is listed as $6371.00 in 2006 and $8,874.40 in 2007. Yet her public website shows her 60-120 minute phone session fees at $1000, and her least expensive private reading session listed at $350. She was also involved with lecturing for fees across the U.S. during 2005 and 2006 as well, though I am not aware of all of her seminars, expos, psychic readings, and paid speaking events --- and therefore seeking any additional information on any public announcements that have been previously made.

Gord in Toronto is correct. As recently as July 31, 2005 the Lynchburg News & Advance (Virginia) stated “Moreover, $1000 isn’t all that much to Noreen Renier anymore – it’s what she charges for her services.” And Renier responds in the same article with “It used to be $600, I actually raised the price to discourage people, because I’ve got more work than I can handle.” And I note the perceptive remarks from fls above. One final answer --- yes I did pay Renier just over $28,000 in my own settlement to her in 1992. That amount was $23,800 in a single check after she had already garnished the additional difference. I see nothing odd about making sure all is valid when someone declares bankruptcy and I find myself the principal creditor with more than 56.5% of the debt. Nor when her attorney helped push my responding legal costs well above $40,000 over 15 months while collecting just $1000 in total payments according to the bankruptcy petition filed by Renier. As a business person I would be reluctant to continue working on a project where I continue work month after month while just receiving $1000 against unpaid bills that finally are above $26,000. And as for those who find such psychic and skeptic squabbling tedious I note that this evening’s circus performance isn’t over. In fact here come the clowns with their silly painted grins. And over there I see several members in the audience with jars of cold cream and face wipes ready. Hhhhmmmmmmm. Is it possible some unexpected encore is brewing?

[tkingdoll]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Stellafane]

Thanks for proving my point.

Sorry but I'm really, really not getting where you're coming from. I think Mr. Merrell's work is important and useful, and his posts informative and interesting. Perhaps it's because I don't have the thorough knowledge you do about the case and its past history, but so what? Can't this thread be valuable for people like me, and others can just ignore it?

I for one appreciate Mr. Merrell taking the time to let me know what's going on. And the criticism I've seen of him in this thread, to be frank, strikes me as a bit irritable and snippy, and ultimately uncalled-for.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thanks for proving my point.

Sigh. I thought we had agreed to make up? Sniff.

[tkingdoll]

Sorry but I'm really, really not getting where you're coming from. I think Mr. Merrell's work is important and useful, and his posts informative and interesting. Perhaps it's because I don't have the thorough knowledge you do about the case and its past history, but so what? Can't this thread be valuable for people like me, and others can just ignore it?

I for one appreciate Mr. Merrell taking the time to let me know what's going on. And the criticism I've seen of him in this thread, to be frank, strikes me as a bit irritable and snippy, and ultimately uncalled-for.

Takes all sorts of opinions to make a forum, happily.

[Enlighten]

This is a very good part, linked to the JREF:

‘Court TV’ Psychic Loses to Skeptic in Real Court
Skeptical Inquirer magazine (http://www.csicop.org/si/)
July/Aug 2007

The epic legal wranglings between “psychic detective” Noreen Renier and skeptic John Merrell, which have spanned two decades in county, state, and federal courts from Orlando to Seattle, may have finally come to an end—though not with the results predicted by the psychic.
...
On his own Web site, Merrell has floated two intriguing, though somewhat fanciful, ideas for Renier to ponder. The first has her coauthoring another book, this time with a skeptic like me or Joe Nickell, revealing “how international psychics have fooled the public and media.” The second has Merrell agreeing to donate $10,000 in Renier’s name to a children’s charity and erasing her $39,558 debt entirely, should she in a timely manner be able to “prove under a qualified and sanctioned test something as simple as her claims of human levitation, psychic sight through clothing, or her two-way communication with trees.” The former—if Renier is consciously aware, and agreeable to confessing, that she is no more “psychic” than the rest—could have best-seller potential. The latter, on the other hand, would require that Renier actually demonstrate psychic ability under properly controlled conditions, and, based upon my own personal history with her, my money says she wouldn’t dare make the attempt—not even for Randi’s $1,000,000 reward.


http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-04/court-tv.html

[amindformurder]

She unfortunately selected not to demonstrate her claimed abilities.
I even had offered to pay for a suitable public auditorium and limit the skeptical participants to a lesser number than her own participants --- so as not to sway the vibes in the place to much towards skeptics.
But no dice. She has selected to attempt bankruptcy instead --- which will be determined by a federal bankruptcy court on whether than proceeds. -John Merrell

[Blue Bubble]

This is a very good part, linked to the JREF:

Quote:
‘Court TV’ Psychic Loses to Skeptic in Real Court
Skeptical Inquirer magazine (http://www.csicop.org/si/)
July/Aug 2007

[...snip...]
On his own Web site, Merrell has floated two intriguing, though somewhat fanciful, ideas for Renier to ponder. The first has her coauthoring another book, this time with a skeptic like me or Joe Nickell, revealing “how international psychics have fooled the public and media.” The second has Merrell agreeing to donate $10,000 in Renier’s name to a children’s charity and erasing her $39,558 debt entirely, should she in a timely manner be able to “prove under a qualified and sanctioned test something as simple as her claims of human levitation, psychic sight through clothing, or her two-way communication with trees.” The former—if Renier is consciously aware, and agreeable to confessing, that she is no more “psychic” than the rest—could have best-seller potential. The latter, on the other hand, would require that Renier actually demonstrate psychic ability under properly controlled conditions, and, based upon my own personal history with her, my money says she wouldn’t dare make the attempt—not even for Randi’s $1,000,000 reward.



That's very clever ... I like it. :clap: :clap:

[pipelineaudio]

Has this board really come to this? A skeptic cant even come on and ask for help now?