psychics take two

[panchov]

HI there, it's me panchov with another question that vexes me...
we were having this discussion about whats her name from england the fake psychic and I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

I'm wondering how most of you feel about this. For instance Sylvia and what she's done to families of the dead (ive learned from this site), she's sickening and of course I would guess that anybody hearing about it would have sympathy for the families - but I also can't help but think that I mean face Sylvia is so obviously faking it - Ive known very little about her before I came here, only seen her a few times and it was immediately obvious. Not only does she fake it, but she's nasty. So if somebody's kid is missing and they're dumb enough to go to her for advice, aren't they kind of asking for whatever they get?

Or am I just cold and cruel (really I do have sympathy for them, she's a blankety blank) - I just think they hold SOME responsibility. Not all. Help me out here someone Please.

The other thing is, while I think Sylvia should be allowed to keep going as long as adults are wanting to pay her money (even though it's disgusting), I do think if she's leading police on goose chases, ect, someone should try to do something. WHats going on here, why don't the police at the very least come out and forcefully publicly say that she's wasting their time? Why is it only here that I'm hearing that? The police should stop each other from using her by word of mouth! If they don't, then again, they hold some of the responsibility.


Thanks, Panch

[-Fran-]

It's obvious to us... sadly it seems many people actually do believe... for real!

[ExMinister]

Desperate people will sometimes try desperate things, and grieving people are some of the most traumatized, desperate people out there. And there are a lot of high-profile medical doctors and PHds out there these days advocating parapsychology, conducting near-death experience research, etc., who seem very intelligent and credible, who unfortunately make it even easier for people to believe that there might be some legitimacy to Sylvia Browne, too.

I don't think there's any excuse for knowingly victimizing people, and I think it's even harder these days for people to discern thanks to all the positive publicity these types of people are now receiving. Throw in the fact that some of these psychics/mediums/experts are probably in fact sincere but deluded (Sylvia Browne isn't), and people get even mroe confused.

That said, Robert Lancaster's site is a big step in the right direction. He's presenting evidence that will hopefully appeal to the more logical people before they are taken in.

I'd really like to see more "spiritual" people realize that skepticism also means critical thinking and is not necessarily synonymous with atheism or cynicism. I think Robert Lancaster's site is a step in the right direction that way too.

Sorry to rant. But in my mind, while I can see the argument that people need to take responsibility for where they spend their money and what they choose to believe, I do believe the media and some of the so-called experts are making it a lot harder for people to discern.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

We've already had this discussion about Sylvia Browne a dozen times but I'll throw in my two cents once again.

Having seen Sylvia Browne tape a Montel episode in person, I can understand why so many people turn to her. A few people turn to psychics for frivolous reasons but almost all of my audience had been through a traumatic and unimaginable life event such as the murder or suicide of a child, the unexpected and sudden death of a parent, spouse or significant other, a horrible accident or the diagnosis of a major illness.

It was sobbering to realize I was probably the only person in the room who hadn't had a very recent and very traumatic death.

It's easy to criticize someone for turning to a disgusting person like her, even in a time of tragedy, but not everyone has the advantage of being a skeptic prior to a disaster. Assuming you had never heard of cold reading before, how would you know how you'd react when you first came into contact with a psychic?

As for the police, it often happens that its the families who pressure law enforcement to follow up on false leads. There's also the possibility that the psychic is somehow involved or has knowledge of the crime or the possibility that the police are using a psychic to worm a confession out of a superstitious suspect.

I'd also imagine that the police would follow up on a psychic's lead because a case is so stuck in one place, there's nothing for them to investigate but what a psychic says.

[panchov]

We've already had this discussion about Sylvia Browne a dozen times but I'll throw in my two cents once again.

Having seen Sylvia Browne tape a Montel episode in person, I can understand why so many people turn to her. A few people turn to psychics for frivolous reasons but almost all of my audience had been through a traumatic and unimaginable life event such as the murder or suicide of a child, the unexpected and sudden death of a parent, spouse or significant other, a horrible accident or the diagnosis of a major illness.

It was sobbering to realize I was probably the only person in the room who hadn't had a very recent and very traumatic death.

It's easy to criticize someone for turning to a disgusting person like her, even in a time of tragedy, but not everyone has the advantage of being a skeptic prior to a disaster. Assuming you had never heard of cold reading before, how would you know how you'd react when you first came into contact with a psychic?

As for the police, it often happens that its the families who pressure law enforcement to follow up on false leads. There's also the possibility that the psychic is somehow involved or has knowledge of the crime or the possibility that the police are using a psychic to worm a confession out of a superstitious suspect.

I'd also imagine that the police would follow up on a psychic's lead because a case is so stuck in one place, there's nothing for them to investigate but what a psychic says.


Well, I may be a skeptic, and I may know what cold reading is, but I am not a disbeliever. I do tend to think it's possible to have psychic abilities, but when I see flim flam in front of me, I don't believe. I know what you are saying though and I am in no way saying these creeps aren't responsible even more responsible than the people who go to them. I really don't get why the police don't shut her down though, just by coming out and telling the truth. The police aren't traumatized family members. Maybe she has a way of brainwashing people!

[panchov]

By the way, I understand why the police are willing to listen to them to begin with, what I don't understand is how Sylvia can say over and over and over that she's helped police solve crimes, led them to bodies etc, if it's not true, and why the police don't stand up and say YOU WERE NO HELP AT ALL, YOU ARE LYING, HERE'S THE PROOF when she says it. Think how far that would go to shutting her down.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, I may be a skeptic, and I may know what cold reading is, but I am not a disbeliever. I do tend to think it's possible to have psychic abilities, but when I see flim flam in front of me, I don't believe. I know what you are saying though and I am in no way saying these creeps aren't responsible even more responsible than the people who go to them. I really don't get why the police don't shut her down though, just by coming out and telling the truth. The police aren't traumatized family members. Maybe she has a way of brainwashing people!

There was a case way back in 1997 where a young single mother from Oswego in upstate New York named Carol Wood disappeared without a trace after leaving a bar.

Her sisters appeared on the talk show hosted by Sally Jesse Raphael so Sylvia Browne could tell them their sister was dead while they cried and give them locations where the body supposedly was. To my recollection, she told them it was by a shed by a large body of water. It led the family and the police on a wild goose chase throughout New York- I think several locations that looked like the shed by the water were searched.

Carol Wood's disappearance and the search by her sisters were profiled in a few publications in Oswego and the sister was asked about the police following up on a psychic's leads and she said (paraphrasing from memory here) "The police check out everything, anything I tell them about. I tell them that I had a dream of Carol in a place that looks like this and they go and check it out. They told me to come to them with anything."

It seemed incredible to me that the police would follow up on someone's dreams of her sister being murdered and a psychic's "vision" but there might be a reasonable explanation in this case.

[ExMinister]

I think it's great the police are willing to follow up any lead, horrible that psychics like Sylvia are willing to waste their time for their own selfish purposes.

Also, Sylvia is notoriously vague about exactly which police she has helped.

And as far as the ones she actually may have worked with and failed to help, who would they tell? Who would listen? Unless it's a case as huge as Shawn Hornbeck's where what Sylvia said was video-recorded or taped, I'm not sure there's anyone who would feel it worthwhile to come forward. Especially if whatever she said was just vague but not wrong, or at the risk of having to be interviewed and put on the spot about a case where there are details that aren't supposed to be made public. It's also possible the police are not encouraged to make public the fact that they occasionally are willing to work with a psychic to appease a family or for other reasons such as those Eenie mentioned above.

As a side note, I'm personally not convinced she's helped the police all that often anyway. Any other ex-Novus people know differently? I just think it's odd that for years now she's had a statement that she could "no longer" do private phone readings regarding missing persons cases.

And where are all the families/police who should be coming forward publicly to thank her for all the crimes she's supposedly helped solve? What a great story that would make. So where are they?

[panchov]

I think it's great the police are willing to follow up any lead, horrible that psychics like Sylvia are willing to waste their time for their own selfish purposes.

Also, Sylvia is notoriously vague about exactly which police she has helped.

And as far as the ones she actually may have worked with and failed to help, who would they tell? Who would listen? Unless it's a case as huge as Shawn Hornbeck's where what Sylvia said was video-recorded or taped, I'm not sure there's anyone who would feel it worthwhile to come forward. Especially if whatever she said was just vague but not wrong, or at the risk of having to be interviewed and put on the spot about a case where there are details that aren't supposed to be made public. It's also possible the police are not encouraged to make public the fact that they occasionally are willing to work with a psychic to appease a family or for other reasons such as those Eenie mentioned above.

As a side note, I'm personally not convinced she's helped the police all that often anyway. Any other ex-Novus people know differently? I just think it's odd that for years now she's had a statement that she could "no longer" do private phone readings regarding missing persons cases.

And where are all the families/police who should be coming forward publicly to thank her for all the crimes she's supposedly helped solve? What a great story that would make. So where are they?

Ah, that could explain it. If she doesn't give say which police, how can they say she's lying. I learn so much from you guys!

byw, what's an exnovus?

[my_wan]

The problem with the willing victim is desperation. No matter how reasonable a person normally is if it comes to your missing or fatally ill child how much is too much? Would you risk withholding anything that has any outrageous slim possibility to help. People in these situations are literally inundated with the likes of Silvia. Where do you draw the line between willingness and duress? Is it not criminals to use a persons desperation to drain their money?

So perhaps you agree that should be criminal. What about the old lady that goes to a psychic and is told they have a curse on them. With enough sessions and payments this curse can be removed. Is this old lady a willing victim when tens of thousands of dollars are cleaned from their bank account, sometimes losing their homes in the process? It happens more than you can imagine.

The shame and lack of reporting of this kind of crime is what allows this fallacious belief in harmlessness and willing victim to continue. This arguement could hold if all that ever happened was a $30 payment for some crap about your love life. In reality people are being ruined.

[panchov]

Yeah, it's a mess. So how do we decide? If the old lady goes to the psychic willingly, hands over her money willingly, victim of belief or not, is she without responsibility? I can see it both ways, but the problem is that until people are responsible for their own actions, they will continue to be fleeced in the awful ways you describe.

I've always said though, if the psychic approaches the victim, it should be considered criminal fraud the whole way. I'm only talking about cases where the the person themselves seek out the psychic.

[ExMinister]

Sylvia Browne's church is the Society of Novus Spiritus. There are a few ex-members and ex-ministers who sometimes post on this forum.

[panchov]

Sylvia Browne's church is the Society of Novus Spiritus. There are a few ex-members and ex-ministers who sometimes post on this forum.

She has a church? Thats the scariest thing yet.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

She has a church? Thats the scariest thing yet.

Make that a "church", in quotation marks.

Yes, she has a corporation and a church and a radio show and is a card carrying union member of television personalities, meaning she actually gets paid for appearing on Montel. How far subpar cold-reading will get you! Oh, darn conscience!

Having seen her in person, I can tell you that I'm a better cold reader than she is. Not that it takes any particular skill.

As a matter of fact, she was so sluggish and inept and missed so many obvious answers that I, to my enormous surprise, found myself cold reading along with her. And was better at it than she was.

[godless dave]

The problem with the willing victim is desperation. No matter how reasonable a person normally is if it comes to your missing or fatally ill child how much is too much? Would you risk withholding anything that has any outrageous slim possibility to help. People in these situations are literally inundated with the likes of Silvia. Where do you draw the line between willingness and duress? Is it not criminals to use a persons desperation to drain their money?

So perhaps you agree that should be criminal. What about the old lady that goes to a psychic and is told they have a curse on them. With enough sessions and payments this curse can be removed. Is this old lady a willing victim when tens of thousands of dollars are cleaned from their bank account, sometimes losing their homes in the process? It happens more than you can imagine.

I view it sort of like severe drug addiction. The addict is an idiot for using a substance known to be deadly and highly addictive, and the person who sold it to them is reprehensible for supplying it to the addict.

An educated person in the western world should know better than to consult a psychic, but the psychics are reprehensible for taking advantage of vulnerable people. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[my_wan]

Yeah, it's a mess. So how do we decide? If the old lady goes to the psychic willingly, hands over her money willingly, victim of belief or not, is she without responsibility? I can see it both ways, but the problem is that until people are responsible for their own actions, they will continue to be fleeced in the awful ways you describe.

I've always said though, if the psychic approaches the victim, it should be considered criminal fraud the whole way. I'm only talking about cases where the the person themselves seek out the psychic.

I would settle for, though not totally satisfied with, making it illegal for a psychic to approach or offer services to anyone that didn't come to them and ask any money for those services, including expenses. Also if a psychic informs any customer that they are cursed or in any danger and claims to be able to help, all services must be free until all supposed danger is past. Is it not all such psychics claim that they are only there to help. They even refuse the Randi challenge on such altruistic grounds. The legal and financial penalties should be such that any individual that finds a psychic in violation must be paid $2000 by said psychic on top of other legal ramifications. Directly threatening customers with spells etc. should have a minimum prison sentence. A law like this would allow the "for entertainment" psychics to operate with impunity. To fight such a law would be a public relations nightmare for the psychic industry.

We could still educate the public to the best of our ability but at least the distraught people would have real legal protections.

[Niobe]

Also, Sylvia is notoriously vague about exactly which police she has helped.

And where are all the families/police who should be coming forward publicly to thank her for all the crimes she's supposedly helped solve? What a great story that would make. So where are they?

The excuse is that that is classified because society or the elite can't handle the truth about their abilities.
Never mind that they are public figures getting serious pocket change from appearances, book deals and TV shows (Allison DuBois comes to mind) and celebrity endorsements, but as soon as law enforcement would also back them up that would be something society can't handle (The same society that made them millionaires in the first place)

[Garrette]

I do tend to think it's possible to have psychic abilities, but when I see flim flam in front of me, I don't believe. At first glance, my response to this comment may seem needlessly argumentative and off topic, but I think it is neither.

How do you distinguish between flim flam in front of you and not flim flam in front of you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

The same can be said of virtually all scams, frauds and con-games. Especially if the victim's "participation" is believing that statements made by other people are true. Most scams involve situations that a reasonably knowledgeable person would doubt (too good to be true--as in, "You've just won a foreign lottery that you never even entered"). I agree that it's a sad commentary on people's critical thinking skills, but people who fall for these scams are victims, and the people who perpetrate them are crooks.

I'm buying a house right now, and I rely a lot on the statements made by other parties. If one of them is misrepresenting the facts and it causes me damages, I probably would have legal recourse to hold them liable. Are you suggesting that because I believed and relied on their statements that they can lie to me all they want and not be held liable?

[Leftus]

Interesting thought. The dead have no standing in US courts. You can slander and libel them til the end of days and get off free. The dead have no rights. The living, on the other hand, might have options. It would be very interesting for someone like Shawn Hornbeck or someone else who lived through a kidnapping to sue the psychics who sent the police and family on wild goose chases by giving the family and police knowingly false information under some sort of conspiracy (with Montel) or negligence theory. I know if I was being held against my will and some fakir said they saw my spirit on the other side which caused me to spend more time against my will I'd go after them too.

[panchov]

Also if a psychic informs any customer that they are cursed or in any danger and claims to be able to help, all services must be free until all supposed danger is past.

I disagree with this, it's a little like saying if a doctor tells a patient they have cancer, the doctor's services must be free until the patient is cured. You have to remember, the psychic's "Patient" is still free to reject the notion of the curse, or to go to another psychic for a second opinion. THey are still choosing to believe. What I do think should incur prison time is if they do something like pretend to burn money when really they are swithching it. Maybe that does incur prison time, it must be considered fraud.

[panchov]

At first glance, my response to this comment may seem needlessly argumentative and off topic, but I think it is neither.

How do you distinguish between flim flam in front of you and not flim flam in front of you?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I won't take it as argumentative though, I promise.

[-Fran-]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I won't take it as argumentative though, I promise.

I think he meant, how do you distuingish between a real psychic and a fake one? How can you tell?

[panchov]

The same can be said of virtually all scams, frauds and con-games. Especially if the victim's "participation" is believing that statements made by other people are true. Most scams involve situations that a reasonably knowledgeable person would doubt (too good to be true--as in, "You've just won a foreign lottery that you never even entered"). I agree that it's a sad commentary on people's critical thinking skills, but people who fall for these scams are victims, and the people who perpetrate them are crooks.

I'm buying a house right now, and I rely a lot on the statements made by other parties. If one of them is misrepresenting the facts and it causes me damages, I probably would have legal recourse to hold them liable. Are you suggesting that because I believed and relied on their statements that they can lie to me all they want and not be held liable?


No, but in that case, you are asking them for information that we all know can be verified as true or not true. A person who goes to psychic is knowingly asking for information that cannot be verified and that they know is coming from mysterious sources inside the psychics head. This is exactly what I said in the other thread - a person who approaches a psychic and asks for a reading will receive EXACTLY what they paid for. If you ask your house inspector for the status of your house and he lies, that is not what you asked for. How can you claim fraud unless the psychic did something malicious to trick you such as investigated you before hand? In my mind it really doesn’t even matter if the psychic knows they’re lying when they give the reading because whether they’re lying or whether they’re deluded, the person who approaches them knows they may or may not be telling the truth.

We all have to admit that they know there’s a possibility the psychic is lying, even if they believe in psychic powers. If they aren’t capable of understanding this, they truly should have someone in charge of their affairs because they would be susceptible to believing anything anyone told them at any time. Taking this responsibility away from them is condescending and dishonest.

And yes, I think people who are scammed by con artists, are partially responsible if it involved a situation that was absurd and promised them lots of money from a stranger if they participated. In that case they are as much a victim of their own greed (and hey, I’ve gotten scalped at 3 card monty and hold myself entirely responsible).

IT’s entirely different if the stranger is a professional who (again) made promises to do things that can be verified as true or false (investing money in a company that never existed for instance).

[panchov]

I think he meant, how do you distuingish between a real psychic and a fake one? How can you tell?

Becuase most of what they tell you is WRONG and they pretend they got things right when the didn't.

[panchov]

Interesting thought. The dead have no standing in US courts. You can slander and libel them til the end of days and get off free. The dead have no rights. The living, on the other hand, might have options. It would be very interesting for someone like Shawn Hornbeck or someone else who lived through a kidnapping to sue the psychics who sent the police and family on wild goose chases by giving the family and police knowingly false information under some sort of conspiracy (with Montel) or negligence theory. I know if I was being held against my will and some fakir said they saw my spirit on the other side which caused me to spend more time against my will I'd go after them too.

Wouldn't you have to be able to prove the "knowingly" part?

[-Fran-]

Becuase most of what they tell you is WRONG and they pretend they got things right when the didn't.

So, a real psychic would be someone who is right more times than can be accounted to chance alone?

[panchov]

Well that's part of it, but when the deceptive practices are right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see them because YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, then why would blame the psychic for forcing you to believe.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

A person who goes to psychic is knowingly asking for information that cannot be verified and that they know is coming from mysterious sources inside the psychics head.

<< SNIP >>



If all the psychic can do is provide "information that cannot be verified", how do you every know that it is every true? As soon as they say something that can be verified do they cease to be a "true" pyschic?

Psychic says, Grandad says he loves you, is true even though he and you did not talk for the last 50 years of his life after throwing you out of the house == TRUE?

Psychic says, Grandad says he buried his gold dubloons in a box in the backyard and you dig the whole thing up and find nothing but chicken bones == CAN'T BE DONE BY A PSYCHIC?

Seems incredibly useless except to the credulous! :boggled:

[ExMinister]

I disagree that the deception is "right in front of everyone's eyes." Thanks to Montel and editing, Sylvia Browne (who I know is a fraud from personal experience) comes out looking quite convincing, and it takes quite a bit of that to convince someone to shell out $750, which is Sylvia's going rate for a reading.

I also strongly believe that many of us were raised to assume that most psychics are in fact genuine, and I disagree that people in general are aware the psychic may be lying and deserve what they get. In my family, my grandmother had "visions" of family members when they died. She claimed they visited her bedside shortly after the moment of death and she always anticipated the phone call the next morning. Whether there is some other logical explanation for it, this was something we grew up believing, in fact even believing it ran in our family due to our part-Native American ancestry. So I believed people with psychic abilities were sincere and gifted. I don't think it's possible to lump together all people who seek out psychics for help.

Unfortunately, the psychic world is full of scam artists and some of us had to learn that the hard way.

[sophia8]

It seemed incredible to me that the police would follow up on someone's dreams of her sister being murdered and a psychic's "vision" but there might be a reasonable explanation in this case.
The police have to follow up every lead they're given, regardless of where it comes from, because there's alway a possibility that the tipster really does know something and is using the "dream" or "psychic message" to hide the fact that they have some involvement with the disappearence/murder.
I can't remember the reference, but there was a case a few years ago when a woman claimed to have dreamt about the location of a missing body, which turned out to be where she said it was. The woman lived in the same small town as the killers and shared some mutual friends; she had never made any claims to psychism before and didn't try to cash in on her fame afterwards. Reading between the lines, it was pretty obvious that she was concerned that the body should be found but hadn't wanted to go to the the police with "I overheard so-and-so saying that it was dumped here..."
In the case of the sister's dream, the police may have suspected she was involved in the disappearence and was 'confessing' in some way, or alternatively thought that she had some information buried in her subconscious.

[panchov]

You guys the whole thing is that I'm kind of in agreement with you. Fake psychics are vultures, they're horrible. My only assertion is that people are responsible for what they do, what they believe and how they act on that belief. If they don't want to question the psychic and want to follow them blindly, they are responsible for that decision. A lot of times I'm sure they get comfort and the bad stuff is probably a lot less common then the fake comfort which works even though it's fake.

Think Condoleezza Rice...I'm sure she believes George Bush is right and it is her duty and privilege to front for him. Does that relieve her of any responsibility? (Sorry, I don't mean to offend any Republicans, there's Democrats you could ask the same questions about during other presidencies.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

We all have to admit that they know there’s a possibility the psychic is lying, even if they believe in psychic powers. If they aren’t capable of understanding this, they truly should have someone in charge of their affairs because they would be susceptible to believing anything anyone told them at any time. Taking this responsibility away from them is condescending and dishonest.
I hate to burst your bubble, but there are people who actually believe all sorts of very foolish things, and there's no legal way to remove their autonomy. Not only are there many people who believe that their favorite psychic/astrologer/medium is always 100% right and would never lie, there are also people who believe the Earth is only about 4000 years old and that species don't evolve.

And yes, I think people who are scammed by con artists, are partially responsible if it involved a situation that was absurd and promised them lots of money from a stranger if they participated. In that case they are as much a victim of their own greed (and hey, I’ve gotten scalped at 3 card monty and hold myself entirely responsible).

I agree that everyone is responsible for the consequences of the decisions they make. I further agree that being taken can be a good lesson learned.

I have trouble with excusing dishonest (even criminal) behavior just because the victim should have known better, or was even somehow partly responsible.

If I leave my car unlocked and the keys in the ignition, does that make it OK for someone to steal it?

What about a promiscuous or even promiscuous-looking young woman--if she is raped, is her rapist innocent of a crime?


IT’s entirely different if the stranger is a professional who (again) made promises to do things that can be verified as true or false (investing money in a company that never existed for instance).
Hmm. . .sounds like you'd accept the Enron defense (we didn't lie--the information was in the footnotes if someone was knowledgeable enough to figure it out).

So you can't be held responsible for your claims unless they're verifiable as true or false? I think malpractice claims go beyond that cut off point.

[panchov]

You got to show me where I indicated that the is responsible for the psychics actions. THe victim is responsible for their own actions.
No rape victims are not responsible for being raped, but the sad truth is that sometimes people who have no intention of asking for trouble, actually beg for it by their behavior. I don't guess you would advise your daughter to wear skimpy clothes in bar in dangerous part of town. Waiting 2 years for a reading for John Edward and paying him exorbitant fees to get it, is very literallly begging to be ripped off.
Hey I left my bike tire unlocked after being warned 500 times not to and guess what, someone finally stole it. Am I responsible? I'm responsible for it being vulnerable to theft, but not for the person who took it.

[schlitt]

Panchov, you are correct in your assertion that someone visiting a psychic has willfully chosen to be duped.
However, you have to look at WHY they made that descision, and if they were aware they are being ripped off.

You could simply state "They are stupid", which is pretty much what you are eluding to. This could be correct, but it is what has caused the person to act in a stupid manner which is of interest, researching this you may find the people who do this are no more stupid than yourself. People can be simply misinformed, or willfully ignorant.

[panchov]

No, I don't think they're stupid, I think that they derive comfort and guidance from psychics. But if you're going to willfully take the good, you have to pay the piper when it comes to the bad.

I guess you guys answered my question anyway. You may be right, what do I know? Maybe we are all victims. I just think it behooves us to be aware of danger (when possible, becuase there's plenty of times when it comes without warning).

[Pup]

While I would love for something to be done about fraudulent psychics (actually, "fraudulant" and "psychics" is kinda redundant, now that I think about it)...

How would you separate out what psychics do from what churches do, and therefore, practically speaking, how would you get a law passed in any country that protects freedom of religion?

"You're cursed with eternal torment when you die, but we can cure that. Believe in Jesus and pay us ten percent of your income."

"We know where your dead relatives are, but if you ever want to see them again, you need to believe in our god, come to our church every Sunday, and we'll be passing a collection plate."

Not much different than fake gypsy curses or psychic messages from the dead.

Of course one could say it's okay to make any psychic/religious promises as long as money isn't demanded, but churches and psychics are going to work hard to find ways to accept "voluntary unsolicited donations."

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If I could make what psychics do illegal and make them negligible and responsible by law, I would but I honestly don't think there's a way to do it. Not in practise.

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?

[JoeTheJuggler]

You got to show me where I indicated that the is responsible for the psychics actions. THe victim is responsible for their own actions.

<snip>

Hey I left my bike tire unlocked after being warned 500 times not to and guess what, someone finally stole it. Am I responsible? I'm responsible for it being vulnerable to theft, but not for the person who took it.
I never said you said the victim is responsible for the criminal's actions--I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

I was responding to what you said in the OP (my bolding):

we were having this discussion about whats her name from england the fake psychic and I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

I'm wondering how most of you feel about this.

I'm pointing out that the psychic is a fraud when he or she commits fraud by taking people's money under false pretenses. The foolishness or other vulnerabilities of the victim do not exculpate the fraudster's actions.

If you rule out fraud in cases where the victim believed the fraudster, then you'd simply rule out all fraud.

I made a number of comparisons to other crimes where the victim's "participation" is obviously no defense or excuse for the crimes committed against them.

Waiting 2 years for a reading for John Edward and paying him exorbitant fees to get it, is very literallly begging to be ripped off.
No it's not. . .unless by "literally" you mean "not literally" or "figuratively".

Similarly, leaving your bike unlocked does not mean that someone taking it has not committed a crime (unless, I suppose, there was a legitimate claim of abandoned property or some other special circumstances).

[JoeTheJuggler]

If I could make what psychics do illegal and make them negligible and responsible by law, I would but I honestly don't think there's a way to do it. Not in practise.

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?
I think you mean "liable" where you said "negligible"--though I would hope they become negligible as well! : )

It is already illegal to take people's money under false pretenses. Many of them get away with it by little "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimers.

Also, there's a reluctance among prosecutors to pursue these cases in criminal court--mostly a political issue, I believe.

In civil court, the biggest trouble is that it's really really difficult to find a victim willing to come forward and press the case.* They'd have to admit, as Panchov has been saying, how truly foolishly they behaved for believing this nonsense.

RSLancaster gave a more complete (and doubtless more accurate and more eloquent) answer to the question of why psychics aren't held legally accountable. I just don't remember where.

ETA: *In the Peter Popoff debunking, Randi sent his info and tapes to the Attorney General who apparently did nothing about it. (Granted this is complicated by the "religion" angle, but you can say the same these days of most psychics.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?
Psychics have been prosecuted for fraud. Not as often as ought be done.

Here are some examples:

http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/InPerson/MajorPerson/psychic_scams.htm

[panchov]

Well you guys, I really thank you for answering my questions and giving me so much to think about. I figure we could go in circles about this all year, but I really am thinking about what you say.

I think I would be more convinced if the rest of society agreed with you that making psychic claims was fraud. I guess the problem with that is that it would probably also have to be a crime to go to psychic so nobody would let that law pass.

Thanks again. (Not asking you to stop if you don't want to, just wanted to throw that in.)

[panchov]

Psychics have been prosecuted for fraud. Not as often as ought be done.

Here are some examples:

http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/InPerson/MajorPerson/psychic_scams.htm

I didn't check them all out, but they are mostly people who made psychic claims and then committed fraud on top of it, correct? Not people who were prosecuted for making psychic claims only?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well you guys, I really thank you for answering my questions and giving me so much to think about. I figure we could go in circles about this all year, but I really am thinking about what you say.

I think I would be more convinced if the rest of society agreed with you that making psychic claims was fraud. I guess the problem with that is that it would probably also have to be a crime to go to psychic so nobody would let that law pass.

Thanks again. (Not asking you to stop if you don't want to, just wanted to throw that in.)

Oh, you're welcome :). Where are you from, Russia?

Incidentally, I do think certain states and cities do have laws limiting this sort of twaddle. I know my state does have a penal code against it and did go after a ring of con artists in my home borough of Queens:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-07/070706could.html#i5

[panchov]

No, I'm from Texas! That's my cat's name - Pancho Vea (i know thats not how you spell it, he was named after a coworker). My name is Linda.

[panchov]

That link is very interesting. I live in Midtown Manhattan and there is this very scary psychic on my block. I always feel like she's giving me the heebeejeebee curse when I go by and refuse to come in (sometimes she tries to beckon me in between drags of her cigarette). Thank goodness I'm pretty sure there's really no such thing as a heebeejeebee curse, or I might have to spend a lot time walking around the block to avoid her.

[Leftus]

Wouldn't you have to be able to prove the "knowingly" part?

That or a reckless disregard to the truth as far as my understanding goes. It wouldn't be that hard to amass all sorts of predictions given on Montel that have been proven to be incorrect that Montel and what, if any, study they have done in determining her effectiveness. I believe that Lancaster has a letter stating the faith in the accuracy of her predictions which would need to be backed up by some sort of counting system one would imagine. If he doesn't have one then such a belief could be a reckless disregard.

As to Browne, just pile up all of the disclaimers that she uses about her accuracy and then juxtapose that with her assuredness that what she is telling you is right. She claims not to be 100% right but every prediction is given as if it were 100% right meaning that she knows that some of the information she is giving is wrong. If not knowingly, then recklessly. Her only defense then becomes proving her accuracy rate under objective standards.

I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong on the legal theory. Then again, even if I were a lawyer I could be wrong on the legal theory but I believe there is enough there to force a settlement on behalf of the Montel show at least.

[my_wan]

I disagree with this, it's a little like saying if a doctor tells a patient they have cancer, the doctor's services must be free until the patient is cured. You have to remember, the psychic's "Patient" is still free to reject the notion of the curse, or to go to another psychic for a second opinion. THey are still choosing to believe. What I do think should incur prison time is if they do something like pretend to burn money when really they are swithching it. Maybe that does incur prison time, it must be considered fraud.

The whole thing is a fraud. Allowing them to operate is a fraud. I am only conceding an "entertainment" clause in allowing this much. If pretending to burn money is a fraud how is pretending somebody is cursed not a fraud?!! This notion of going "to another psychic for a second opinion" has my blood boiling. I guess your psychic can suggest a few good ones! Many actually use databases of information on their marks so they can hit these people in many different directions while pretending to be unrelated. If I point a gun at your head and demand your money does it matter to the law that there were no bullets? The belief in bullets alone is enough to convict. I don't think a judge would be impressed with the claim that they could have chosen not to believe there were any bullets, or that they could have asked proof that it had bullets.

But your honor... they "chose" to believe there were bullets in that gun! Get real.

[Cuddles]

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?

What they do is already illegal, for exactly the same reasons as the examples you give. They are falsely advertising and they are selling a faulty product. It's all about the burden of proof. You're not allowed to sell something unless you can prove it does what you say it does. They say they can talk to the dead. It's not for anyone else to prove they can't, it's up to them to prove they can. If they don't, they're making false claims about their services.

As already noted, the problem isn't making what they do illegal, it's actually getting anyone to bother doing anything about it.

[panchov]

I keep reading your arguments and thinking yes, they're right, they're convincing me, but then something keeps holding me back.
There really is a difference between someone saying they're going to shoot you and you assuming there are bullets in the gun. This is a specific tangible statement.
But (one more time) - a psychic reading is gobelty gook. Psychics say all the time they get it wrong, NOBODY goes into a psychic reading expecting 100% accuracy, even the most ardent believer. How many times has Sylvia said she gets it wrong and given excuses?
When a person approaches a psychic and asks for psychic reading, THEY KNOW THIS, what they get is a psychic reading. You can't call that fraud (at least Im having a hard time seeing it as such).

[Garrette]

panchov, I have asked the following questions to a lot of believers in/defenders of psychics. Only one has ever even attempted an answer (that's Rodney, on this very forum). I'm interested in your response:

Suppose you know me, and suppose you know that I am a magician. Further suppose that you know that as part of my act I routinely perform a mediumship/psychic bit in which I reveal to the audience things they swear I could not possibly know. In other words, you know that I am capable of giving the impression that I have supernatural powers while actually not having those powers.

Now suppose someone very close to you, someone you love and try to protect, someone like your wife, your daughter, your sister, your mother, your grandmother (or a male relative) suffers a loss and cannot be consoled.

Would it be okay with you if I go to your loved one and charge them money for thirty minutes of reading, after which they will be convinced that I have spoken with the dear departed and after which they feel emotionally healed?

If so, how much is it okay for me to charge? $50? $100? $500?

Remember: You know I'm a fake, but you also know I can use my fake powers to make your loved one happy, all by lying to them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't check them all out, but they are mostly people who made psychic claims and then committed fraud on top of it, correct? Not people who were prosecuted for making psychic claims only?
Fraud is taking money from people by trickery or deception. In these cases the psychic stuff is the trickery and deception. When a psychic says you need to give her a stack of cash so that she can put all your bad ju-ju into it and then she'll kindly take it off your hands for you, that is fraud.

Many of these have specific charges of wire fraud or mail fraud, that just means the con artist committed fraud over the phone or through the mail.

Some of them were busted for fraud and other related crimes like tax fraud and money laundering.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think I would be more convinced if the rest of society agreed with you that making psychic claims was fraud.
Making the claims is NOT fraud (in the legal sense). It's taking people's money based on trickery and deception that is fraud.

I don't know about "the rest of society" but the law and the courts say it is a crime to take people's money this way.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Psychics say all the time they get it wrong, NOBODY goes into a psychic reading expecting 100% accuracy, even the most ardent believer. How many times has Sylvia said she gets it wrong and given excuses?
When a person approaches a psychic and asks for psychic reading, THEY KNOW THIS, what they get is a psychic reading. You can't call that fraud (at least Im having a hard time seeing it as such).
You said this before, and it's still wrong. First, there are people who do indeed believe that their favorite psychic (or astrologer or whatever) is infallible.

Second, Sylvia will never admit she could be wrong when she's doing a reading. She will never say, "I'm 87% sure your child is dead. I think maybe perhaps possibly he's buried in the woods near two stupid rocks." It's a confidence game, which means she has to have the client's confidence. She has to appear certain, as if she gets her info from a direct pipeline. (The psychic perfection that Aeia espoused.) They both participate in role playing where they pretend the psychic is infallible. From her side, the role playing is conscious and intentional. From the side of the believer, to think or act differently would be to lack faith.

Sylvia's response (to skeptics who point out her frequent flagrant misses) is to say that only God is perfect. Or some other ad hoc excuse (she was getting a reading from someone else, or the information she gave in a reading that you can't confirm now will become clear to you in time).

But the believers do believe. Once they start opening their minds to the possibility that she might be a fake, the transition to ex-believer is a pretty quick one.

[panchov]

Dang, I'm at work so I can't really respond. I really wish you could convince me, I like what you're saying on a lot of levels, but I'm not there yet. I still hold adults are responsible. I might be 1/4 of the way there, if that cheeers you any!

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No, I'm from Texas! That's my cat's name - Pancho Vea (i know thats not how you spell it, he was named after a coworker). My name is Linda.

Oh, my bad! :o Btw, welcome to the forum, Linda.

That link is very interesting. I live in Midtown Manhattan and there is this very scary psychic on my block. I always feel like she's giving me the heebeejeebee curse when I go by and refuse to come in (sometimes she tries to beckon me in between drags of her cigarette). Thank goodness I'm pretty sure there's really no such thing as a heebeejeebee curse, or I might have to spend a lot time walking around the block to avoid her.

There's a psychic just like that in Chelsea, a little off 20th street and I think 8th avenue. This woman in a nightgown and some sort of turban on her head and beckoning and waving at the kids from the local middle school.

[my_wan]

I keep reading your arguments and thinking yes, they're right, they're convincing me, but then something keeps holding me back.
There really is a difference between someone saying they're going to shoot you and you assuming there are bullets in the gun. This is a specific tangible statement.
But (one more time) - a psychic reading is gobelty gook. Psychics say all the time they get it wrong, NOBODY goes into a psychic reading expecting 100% accuracy, even the most ardent believer. How many times has Sylvia said she gets it wrong and given excuses?
When a person approaches a psychic and asks for psychic reading, THEY KNOW THIS, what they get is a psychic reading. You can't call that fraud (at least Im having a hard time seeing it as such).

If I say to you that you have a bad spirit attached to you constricting your heart. You will have a heart attack soon if you don't get my help. Is that not, in your words, "a specific tangible statement"? Most people past 35 are acutely aware of declining dexterity, which lends some fear to such a claim. Your second defense is that psychic readings are "gobelty gook" (true), and "THEY KNOW THIS". This is often not even close to true. I know about 8 people I could take for ever penny they have and another 14 or so that could be put in the same situation with some cheap mentalist tricks. When someone truly believes their kids are possessed by demons how hard do you think it is to take every penny they have, then some? Your last defense is that nobody expects 100% accuracy from a psychic. This is easy to overcome. Simply question your own reading and offer a test (mentalist trick) to verify it. If you want to say the trick should be illegal but not the claim then figure out how the trick was performed and prove it. Otherwise how is a made of claim any diferent from a made up trick? They are both false claims.

If you think these people must be mentally ill one of them is the Mayor of a town about 15 miles from here. He even got taken by a psychic dunning letter supposedly from England with some vague crap about how his family was treating him. Come to North Georgia and I'll introduce you to him. While here you can help me do some yard work for an old lady (volunteer) and you can hear about the demons that have and/or is after her kids. She lives next door to the Mayor. You can meet her kids to, most of them would make easy targets to.

Don't even try saying they deserve going broke and homeless because they were willing victims. Yes playing on peoples fears by whatever mechanism to extort money is criminal of the same kind as holding an unloaded gun to their head.

[ExMinister]

You said this before, and it's still wrong. First, there are people who do indeed believe that their favorite psychic (or astrologer or whatever) is infallible.

Second, Sylvia will never admit she could be wrong when she's doing a reading. She will never say, "I'm 87% sure your child is dead. I think maybe perhaps possibly he's buried in the woods near two stupid rocks." It's a confidence game, which means she has to have the client's confidence. She has to appear certain, as if she gets her info from a direct pipeline. (The psychic perfection that Aeia espoused.) They both participate in role playing where they pretend the psychic is infallible. From her side, the role playing is conscious and intentional. From the side of the believer, to think or act differently would be to lack faith.

Sylvia's response (to skeptics who point out her frequent flagrant misses) is to say that only God is perfect. Or some other ad hoc excuse (she was getting a reading from someone else, or the information she gave in a reading that you can't confirm now will become clear to you in time).

But the believers do believe. Once they start opening their minds to the possibility that she might be a fake, the transition to ex-believer is a pretty quick one.

Here were some of her favorites for her members and those who were closest to her, when their readings were astoundingly wrong:
- I can't read for people I care about becaues I'm too emotional about them
- I can't read for you because you're psychic, too, and psychics can't read well for other psychics.
- I can't read for you because you are a Mission Life Entity and mission life entities don't have detailed charts like everyone else.

Never once did I ever hear Sylvia say, "I'm only 87% accurate. Sorry about that." Never once have I ever heard Sylvia admit to having been wrong without an excuse. No, Sylvia sets herself up as the "best" psychic with a direct "pipeline" to God. People who fall for this con expect her to be accurate. Those are the expecations she deliberately sets up. Period.

Panchov, no one is arguing that adults aren't responsible for their own actions and what they choose to believe. But some cons are better than others, and Sylvia is very good at what she does. She stinks at cold-reading but she's excellent at the "confidence game." Does the fact that she is able to con people so successfully place the blame on the person being conned? Or shouldn't the con artist be exposed and stopped?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dang, I'm at work so I can't really respond. I really wish you could convince me, I like what you're saying on a lot of levels, but I'm not there yet. I still hold adults are responsible. I might be 1/4 of the way there, if that cheeers you any!

Ditto what ExMinister said: no one is arguing that adults aren't responsible for the consequences of their actions.

What I'm saying is that whether the victim deserves or sympathy or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a psychic (or anyone else) has committed fraud (in the legal sense) or is a fraud (in the sense of being a fake).

To use your example, if your daughter dressed provocatively and wandered into the "wrong" part of town and was raped, the rapist is still guilty of rape. Your daughter's actions are no defense. I'm pretty sure they can't even be used as mitigating evidence.

[panchov]

This is true but rape is an act of violence done against someone's will. someone walking into a psychics office and paying them for a reading is a whole different thing (and therin lies my argument). I still want to read your above comments deeper when I get a chance though.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is true but rape is an act of violence done against someone's will. someone walking into a psychics office and paying them for a reading is a whole different thing (and therin lies my argument). I still want to read your above comments deeper when I get a chance though.
The only crime that's the same as fraud is fraud.

I was pointing out that both are crimes, and in both cases the argument that "the victim asked for it" does not excuse the crime.

Your argument about the participation of the victim would at best result in shared liability in a civil case. It would still not make the psychic's actions not be fraud.

The fact that the victim walked to the psychic's place of business is completely irrelevant. What if I walked into my doctor's office and he punched me in the nose? What if he committed malpractice and caused me some damage? In both cases, my walking into his office does not exculpate him. So please abandon the argument that it matters that the victim willingly went to the con-artist's place of business.

If it is just that they willingly engaged the psychic, consider the Enron case. No one forced the investors to rely on the annual reports. No one forced the employees to work there and rely on their retirement plan that depended on Enron stock. This does not exculpate the crooks.

How do you feel about non-psychic fraudsters, like those who commit the fake lottery scams and so on? Surely people who fall for them are way too credulous. They should know better. The scam wouldn't have worked without the victim's participation and cooperation. (The initial spam e-mail is no different than a psychic's advertisement.) Does that mean the crooks aren't crooks?

[suicidesamurai]

The same can be said of virtually all scams, frauds and con-games. Especially if the victim's "participation" is believing that statements made by other people are true. Most scams involve situations that a reasonably knowledgeable person would doubt (too good to be true--as in, "You've just won a foreign lottery that you never even entered"). I agree that it's a sad commentary on people's critical thinking skills, but people who fall for these scams are victims, and the people who perpetrate them are crooks.

I'm buying a house right now, and I rely a lot on the statements made by other parties. If one of them is misrepresenting the facts and it causes me damages, I probably would have legal recourse to hold them liable. Are you suggesting that because I believed and relied on their statements that they can lie to me all they want and not be held liable?It's embarrassing to me, but my mother was taken in by a scam. She lost thousands of dollars and hundreds of work hours working for Nu Skin. I'm all for free-markets, being a libertarian, but I do not believe these companies should be allowed to exist. What they do is simply illegal, even if it is partly the person's fault for getting involved. She was brought into it by a friend, who said this should be a good way to make money. Of course the friend believes this. So then my mom tries to get other people involved. They don't know it's a scam. The company isn't going to tell them they won't make any money. You have to spend money to make money, they tell you. Like starting up your own business.

Most of the company's actual sales come from selling their products to their employees. You make money by bringing new people in. But you have to pay the company for those "leads". So you get a paycheck for a couple hundred bucks every month and you are paying the company one or two grand a month for leads. They tell you you will eventually make more so that there is a profit. Maybe 1% of them eventually make a profit, and that depends on how many people you can bring into the scam. This 1% is important to them. They have conventions in like Dallas or Houston and this 1% is there. They are there to show off their Porsche. They tell you you can get rich like them and buy a Porsche.

I did some research on this company when my mother kept losing money. I explained to her what was going on, how the company works, and how it is she will never make a profit. Some basic research would stop someone from doing this. But why do research? It's a real company. They are on the NYSE. The government wouldn't let them just go around ripping people off, would they?

[panchov]

The only crime that's the same as fraud is fraud.

I was pointing out that both are crimes, and in both cases the argument that "the victim asked for it" does not excuse the crime.

Your argument about the participation of the victim would at best result in shared liability in a civil case. It would still not make the psychic's actions not be fraud.

The fact that the victim walked to the psychic's place of business is completely irrelevant. What if I walked into my doctor's office and he punched me in the nose? What if he committed malpractice and caused me some damage? In both cases, my walking into his office does not exculpate him. So please abandon the argument that it matters that the victim willingly went to the con-artist's place of business.

If it is just that they willingly engaged the psychic, consider the Enron case. No one forced the investors to rely on the annual reports. No one forced the employees to work there and rely on their retirement plan that depended on Enron stock. This does not exculpate the crooks.

How do you feel about non-psychic fraudsters, like those who commit the fake lottery scams and so on? Surely people who fall for them are way too credulous. They should know better. The scam wouldn't have worked without the victim's participation and cooperation. (The initial spam e-mail is no different than a psychic's advertisement.) Does that mean the crooks aren't crooks?

But you didn't walk into your doctor's office and ask to be punched in the nose. People walk into psychic's offices and ask for psychic readings.

[Garrette]

But you didn't walk into your doctor's office and ask to be punched in the nose. People walk into psychic's offices and ask for psychic readings.1. What about JoetheJuggler's Enron analogy? The ones who cooked the books there should not be punished?

2. Will you answer my question about if it would be okay with you if I swindled one of your loved ones so long as they were emotionally satisified?

[panchov]

Here’s a hypothetical situation:
Guy goes to a prostitute and the place gets raided while he’s there.
In court, his defense is:
This woman isn’t a prostitute, she loves me. She tells me she loves me all the time. I only went to her because five of my best buddies told me that she is SO SPIRITUAL and she really really LOVES her clients. I’m only giving her money because I love her too. She’s wonderful she’s everything I ever wanted.
Well of course she always demands money up front, she can never remember my name and calls me “Hey you whose name begins with an M or J,” I have no relationship with her outside our paid relationship and no real reason whatsoever to believe anything she says other than that I want to, but that’s my defense!
What do you think will happen?

[RSLancastr]

Panchov, I am not clear as to your point ni all of this.

First, you are incorrect in saying that "we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with." You can bet that few if any of the people who pay Sylvia browne $75 for a 20-30 minute phone reading did so because they knew (or even suspected) that what they would get in return would be "hoo hoo."

As for your point that those who go to psychics do so willingly: what do you think of people who sell treatments which they fraudulently claim cure AIDS or cancer? People who go to these quacks do so willingly. Does this make what the quacks do any better? Most people go to these quacks out of desperation. Their doctors cannot help them, so they are turning to someone who claims to have the answer.

Many of the people who go to "psychics" do so out of desperation. They have suffered some tragedy (the death of a child or parent, an unexplained illness, etc). The police, or their minister, or their doctor has failed them. So they turn to someone who is promising them answers.

Both the quacks and the psychics are preying upon people's despair. And giving them nothing in return.

Yes, it "takes two" in these situations. Just like it takes two in all predator/prey situations. But just because those who are the prey, participate of their own free will does not in any way excuse the behavior of the predator.

[Big Les]

JoeTheJuggler and the others trying to explain here - thanks for reassuring me that I'm not going bonkers. I had this same conversation with panchov in the Lisa Williams thread where she emphasised the liability of the victim and what she saw as the impossibility of protecting the clients as reasons not to bother even trying to prevent psychics from trading or even people from visiting psychics. I understood and accepted her argument about the practical difficulties of securing convictions in many cases (though I also showed examples of psychics "getting theirs" despite this, as well as something of the theoretical legal framework in the UK for doing so, which has only recently improved.) But I just don't accept that becuase people seek out psychics, they must hold sole responsibility, nor that we shouldn't try to prevent psychics from operating by any legal means available to us.

What I really don't get is panchov's insistence that clients always know what they're getting themselves into - if they did, they would blow huge wads of money on them, disrupt their grieving process, continue to buy into magical thinking etc etc.

IOW, if psychic services really were all about entertainment (rather than just using this as a cover) ie we all knew or at least suspected they were bunk, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. In fact, there are already "psychics" that do this and customers that pay to see them - they're called "mentalists"!

Finally, panchov believes that psychics might exist, based upon no evidence whatsoever. And so any assessment she makes of an individual psychic is based upon her personal "BS detector" and how good a showman/woman the psychic is. Subjective plausibility. She assumes everyone else ought to have the same ability to discern fakes. Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious that they don't; everyone has their own subjective assessment based upon past experience. As she was asked- how would she determine a real psychic from a plausible fake? Why should she assume, if she could, that anyone else is equipped to do that, and if they aren't, why they deserve to shoulder all the blame for their honest mistake in being duped?

panchov, that's what scepticism is for; it's not about what seems plausible to you, it's starting from the assumption that the person making the claim (the psychic in this case), needs to be able to prove that they can do what they say. What they claim ought to be testable, and yet none of them in 100 years has been able to do it. It's reasonable to suggest that until at least one of them can demonstrate real abilities, or admit that they are just cold reading (or being unknowingly "intuitive"), none of them should be allowed to take people's money and what they do should be seen as de facto fraud, regardless of how willing their clients are.

That's how I, and I think quite a few other sceptics see it.

[panchov]

Ok, I think we're getting somewhere here.
The psychic needs to be able to prove what they are doing is real. THis is the heart of the matter. The person who visits a psychic KNOWS they can't prove it. When you go to a doctor, you know what they are offering you can be proved or disproved (most of the time anyway).
Thus, my argument that when someone goes to a psychic and asks for a reading (which they know is something that is murky and unprovable) and they are given a reading, they are given what they asked for so it's not fraud.
And I never said you should stop trying to stop psychics. By all means, whatever legal means you have available, try to stop them. You just won't get anywhere because people will continue to go to psychics and ask for murky unprovable readings.

See what I'm saying?

[Garrette]

I guess I can put panchov in that column marked "People Who Won't Answer My Question."

I'm not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.

[-Fran-]

The person who visits a psychic KNOWS they can't prove it. When you go to a doctor, you know what they are offering you can be proved or disproved (most of the time anyway).
Thus, my argument that when someone goes to a psychic and asks for a reading (which they know is something that is murky and unprovable) and they are given a reading, they are given what they asked for so it's not fraud.



But far from all people know they can't prove it, far from all people are aware it is 'murky and unprovable'. You yourself said somewhere that you actually believe there are real psychics (apart from the fake ones that you think should be obvious to all). So, not even you know they can't prove it. If you really think there actually are real psychics and that you can distuingish them from fake ones, then there really isn't any difference between you, and all these people you think should be held responsible for their lack of singling out the fake ones.

Do you believe there are in fact real psychics among all the fake ones? And if you do, what would the difference be, to us here, between you and the duped people you are talking about?

[panchov]

1. What about JoetheJuggler's Enron analogy? The ones who cooked the books there should not be punished?

2. Will you answer my question about if it would be okay with you if I swindled one of your loved ones so long as they were emotionally satisified?

Well gosh I don't want you to be dissapointed in me, so here goes:

1. Enron has nothing to do with psychics and I've said several times that anybody who engages in "earthly" fraud should be prosecuted. If they say they're going to burn money to get rid of curse and instead they use it to buy a car, that is fraud and they should be prosecuted!

2. This question is not black and white.

When my grandma was old and sick we kept some stuff from her because we knew (a) there was no way she would find out unless we told her and (b) it would do nothing but cause her pain before her eminent death.
But the other part of this question is – are my loved ones fully functioning members of society who pay their own way and make their own decisions (by this I mean are they capable of making decisions for themselves?) – if the answer is yes and if they choose to go to a psychic and hand their money over to them and to believe them, do I have a right to try to explain to them that I think the psychic is a fraud? Yes, I think I do.
Do I have the right to force them to stop making this choice for themselves because I don’t like they are finding comfort in this way? NO!
If the psychic they are seeing is doing something so egregious that I have legal means to stop them, then I have the right to do that, but other than that, this is a choice adults are making and I have to leave them alone with it.
(Another analogy I’m brought up before – we’re Catholic, my mom gives money to the church – can I claim the church is committing fraud because they take her money by saying things like the host is turned into the body of Christ when nobody can prove that that is so?)
So the answer is, no it won’t be ok with me if you commit fraud to make my family happy if the way you were doing it was causing them more harm than good, but I would say if I tried to tell them and they insisted on believing, that is what they want in their life and I would be stuck with only the options the law leaves me. Adults want what the psychic gives them, comfort and guidance. They don’t want proof, they don’t need it. Psychics aren’t frauds because they can’t prove what they are doing.

[remirol]

we were having this discussion about whats her name from england the fake psychic and I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.


This quote contains an assumption which I suspect is inherently contained in many usual counterarguments: that "we all, as adults, know that psychics are hoo hoo". Specifically, there's nothing I can reference to show that any given adult can reliably be assumed to have been told during their life that psychics are bunk; contrast with being able to assume that someone knows the alphabet or basic math (2+2=?), which are things taught in all primary schools during childhood.

If we can't assume that all adults have been accurately informed about this, then it follows that some weren't accurately informed, and DO honestly believe -- and there is where the fraud comes in. Those who believe are paying for a service that cannot deliver on what it promises; hence, fraud.

(I think this neatly avoids the trap of using as example people who "know better" but fool themselves and go anyway, in effect paying for hope.)

[panchov]

They may not have been told per say, as an adult, I would argue that if you are going to lift your feet up and walk yourself into a psychic's office, you have a self-obligation to know what you are getting into. See that's the whole problem. You guys all think people are VICTIMS VICTIMS VICTIMS and have no responsibility whatsoever for whom they deal with. I just differ on that opinion. I still have sympathy for people who get tricked though, especially when they are emotionally distraught.

Their error is one of human misthinking, we all do it sometime or another. THe psychic's crime is often one of malice or greed which is of course way worse.

[Garrette]

Well gosh I don't want you to be dissapointed in me, so here goes:Much obliged. Disappointment is so ... disappointing.

1. Enron has nothing to do with psychicsThe analogy is valid. You seem to have the habit of dismissing any anology which demonstrates that psychics are frauds, regardless of the willigness of the victims.

and I've said several times that anybody who engages in "earthly" fraud should be prosecuted.I've caught that. What you have not done is explain where and how you draw the line. That is common among those who say there are both real psychics and fake psychics; questions regarding how the two are distinguished get ignored or answered with hollow comments.


If they say they're going to burn money to get rid of curse and instead they use it to buy a car, that is fraud and they should be prosecuted!I agree. What if they actually burn the money?


2. This question is not black and white. As I stated it, it is. You needlessly complicate it in your answer. Perhaps because you do not see it is needless; perhaps because you don't want to give a simple answer. I don't know.


When my grandma was old and sick we kept some stuff from her because we knew (a) there was no way she would find out unless we told her and (b) it would do nothing but cause her pain before her eminent death.Okay. Irrelevant, but okay.


But the other part of this question is – are my loved ones fully functioning members of society who pay their own way and make their own decisions (by this I mean are they capable of making decisions for themselves?) – if the answer is yes and if they choose to go to a psychic and hand their money over to them and to believe them, do I have a right to try to explain to them that I think the psychic is a fraud? Yes, I think I do.I agree.


Do I have the right to force them to stop making this choice for themselves because I don’t like they are finding comfort in this way? NO!I agree and never suggested otherwise.


If the psychic they are seeing is doing something so egregious that I have legal means to stop them, then I have the right to do that,"Egregious?" So it's not just a matter of fraud, but it has to be "egregious" fraud? Where is this line drawn?


but other than that, this is a choice adults are making and I have to leave them alone with it.No you don't. You are free to make your opinion known. You are free to make your disagreement known. You are free to push for prosecution if laws are broken, and you are free to pass for legislation to stop fraud if the required laws are not yet in place.


(Another analogy I’m brought up before – we’re Catholic, my mom gives money to the church – can I claim the church is committing fraud because they take her money by saying things like the host is turned into the body of Christ when nobody can prove that that is so?)Can you claim it? Of course you can. Can you prove it? Highly unlikely. Can you object in other ways? Of course. Can you let your mother know you think she is wasting her money? Of course to that, too. You can also choose to let your mother be to make her choices.


So the answer is, no it won’t be ok with me if you commit fraud to make my family happy if the way you were doing it was causing them more harm than good,And here's where you really add unnecessary complications. My scenario was clear. Your family gets emotional satisfaction from my actions. Your family believes I have helped them. Your family gets past a period of overwhelming grief. All your family loses is the money that your family agreed--as knowing adults--to pay.

And again you add another line to be drawn: How do you determine for your family whether I am causing more harm than good?


but I would say if I tried to tell them and they insisted on believing, that is what they want in their life and I would be stuck with only the options the law leaves me.I agree. I'm asking if it's it's okay with you morally. Or would you think I'm scum?


Adults want what the psychic gives them, comfort and guidance. They don’t want proof, they don’t need it.I agree. Well said.


Psychics aren’t frauds because they can’t prove what they are doing.They aren't proven frauds if the fraud can't be proven. A murderer who is not convicted may not be a murderer in the eyes of the law, but he is a murderer nonetheless.

[panchov]

It's embarrassing to me, but my mother was taken in by a scam. She lost thousands of dollars and hundreds of work hours working for Nu Skin. I'm all for free-markets, being a libertarian, but I do not believe these companies should be allowed to exist. What they do is simply illegal, even if it is partly the person's fault for getting involved. She was brought into it by a friend, who said this should be a good way to make money. Of course the friend believes this. So then my mom tries to get other people involved. They don't know it's a scam. The company isn't going to tell them they won't make any money. You have to spend money to make money, they tell you. Like starting up your own business.

Most of the company's actual sales come from selling their products to their employees. You make money by bringing new people in. But you have to pay the company for those "leads". So you get a paycheck for a couple hundred bucks every month and you are paying the company one or two grand a month for leads. They tell you you will eventually make more so that there is a profit. Maybe 1% of them eventually make a profit, and that depends on how many people you can bring into the scam. This 1% is important to them. They have conventions in like Dallas or Houston and this 1% is there. They are there to show off their Porsche. They tell you you can get rich like them and buy a Porsche.

I did some research on this company when my mother kept losing money. I explained to her what was going on, how the company works, and how it is she will never make a profit. Some basic research would stop someone from doing this. But why do research? It's a real company. They are on the NYSE. The government wouldn't let them just go around ripping people off, would they?

Again, I sympathize with this. It's horrible, BUT
If your Mom was going to buy a Subway franchise, would she not look into it before she bought it? Would she just walk into the office and hand her money over to the person w/o doing any research at all? If the answer is yes, your mom needs some financial education, even though subway is a very respectable company.
If she was going to buy a restuarant from her very best friend for life, would she not look into the finances first? If your mom looked into it and the friend cooked the books to trick her, that's fraud. If your mom didn't do her research and just believed her, well that's very sad and also VERY UNDERSTANDABLE, but your mom is still partially responsible for what happened to her. Am I wrong?

[remirol]

They may not have been told per say (sic)

OK. So they may never have been told, thus they know nothing about it.

as an adult, I would argue that if you are going to lift your feet up and walk yourself into a psychic's office, you have a self-obligation to know what you are getting into.


Right. See, when I go to the auto repair place, I ask them to tell me what I'm getting into. Things like "What will you give me for $X?" They say things like "I will change your oil and rotate your tires." Then, they do it, and I pay them $X.

To someone who doesn't have a bias against psychics in the first place, why do psychics look any different from the auto repair place? You go in, you say "What will you give me for $X?" They say "I'll talk to your dead father and you can ask him questions through me." But it's bunk; they can do no such thing. So: fraud.

The hypothetical person without existing anti-psychic bias is simply a way to illustrate the problem: psychics cannot do what they charge money for doing, but they take the money anyway and lie about doing it. This is fraud, IMO.


See that's the whole problem. You guys all think people are VICTIMS VICTIMS VICTIMS and have no responsibility whatsoever for whom they deal with. I just differ on that opinion. I still have sympathy for people who get tricked though, especially when they are emotionally distraught.


People who know what they're getting into deserve to lose the money. But there are people out there who do NOT know what they're getting into, and this is where the problem comes in.

Their error is one of human misthinking, we all do it sometime or another. THe psychic's crime is often one of malice or greed which is of course way worse.

Er, which is why we should go after the psychics, right?

[Garrette]

They may not have been told per say, as an adult, I would argue that if you are going to lift your feet up and walk yourself into a psychic's office, you have a self-obligation to know what you are getting into. See that's the whole problem. You guys all think people are VICTIMS VICTIMS VICTIMS and have no responsibility whatsoever for whom they deal with. I just differ on that opinion. I still have sympathy for people who get tricked though, especially when they are emotionally distraught.

Their error is one of human misthinking, we all do it sometime or another. THe psychic's crime is often one of malice or greed which is of course way worse.You have objected a few times when you have felt others have not read your posts and understood that you agree there are fake psychics.

I have to object now that you are not reading what is being said to you. Even if you irrefutably demonstrate that the people who visit psychics were 100% negligent in the exercise of caveat emptor, it does not change the fact of the psychic's culpability. The two issues are separate.

[panchov]

Garrette, I don't want to requote your whole thing here, ti's kinda long. I think that you and I are agreeing, you just don't see it. THe only thing we disagree on is what constitutes fraud. When you ask if I would think you are scum (do i think Syliva is scum, YES YES YES YES YES YES). Do I think she's commiting fraud, no, she's giving them what they ask for! That's where we disagree.

Of course you can keep harranging your relative over and over and over about you not approving of what they are doing but it most likely wouldn't do any good and to tell the truth I think you would be interfering with their right to make their own decisions. I understand why you would be motivated to do that, but it doesn't change the fact that unless they are incapable of making thier own decisions, the ARE capable of making their own decisions.

[panchov]

By the way, speaking of not answering questions, nobody answered my question about he prostitute.

In that instance, is she guilty of fraud and is the man totally without responsibility, or as an adult, would than man be expected to have a functional definition of what a prostitute is and an ability to judge from the cues he is getting that maybe she's not telling him the truth?

[panchov]

I'm curious about what James Randi or Michael Shermer would say about this.

[Garrette]

We do agree on some of it, panchov, but our disagreement is more than simply what constitutes fraud.

Your argument implies a zero-sum game for moral culpability (I'll leave out legal culpability for now which is zero sum, at least on the civil side). If the sitter did not exercise due diligience, then the psychic is off the hook, regardless.

My argument, and that of others here, I think, is that it is not a zero-sum game. Shame, shame, shame, on the sitter who walks willfully ignorant into the psychic's lair; I will shake my finger at her all day. I will not, however, use the sitter's negligence as a dispensation for the psychic.

It gets back to how you distinguish between legitimate psychics and fake psychics. If one is a fake psychic, then everyone who visits that psychic is to blame because they all failed to discover that the psychic is a fake.
You, apparently, can tell which psychics are fake and which are not. Please tell me how you do this.


By the way, speaking of not answering questions, nobody answered my question about he prostitute.

In that instance, is she guilty of fraud and is the man totally without responsibility, or as an adult, would than man be expected to have a functional definition of what a prostitute is and an ability to judge from the cues he is getting that maybe she's not telling him the truth?Okay, I'll answer.

It's not fraud. The laws on prostitution, while perhaps morally questionable, are legally sound. The prostitute is guilty of prostitution; her client is guilty of solicitation (terms may vary juridiction to jurisdiction).


Edit to Add: This analogy does not help your case, nor does any other analogy regarding fraud.

X defrauds Y. Y proves fraud. X is convicted. Regardless of Y exercised due diligence or not, Y is not charged with anything, nor does any silliness, stupidity, or negligence on Y's part reduce X's conviction.

[Garrette]

I'm curious about what James Randi or Michael Shermer would say about this.About psychic frauds or about prostitution?

[panchov]

I'm not asking you if she's guilty of prostitution, I’m asking you if the man is responsible for his actions because he believes what the woman is saying.

Btw, while I totally disagree with the notion that Sylvia et al are frauds, I would be happy to call them prostitutes (if we could get a legal definition of prostitute that has to do with selling your moral fibers instead of your body).

Also, I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that the psychic is morally not responsible for their behavior because of anything the customer asked for. THey are totally responsible for the immoral abuse of vulnerable people. I don't however consider that fraud, especially in the legal sense. If you change the laws to where being a psychic IS illegal and Sylvia et al are arrested and put in jail, I will say VERY GOOD FOR YOU! Now we can call that fraud because that's what the law is calling it and LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL.

Not only that, but I find their behavior so horrifying that if there was a way to help get such laws passed, I would do it.

[panchov]

About psychic frauds or about prostitution?

About whether the customer bears any responsibilty for being taken in by the psychic.

[Garrette]

I'm not asking you if she's guilty of prostitution, I’m asking you if the man is responsible for his actions because he believes what the woman is saying.Actually, you asked this:

In that instance, is she guilty of fraud and is the man totally without responsibilityI answered the first part by telling you she is not guilty of fraud; she is guilty of prostitution.

I answered the second part by saying that the man is guilty of solicitation. But to play the game a little more, if the man truly and honestly believes he is in love with the woman, he is probably still guilty of solicitation based on the "reasonable man" standard that a reasonable person would not believe a prostitute under the circumstances you described. Alternatively, the man could be found mentally incompetent.


Btw, while I totally disagree with the notion that Sylvia et al are frauds, I would be happy to call them prostitutes (if we could get a legal definition of prostitute that has to do with selling your moral fibers instead of your body).How on earth could you possibly justify that? They are guilty of fraud (under the assumption that their psychic abilities are not real). Prostitution does not enter into it. They deceive with the intent to increase their advantage at the expense of the deceived. They misrepresent their abilities in purusit of the fraud.

It's not really a debatable topic in the abstract. Whether or not it's enforceable or of sufficient interest to warrant enforcement is another matter entirely.


Also, I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that the psychic is morally not responsible for their behavior because of anything the customer asked for. THey are totally responsible for the immoral abuse of vulnerable people.Okay.


I don't however consider that fraud, especially in the legal sense.It is fraud in the legal sense.


If you change the laws to where being a psychic IS illegal and Sylvia et al are arrested and put in jail, I will say VERY GOOD FOR YOU! Now we can call that fraud because that's what the law is calling it and LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL.The laws aren't really the issue. Enforcement is. That will only follow public interest and outrage.


Not only that, but I find their behavior so horrifying that if there was a way to help get such laws passed, I would do it.How many times have you written your mayor, city council, state representative, governor, congressperson?

[Garrette]

About whether the customer bears any responsibilty for being taken in by the psychic.I have emailed Randi several times and have always received a response. I understand not everyone does, though. If you are really interested, I suggest you email him.

I have never emailed Michael Shermer, so I do not know about him, but I see nothing preventing you from emailing him.

[Showmeproof]

That link is very interesting. I live in Midtown Manhattan and there is this very scary psychic on my block. I always feel like she's giving me the heebeejeebee curse when I go by and refuse to come in (sometimes she tries to beckon me in between drags of her cigarette). Thank goodness I'm pretty sure there's really no such thing as a heebeejeebee curse, or I might have to spend a lot time walking around the block to avoid her.

I live in queens. Where in midtown is she located? We should pay her a visit lol

[panchov]

Well we're clearly not getting anywhere and aren't going to convince each other.
The prostitute thing was a bit metaphorical, I think I've just gotten you too riled up to see that!

[Garrette]

I'm not riled at all, panchov, and while I am far from perfect and sometimes miss the point, I do not think this is one of those times.

[panchov]

I live in queens. Where in midtown is she located? We should pay her a visit lol

I'm really a little scared of her even though I don't think curses exist. She has a dangerous air about her! If you come with me, I'll go though.

Right by Times Square.

[panchov]

I'm not riled at all, panchov, and while I am far from perfect and sometimes miss the point, I do not think this is one of those times.

Well I'm glad you're not riled becuase sometimes I can be riling!

So my only other question is, if she is commiting fraud, why is she (meaning Sylvia, et al) not in jail? You can stop answering though if you think this will just send us in more circles. I still haven't been able to get to some of those earlier posts which looked very interesting and thought provoking.

[Garrette]

Well I'm glad you're not riled becuase sometimes I can be riling!So can I, but my skin is very thick.


So my only other question is, if she is commiting fraud, why is she (meaning Sylvia, et al) not in jail?No enforcement. Why no enforcement? Few or no complaints from parties with standing to District Attorney offices already overworked with cases they see as more pressing. Law enforcement and criminal prosecution are done on limited budgets with limited resources and limited time. They pick their battles. Most people don't know about Sylvia and her ilk, at least not in detail. Of those who do, they either don't know enough to be convinced of the fraudulence or they consider it a near-victimless crime of low importance.


You can stop answering though if you think this will just send us in more circles. I still haven't been able to get to some of those earlier posts which looked very interesting and thought provoking.I have only occasionally been in the position you are in here (a single person debating a multitude of others who appear to be playing tag-team). It's hard, and quite understandable if you don't answer every question.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But you didn't walk into your doctor's office and ask to be punched in the nose. People walk into psychic's offices and ask for psychic readings.
They most certainly do not walk into a psychic's office to be lied to. (Again, can we leave off the "walking into the office" bit? It really is irrelevant.)

The crime is taking their money by deception. Psychics deceive their clients.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here’s a hypothetical situation:
Guy goes to a prostitute and the place gets raided while he’s there.
In court, his defense is:
This woman isn’t a prostitute, she loves me. She tells me she loves me all the time. I only went to her because five of my best buddies told me that she is SO SPIRITUAL and she really really LOVES her clients. I’m only giving her money because I love her too. She’s wonderful she’s everything I ever wanted.
Well of course she always demands money up front, she can never remember my name and calls me “Hey you whose name begins with an M or J,” I have no relationship with her outside our paid relationship and no real reason whatsoever to believe anything she says other than that I want to, but that’s my defense!
What do you think will happen?

I don't see how this is analogous. Are you wondering how to define the crime of prostitution? Or the crime of using a prostitute? How does that relate to our discussion about the relevance (or lack thereof) of the victim's culpability in assessing whether or not a crime has been committed?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I'm from Texas! That's my cat's name - Pancho Vea (i know thats not how you spell it, he was named after a coworker). My name is Linda.
Great name! The cat's, that is--well Linda is pretty good too as long as you are linda (pretty), and it's not false advertising! ;)

[panchov]

Great name! The cat's, that is--well Linda is pretty good too as long as you are linda (pretty), and it's not false advertising! ;)

Depends on who you ask (try my mom, she'll say I am)!

[-Fran-]

Depends on who you ask (try my mom, she'll say I am)!

Pretty? :)

Panchov, I know it's not easy to keep track of all people spurting questions here, I understand if you'll skip a few, but I really want to know. Do you actually believe in psychics, only that some are fakes, but that some actually are genuine? And how come then that you're not at the same risk as being had by a psychic as all the others who are duped? I just feel this is kind of essential.

[panchov]

(Again, can we leave off the "walking into the office" bit? It really is irrelevant.)

The crime is taking their money by deception. Psychics deceive their clients.

See I can't agree with you here - however, I respect your right to disagree!
I would even go so far as to say that (for some, maybe not all) they would much rather have the psychic say to them that Mom is happy in heaven no longer a bitter alcoholic and is waving hi, then to hear nobody really knows what happens when we die and good luck with that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

THey are totally responsible for the immoral abuse of vulnerable people. I don't however consider that fraud, especially in the legal sense. If you change the laws to where being a psychic IS illegal and Sylvia et al are arrested and put in jail, I will say VERY GOOD FOR YOU! Now we can call that fraud because that's what the law is calling it and LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL.

The law already calls it fraud when someone takes money by deceit or trickery.

Many psychics have been found guilty of fraud. (I suspect few of them have been jailed because, as you pointed out, it's not a violent crime, and only the most egregious non-violent criminals whose crimes aren't drug-related end up doing time.) That Sylvia Browne hasn't been prosecuted (yet) doesn't mean that taking people's money by lying and trickery is legal. ( I already addressed this point, and mentioned that RSLancaster has answered it more completely somewhere. By your reasoning, if one murderer has not been prosecuted for whatever reason, then murder must not really be illegal.) Nor does it follow that the victim's participation exculpates the fraudster.

By the way, I totally disagree with your statement in the OP (my bolding), "The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization." No one goes to a psychic wanting to be defrauded. I agree the victim's participation (as with any fraud) is necessary, but no one wants to be defrauded. People who go to a psychic willingly give their money thinking they are going to have a curse lifted or get a glimpse into their future, or learn how to be healthy and wealthy and find true love, or communicate with a deceased relative, and so on. If they got those things as promised, there would be no fraud.

I'm surprised you haven't brought up the notion of casino gambling.

That business is predicated (mostly) on people not realizing that the odds are stacked against them. However, casinos cannot lie and they cannot cheat. To do so would be fraud. (And would probably violate specific state gaming laws too.) If they say their slots pay out 98% when they actually only pay out 95%, they would be subject to legal consequences. If they use loaded dice at their crap tables or a rigged roulette wheel, they would be committing crimes.

What they're banking on is that people think they're going to beat the odds. Each one of them thinks they'll be the one to catch a one-in-a-million jackpot. The casinos are allowed to tout their winners--and they do so in a big way so people are disproportionately more aware of the few winners than they are of the many many losers, but again, the casinos cannot lie and deceive to take your money.

[JoeTheJuggler]

See I can't agree with you here - however, I respect your right to disagree!
I would even go so far as to say that (for some, maybe not all) they would much rather have the psychic say to them that Mom is happy in heaven no longer a bitter alcoholic and is waving hi, then to hear nobody really knows what happens when we die and good luck with that.
So? They would rather it be true than not. That's the issue. I'm sure if you asked them if they just want to hear something nice that they know is false, they'd agree that it's not worth paying money for.

Besides, the law is clear--taking someone's money through lying and deception is fraud. What the victim wants is irrelevant--but I was just pointing out that they don't want to be cheated any more than I want my doctor to punch me in the nose.

[ExMinister]

THe only thing we disagree on is what constitutes fraud. When you ask if I would think you are scum (do i think Syliva is scum, YES YES YES YES YES YES). Do I think she's commiting fraud, no, she's giving them what they ask for! That's where we disagree.

If fraud by definition indicates intentional deception, then Sylvia IS committing fraud. And it makes no sense whatsoever to say that these people are getting what they are asking for - That would mean they are asking to be deceived. They are not. Same goes for the Enron scenario, and anyone's elderly mother who is taken in by any sort of monetary scheme.

Some people may be smart enough about car repair to not be taken in by auto scams, some people might have the business savvy to spot a business scam, some people may know from personal experience or otherwise that psychics are con artists. Some people won't and don't. Does that mean it's their own fault if they are taken advantage of? It would be nice if we all had the mental agility to be forewarned and forearmed in all areas at all times, but many of us don't. Which is why there are laws to help protect us. It's why people come forward, when they spot these kinds of scams, to be heard.

[panchov]

Well if what sylvia is doing is illegal, we should all start screaming at the press until she's arrested. How's that for coming to an agreement. (I only keep picking on her becuase of been reading on this site about some of the stuff she does that I had no idea she was doing, and I now think she should be hung by her toes over a fire ant hill and slathered with honey!)

[ExMinister]

So? They would rather it be true than not. That's the issue. I'm sure if you asked them if they just want to hear something nice that they know is false, they'd agree that it's not worth paying money for.

Besides, the law is clear--taking someone's money through lying and deception is fraud. What the victim wants is irrelevant--but I was just pointing out that they don't want to be cheated any more than I want my doctor to punch me in the nose.

I agree. I don't know of anyone, even in the worst throes of grief, who is looking willingly for deception. They may be looking for hope, and more vulnerable to the fradulent claims of someone like Sylvia Browne, as a result, but they absolutely are not looking to be deceived.

[panchov]

If fraud by definition indicates intentional deception, then Sylvia IS committing fraud. And it makes no sense whatsoever to say that these people are getting what they are asking for - That would mean they are asking to be deceived. They are not. Same goes for the Enron scenario, and anyone's elderly mother who is taken in by any sort of monetary scheme.

Some people may be smart enough about car repair to not be taken in by auto scams, some people might have the business savvy to spot a business scam, some people may know from personal experience or otherwise that psychics are con artists. Some people won't and don't. Does that mean it's their own fault if they are taken advantage of? It would be nice if we all had the mental agility to be forewarned and forearmed in all areas at all times, but many of us don't. Which is why there are laws to help protect us. It's why people come forward, when they spot these kinds of scams, to be heard.


The reason I'm Having trouble with this Enron comparison is that very specific quantifiable promises were made by Enron. This was not a case where the Enron officials got up and said, “We’re going to offer you something that starts with a p.” (at which the employees would have all had to respond PENSION). This is totally different.

Psychics say, I see an old lady standing over you and the customer DECIDES that that's their GRANDMA. Yes they are participants.

[-Fran-]

Psychics say, I see an old lady standing over you and the customer DECIDES that that's their GRANDMA. Yes they are participants.

And when you fall for the same tricks (only better than averagely executed) when you visit a psychic you think is genuine - that makes you a.... ??

If you do believe in psychics as such... do you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well if what sylvia is doing is illegal, we should all start screaming at the press until she's arrested. How's that for coming to an agreement. (I only keep picking on her becuase of been reading on this site about some of the stuff she does that I had no idea she was doing, and I now think she should be hung by her toes over a fire ant hill and slathered with honey!)

I agree wholeheartedly!

(Though, as vile as I find SB, I think a lot of "conventional" religions are worse just because of scale.)

As for SB, rather than a prosecution (that isn't likely to bankrupt her), I'd rather see JREF with its new policies for the MDC really work on calling her out. I'd like to see a challenge to her as a full page ad in the NY Times. It should summarize the challenge, point out that she has twice agreed to do it and has even agreed to a protocol. The ad could also rebut the objections that make the rounds on the internet --that the money doesn't exist (it does), that Randi is biased (even if true, it's irrelevant), etc.

I'd donate to a fund for this kind of media campaign.

I wonder how much ad time during the Montel show costs. . . .

[panchov]

When I fall for it (and I have) it means I was just as gulliable and romantic and non-sensible as anybody else.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason I'm Having trouble with this Enron comparison is that very specific quantifiable promises were made by Enron. This was not a case where the Enron officials got up and said, “We’re going to offer you something that starts with a p.” (at which the employees would have all had to respond PENSION). This is totally different.

Psychics say, I see an old lady standing over you and the customer DECIDES that that's their GRANDMA. Yes they are participants.
There's a local psychic that advertises on the radio during NFL broadcasts. She says "I can see the future" and "I can communicate with your loved ones", and "I am a real psychic, not one of these fakes you may have encountered." I see an ad on the back of our alternative paper every week that claims the ability to lift curses. These are lies. Proving them to be lies is likely to be no more difficult than making the case against Ken Lay and his cronies.

(Believe it or not, the Enron crooks didn't say we guarantee you a pension. They said your pension will be in the form of stocks in the company. You can see their value by reading our annual report. If you're knowledgeable enough to figure out from some minor-looking footnotes that some things we list as assets really aren't, you would be able to realize that their value is going to plummet sooner or later. At trial, the question was over who knew what and when. Not so black and white as you might think.)

[Big Les]

Psychics say, I see an old lady standing over you and the customer DECIDES that that's their GRANDMA. Yes they are participants.

Sometimes, yes - the psychic lets the client make the connection and doesn't pick up on it. More often than not however, they don't leave it at that. Why would they, when they can jump on this budding "hit" and capitalise on it, seeming more convincing and making it more likely that the client, or someone they know, will come back in future. What they tend to do is this:

"I see an old lady standing over you"
"Yes"
"This isn't your grandmother is it?"
"Yes! It must be!"
"OK, your grandmother is telling me that you shouldn't worry about her"

And so on, and so on. When the client comes away, they remember this exchange as "she told me grandmother was there", not "they mentioned an old lady and I presumed they meant my dead grandmother". So they've been led to believe something, but more often than not, they are then told this outright as a way for the psychic to gain ownership of what's said and make for a positive reading and an impression after-impression.

So they may let the client come up with the connection (in fact, it's essential to cold reading) but they almost always either strongly imply, or outright confirm that they are talking to that dead person.

I'd just like to add, panchov, that although your line of reasoning did frustrate me a bit the other day, it's been really interesting talking with you. You're something a bit different around here - certainly not a foam-flecked sceptic-hating creduloid, and not a conventional sceptic either. Actually, I have a feeling that you're more representative of the intelligent but non-sceptical general public than any of us lot. Damning with faint praise I suppose... :)

[panchov]

There's a local psychic that advertises on the radio during NFL broadcasts. She says "I can see the future" and "I can communicate with your loved ones", and "I am a real psychic, not one of these fakes you may have encountered." I see an ad on the back of our alternative paper every week that claims the ability to lift curses. These are lies. Proving them to be lies is likely to be no more difficult than making the case against Ken Lay and his cronies.

(Believe it or not, the Enron crooks didn't say we guarantee you a pension. They said your pension will be in the form of stocks in the company. You can see their value by reading our annual report. If you're knowledgeable enough to figure out from some minor-looking footnotes that some things we list as assets really aren't, you would be able to realize that their value is going to plummet sooner or later. At trial, the question was over who knew what and when. Not so black and white as you might think.)


But they still took money they weren't entitled too (I can promise you that becuase my company is involved in getting it from them and their estates). These are two very different issues.

Even in the case of the psychic who makes vague promises like contacting dead relatives and lifting curses, the customer is the one who is going to fill in the blanks about all of it. The psychic will always offer vage information.

Comparing this to someone working for years and years and being cheated out of what was legally theirs in payment for that work is a bit (sorry but I have to say) ridiculous.

[-Fran-]

When I fall for it (and I have) it means I was just as gulliable and romantic and non-sensible as anybody else.

Fair enough, though I must say that you do sound a whole lot harsher when you speak of others than of yourself. 'Willing participants' - 'A romantic'?

[JoeTheJuggler]

But they still took money they weren't entitled too (I can promise you that becuase my company is involved in getting it from them and their estates). These are two very different issues.
And psychics take money that they're entitled to? It's the same issue.


The psychic will always offer vage information.
That's just not true. Psychics will often tell a good client that they're under a curse and they must bring in x number of hundred dollar bills. The psychic transfers the curse to the money, then just has to keep the money. This is not in the least bit vague. Sylvia has given people medical diagnoses (nothing vague about that).

They often start off with more typical cold reading stuff, but when they've got a real believer, they will keep upping the ante.

Comparing this to someone working for years and years and being cheated out of what was legally theirs in payment for that work is a bit (sorry but I have to say) ridiculous.
Not at all!

Psychics have done exactly that--scammed hard working people out of their life's savings.

I know two people personally that have been bankrupted by psychics. I've read accounts of many more. Granted, Enron's fishy financial disclosures probably hurt more people in one fell swoop, but the result to any individual (losing everything they own including their good credit) is no different.

[panchov]

Fair enough, though I must say that you do sound a whole lot harsher when you speak of others than of yourself. 'Willing participants' - 'A romantic'?

Oh do you guys think I"m saying people who go to psychics are BAD PEOPLE? No that's not what I'm saying. I think it's incredibly human and poignent to want to speak to your dead relatives. It's just that their actions lead direclty to what you are calling their defrauding. If I could tell all of MY Actions that have led direclty to bad things happenign to me, we'd be here foreover! It's different for people like the Enron employees though, way different.

I'll tell you a story - my Mom the Catholic whom I have mentioned before. She always gives money to church, when she had her own business she used to give the priest expensive vases and flowers for the Virgin Mary. At one point however she started having some problems and I called the same priest, begging him to help her. He said it wasn't his job. My mom still gives money to the church, do I think she's bad or even deluded? No, I think the church has given her something she needed and I don't fault her for finding it there at all. Same with people who visit psychics. They are adults, it's their choices to make, but I just can't make myself call what's happening to them fraud. (I even still give money to church sometimes, so everything you think I'm saying harsh about psychic visitors I would have to be directing at myself also.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, even if a psychic ONLY used cold reading and let the victim supply ALL the information in the reading, he or she is still committing fraud by taking money under false pretenses. The claim of psychic ability--and they do advertise this claim--is the fraudulent claim, whether or not the information given in a reading is accurate.

If I tell you, "The spirits tell me that your current boyfriend is your one true love," it doesn't matter whether you think he is your one true love (or whether he turns out to be your one true love). The lie is in how I claim to have gotten that information. If I take your money for that, I am committing fraud.

[panchov]

[QUOTE=JoeTheJuggler;3173296]And psychics take money that they're entitled to? It's the same issue.

QUOTE]

It would be the same issue of the employees had GIVEN them the money. THey took it.

[sthomson]

What's all this talk of Enron and prostitution? Terrible analogies. Here's a better one.

My uncle believes in get-rich-quick schemes. He believes that if he invests only $10,000 dollars today, he'll get a guaranteed $1,000,000 every month for the rest of his life, from tire-recycling/gold bonds/Nigerian scammers. Even though he's been burned dozens of times in the past, he continues to believe - the failures were always due to lack of funds/gov't intervention/sabotage, etc.

Now, are the con artists behind these schemes guilty of fraud? Of course they are. Is my uncle guilty of being a dumb, greedy, gullible sack of carbon? Of course he is, but that doesn't mean that the con artists aren't guilty, too. Is it always possible to convict these con artists of fraud? Unfortunately, no. Their devious little buggers. Just like Sylvia Browne, et. al.

[suicidesamurai]

Again, I sympathize with this. It's horrible, BUT
If your Mom was going to buy a Subway franchise, would she not look into it before she bought it? Would she just walk into the office and hand her money over to the person w/o doing any research at all? If the answer is yes, your mom needs some financial education, even though subway is a very respectable company.
If she was going to buy a restuarant from her very best friend for life, would she not look into the finances first? If your mom looked into it and the friend cooked the books to trick her, that's fraud. If your mom didn't do her research and just believed her, well that's very sad and also VERY UNDERSTANDABLE, but your mom is still partially responsible for what happened to her. Am I wrong?No, you're not wrong. She is just too trusting.

[panchov]

Well I agree. That's why anybody who wasn't made of stone would have sympathy for her. And trusting is a GOOD thing. Unfortunatly, it's just frequently going to lead to trouble, especially in matters of finance.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And psychics take money that they're entitled to? It's the same issue.



It would be the same issue of the employees had GIVEN them the money. THey took it.
And psychics take money under false pretenses--which is a crime, and the result is the same (people are financially ruined). Again, if you read "take" to exclude willing transfers of money (and information), then there would be no such thing as the crime of fraud.

It would be different if you were talking about the crime of stealing (larceny). But for fraud, your observation is irrelevant, just as it would be with armed robbery:
If I pull a gun and say "Give me your money!" does it matter whether the bank teller hands me the money or I reach in and grab it?

[panchov]

But those examples you are using are SO different. THe psychic didn't demand anything, the customer WILLINGLY Seeked out the psychic and willingly handed their own money over. (Is seeked the write verb? Can we have sook?)

You are not even in the ball park here. AS for enron they took the money in secret, they misappropriated funds that were not theirs. The fact that they claimed it was visible is irrelevant according to the law, because it clearly wasn't. They can say anything they want. If a customer walks into a psychic's office and gives them money, it then becomes the psychics money.

[-Fran-]

(Is seeked the write verb? Can we have sook?)


It's sought, me thinks.

[panchov]

How about if we make this compromise?

I agree that if the psychic makes specific claims, such as, if you give me so much money, I lift a curse and you will get [insert something specific - the job you interviewed for yesterday, a million dollars in the lottery tonight, whatever] - that I will agree is fraud.

If the psychic says you are having bad luck and if you give me so much money your bad luck will go away - that (IMO) is not fraud because it can't be verified.

Can we agree to that?

[-Fran-]

Oh do you guys think I"m saying people who go to psychics are BAD PEOPLE? No that's not what I'm saying. I think it's incredibly human and poignent to want to speak to your dead relatives. It's just that their actions lead direclty to what you are calling their defrauding. If I could tell all of MY Actions that have led direclty to bad things happenign to me, we'd be here foreover! It's different for people like the Enron employees though, way different.


No, I wouldn't say you come off as thinking people who go to see psychics are bad people. That would be unfair of me to state that. Just that when you talked of yourself doing it, it suddenly was described in a bit more... excusing way :) It was just a reaction I got, seeing what I percieved as a rather distinct difference in tone. But it wasn't really much use in mentioning it at all, for the purpose of this thread, I suppose.

[panchov]

I'm always trying to believe in something - Im sure it's out there, just can't find it yet, so I can't really fault anyone else. You guys are making me think though at the least. I better not wake up an atheist!

[ExMinister]

If the psychic says you are having bad luck and if you give me so much money your bad luck will go away - that (IMO) is not fraud because it can't be verified.

Can we agree to that?

So if I can't prove someone is a fraud, or that a claim they have made is fraudulent, you're saying that's a legitimate indication that they are not one, or the claim is not fradulent?

Also, another important aspect that might warrant mentioning is intent. If my intent is to defraud you, I am acting fradulently. Am I right? Whether anyone can prove it or not.

[panchov]

I see your point, and its a good one, but intent is murky and hard to prove. Even if the psychic understands she's lying, she may be delusional to believe she's helping. WHich in no way makes it right, but I think for our purposes we have to focus on what we can prove because we've been at this all day and we can't even agree on what we can prove yet!

And no, its not ALWAYS an indication, but if you cant prove it, is that a legitimate indication that it is fraud either?

[Big Les]

Which is why we tend to come back to - there's no known evidence of psychic phenomena after 100 years of scientific enquiry, their existence would violate the laws of physics, and their methods are all reproducible by mundane means. Therefore, we don't have to prove fraud. (In an ideal world) they have to prove otherwise before taking any money for their services. After all, if they are truly self-deluded and entirely altruistic, they won't need to make money out of people, will they (putting aside emotional "damage" for a moment)?

This might seem like a reversal of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept, but we're dealing with people who are claiming something no more objectively valid than "my pet dog can lay golden eggs". If a court case hinged on a claim like that you can bet that the judge and jury would expect evidence of it before pronouncing on any implicated crime (such as me taking money on the promise of said dog-eggs).

Wow, I think I've just entered the Analogy Twilight Zone with that one.

[ExMinister]

I see your point, and its a good one, but intent is murky and hard to prove. Even if the psychic understands she's lying, she may be delusional to believe she's helping. WHich in no way makes it right, but I think for our purposes we have to focus on what we can prove because we've been at this all day and we can't even agree on what we can prove yet!

And no, its not ALWAYS an indication, but if you cant prove it, is that a legitimate indication that it is fraud either?


I was responding to your suggestion that if something isn't verified as fradulent, it isn't fraud. Of course, the lack of proof works both ways. But for this reason, I wouldn't agree with your original statement about how to define fraud.

Also, a person who claims to be psychic but is lying is not the same thing as a person who is delusional. To say a psychic is deluded usually implies that they are sincere but misguided, believing they have abilities they don't possess. I do believe it's possible a delusional person might think they are helping. That wouldn't be the case with a person who is actually lying, or to put it another way...intending to defraud.

[Big Les]

I also believe it's possible that a non-delusional person might think they were helping, or at least are aware they're not really psychic but kid themselves that staying "in character" can help people cope with the early stages of grief (seemingly without realising this isn't healthy for them). Some seem to see themselves as grief-counsellors using non-standard methods but also do it for fame and fortune (Colin Fry) . Still others, I'm convinced, are performing mentalists doing it for equally mixed reasons (including their own ego) which might well include a warped sense of altruism, even if they don't buy the grief help thing and just think that by passing on their "gift" of entertainment without breaking character, they allow people some magic in their lives (Jim Callahan).

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Just my $ 0.02 but I think you're way too hard on these people and that blaming the victim does absolutely nothing to stop these crimes.

I still stand by my opinion that they don't have enough information to protect themselves. I'm positive that the vast majority would never go to a psychic predator if they knew of cold reading and other tricks. After all, they don't want to be scammed out of their money and their peace of mind! And you really can't blame them for being lonely, depressed, wanting to contact a loved one, wanting to find out something very important to them, being worried about their health, etc.

I do think some victims of some paranormal scams deserve what they get but I wouldn't count Sylvia Browne's victims as such.

[panchov]

What really surprises me about this whole conversation is that all I've really been trying to say is that people have a self responsibility to exercise critical thinking whenever possible and when they refuse (as we all do sometimes for one reason or another) their actions may lead to unwanted consequences. I'm surprised that here of all places, everyone seems to be saying back to me all day long - no, nobody as any responsibility to think critically ever. They should absolutely be ruled by their emotions only and since it is their emotions that are ruling them they bear no responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

IF a psychic came along and told them he was the reincarnation of Hitler and all Jews were bad and should be killed, so the customer gave him money to further that cause, would the fact that nobody ever told him psychics could be frauds exonerate him from guilt? People have to be able to think for themselves. But we dont anyway, sometimes all of us dont, and often when we dont there are consequences. Thats it, that's all Im saying~

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't blame the victim.

It's not a question of responsibility. Most people, once they're shown the evidence against psychics, all but run away screaming from them. There are always going to be those who believe no matter what but most are smart enough to know when they've been duped.

[ExMinister]

I'm not sure how you can interpret any of these posts as having said people "should be ruled by their emotions." My take is that we have all been in full agreement that people are fully responsible for their own actions and choices. I think some of us just disagree strongly with what seems to be a blame the victim/excuse the fraud approach.

Also, I do see your point about the need for critical thinking. I just think you are assuming that people should expect to be deceived if they are dealing with a psychic, and as was discussed much earlier, there are many reasons why that just isn't necessarily the case.

[panchov]

I'm not sure how you can interpret any of these posts as having said people "should be ruled by their emotions." My take is that we have all been in full agreement that people are fully responsible for their own actions and choices. I think some of us just disagree strongly with what seems to be a blame the victim/excuse the fraud approach.

Also, I do see your point about the need for critical thinking. I just think you are assuming that people should expect to be deceived if they are dealing with a psychic, and as was discussed much earlier, there are many reasons why that just isn't necessarily the case.

I give up!!!
Still though, you didn't convince me, but you made my day more interesting. I still haven't been able to read some of those previous posts yet. I'm thinking about it. You know though, if you outlaw psychics they would just go underground and probably be seen as persecuted religious figures. If you teach people to think critically (which is what I thought this site was all about), youlll actually put a lot more psychics out of business.

I would really like to poll some members of sylvia's or edward's audiences to see just how many of them have been exposed to the concept of cold reading or whether they are able to recognize that psychics might be frauds. If someone convinced me that the majority of the people were truly unexposed to any such ideas, I might agree with you entirely. I just think they'd have to be living in a cave not to have heard it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You know though, if you outlaw psychics they would just go underground and probably be seen as persecuted religious figures.
There's no need to "outlaw psychics" because there are already laws against cheating people out of their money. (The First Amendment guarantees them the right to say they're psychic--it's the cheating people out of money that's a crime.)

[my_wan]

How about if we make this compromise?

I agree that if the psychic makes specific claims, such as, if you give me so much money, I lift a curse and you will get [insert something specific - the job you interviewed for yesterday, a million dollars in the lottery tonight, whatever] - that I will agree is fraud.

If the psychic says you are having bad luck and if you give me so much money your bad luck will go away - that (IMO) is not fraud because it can't be verified.

Can we agree to that?

Yes, if they stick to luck I will not complain to the law, just on some forum somewhere for a laugh.

[Big Les]

panchov, we're not saying that the clients bear no responsibility. The ones that do have access to information on cold reading etc are bloody morons when they go back to psychics and waste their money. But as a couple of others have tried to make clear, it makes no difference how culpable the clients are, the psychics are still committing fraud by all commonly accepted legal and moral definitions. You said they weren't, we pointed out that they were. In arguing that we probably start to look like we're saying all clients are poor little lambs who should bear no responsibility for their ignorance and credulity. That's just not true. We just think the people taking advantage of these other people should be brought to account in line with other people who play on people's unwitting willingness to be defrauded.

Psychic readings are a con trick. A confidence trick. They require the mark's confidence in the psychic's knowledge and abilities. Therefore deception, knowing or otherwise, is absolutely key to how they operate. In theory they are no better than any other con artist, and not much harder to actually secure convictions on. Other con artists get away with all sorts and only get caught when they get careless. Cold reading is a pretty safe way to con people, ergo relatively few of them get accused, charged or convicted. Does that make them any less responsible for the crime than, say, someone who sells an empty Playstation 3 box with a brick in it to an unwitting customer? Of course that customer should be sceptical of such a sale, and we can harangue or mock them all we like for being so stupid, but that doesn't make the act of selling the empty box whilst claiming it to be something of value any less a criminal act that is at least theoretically subject to legal and moral censure.

You may not agree that con artists deserve the attention of the police, that caveat emptor should be all, but most sceptics, and indeed most authorities, and most societies, think otherwise.

[ExMinister]

I give up!!!
Still though, you didn't convince me, but you made my day more interesting. I still haven't been able to read some of those previous posts yet. I'm thinking about it. You know though, if you outlaw psychics they would just go underground and probably be seen as persecuted religious figures. If you teach people to think critically (which is what I thought this site was all about), youlll actually put a lot more psychics out of business.

I would really like to poll some members of sylvia's or edward's audiences to see just how many of them have been exposed to the concept of cold reading or whether they are able to recognize that psychics might be frauds. If someone convinced me that the majority of the people were truly unexposed to any such ideas, I might agree with you entirely. I just think they'd have to be living in a cave not to have heard it.

Teaching people to think critically is exactly what is needed. Or IMO more to the point, teaching people that it's right to think critically in all areas of life, including the spiritual/religious, and a solid education in how to spot cold-reading, especially now that the media is literally flooded with psychic/medium shows. Maybe what the world needs are more good old-fashioned magic/mentalist shows to remind them.

As for your second point, I really think that depends on where the evidence is weighted. As an example, if an elderly woman remembers vaguely having heard a warning that there are people in the world who scam members of her age group out of money, but she has also spent most of her life believing something else, such as people in business suits and ties are intelligent and honest, then she may fall for a scam presented by an individual in a business suit and a tie. If I've heard vaguely of something called cold-reading but I've heard it dismissed all my life as something atheistic or non-religious/spiritual people use to write things off they don't believe in, then I'm not likely to give it much weight. Unfortunately the second view is pretty common and it makes people perfect targets for the psychic con artists, who need to be stopped just as any con artist does.

[Big Les]

By far the majority of people have never even heard of cold reading, even if they suspect psychics aren't for real. Still more can't grasp what it is without demonstration or applying themselves to a well-written example.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What really surprises me about this whole conversation is that all I've really been trying to say is that people have a self responsibility to exercise critical thinking whenever possible and when they refuse (as we all do sometimes for one reason or another) their actions may lead to unwanted consequences. I'm surprised that here of all places, everyone seems to be saying back to me all day long - no, nobody as any responsibility to think critically ever. They should absolutely be ruled by their emotions only and since it is their emotions that are ruling them they bear no responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

And I've pointed out several times that I have no problem with people taking responsibility for their own actions. What I was arguing against was your statement that psychics aren't frauds if the client is an active participant. (The part I bolded in your OP previously.)

IF a psychic came along and told them he was the reincarnation of Hitler and all Jews were bad and should be killed, so the customer gave him money to further that cause, would the fact that nobody ever told him psychics could be frauds exonerate him from guilt?
Not at all, but that's not what any of us have been arguing about with you, but rather your claim that the client's guilt (or naivete or credibility or ignorance) somehow exculpates the psychic from fraud.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How about if we make this compromise?

I agree that if the psychic makes specific claims, such as, if you give me so much money, I lift a curse and you will get [insert something specific - the job you interviewed for yesterday, a million dollars in the lottery tonight, whatever] - that I will agree is fraud.

If the psychic says you are having bad luck and if you give me so much money your bad luck will go away - that (IMO) is not fraud because it can't be verified.

Can we agree to that?
Yes, if they stick to luck I will not complain to the law, just on some forum somewhere for a laugh.
I disagree. There is still fraud if they hold themselves out as offering a service that is based on the claim that they are psychic or have paranormal powers.

It doesn't matter if the only advice they give is normal, common-sense advice, they are still advertising themselves as psychic. Their ability to take people's money is based on this claim, which is false or deceptive, so it is still fraud.

However, in realistic terms, I would be in favor of going after the ones who have done the most egregious things, bilking people out of their life's savings before worrying about small time stuff. (Also, there are psychics who work parties and tread the fine line between pure entertainment and actually holding themselves out as offering information and advice from paranormal means.)

[sthomson]

What really surprises me about this whole conversation is that all I've really been trying to say is that people have a self responsibility to exercise critical thinking whenever possible and when they refuse (as we all do sometimes for one reason or another) their actions may lead to unwanted consequences. I'm surprised that here of all places, everyone seems to be saying back to me all day long - no, nobody as any responsibility to think critically ever. They should absolutely be ruled by their emotions only and since it is their emotions that are ruling them they bear no responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

No one is saying that at all. What YOU seem to be saying is that the victim's responsibility in some way outweighs the fraud's responsibility, so we should just let people get away with whatever they want, as long as the victim wasn't thinking critically.

Did you read my post about another kind of fraud? Should con artists and psychics be allowed to lie to people to make money, just because people seem to want to be lied to?

[panchov]

First off, you guys keep saying I’m blaming the victim for what the “criminal” is doing to them. This is not the case at all. I’ve said repeatedly that fake psychics are vultures who prey on vulnerable victims and they are responsible for their actions. What I am saying is that the “victims” are participating in their victimization and the actions they take are what leads up to their “victimization.”

Let’s again go back to the example of the young girl who dresses provocatively in a bad part of town and gets attacked. Are you going to blame the girl for being attacked? Are you going to say, oh it’s your fault, you dressed like that, you deserved everything you got? No of course not. Are you going to try to explain to the girl that although in a perfect world we would all be free to do exactly what we want, sometimes we need stop and think about our actions because anytime we make ourselves vulnerable to predators we are likely to suffer severe consequences? Yes, you would!!!!

The reason that I am refusing to call a fake psychic a fraud is not entirely because a victim participates, although that’s part of it. The reason I refuse to call it fraud is because if a person goes to a psychic and asks for a psychic reading, THEY WILL GET A PSYCHIC READING. Again, in a perfect world, if the psychic is lying, we would all be able to prosecute them for fraud. However, I would argue that the reason psychics aren’t often prosecuted is because, I (and apparently our court system and most jurors) would expect any reasonable person to have a FUNCTIONING definition of what a psychic really is. If a person goes to a psychic and falls for every word they say, although the jury may have sympathy, I do believe that it’s “common knowledge” that psychics can and do engage in deceptive behavior and ALSO people are absolutely responsible for allowing any person, psychic or not to take control of their lives w/o good reason.

The person who visits the psychic is in no way responsible for the behavior of the psychic, but they are responsible for walking in and handing control over to them. The rape victim is of course an entirely different story, she was engaging in activities that may have unintentionally contributed to the crime, but she did not offer herself up to the rapist, the rapist took by force what she would not have given him voluntarily.

And again, there are extremely extenuating circumstances. That scary looking psychic on my block, I could see a little old lady being frightened and intimidated by her and handing over a lot of money, and I would feel the utmost sympathy for the woman and I would WISH the psychic could be prosecuted. However, unless the psychic did something more than give a reading, like perhaps started to harass the woman with claims that there is a curse on her, or engaged in financial fraud and deception, in our society in most cases, I doubt the psychic would half to pay any price at all. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE NEED TO BE TAUGHT TO THINK CRITICALLY. Because if they don’t vultures WILL PREY on them, and legally they will have very little recourse!

Well thank you all again for your lively debates and I hope you all have safe and happy holiday!!

[panchov]

No one is saying that at all. What YOU seem to be saying is that the victim's responsibility in some way outweighs the fraud's responsibility, so we should just let people get away with whatever they want, as long as the victim wasn't thinking critically.

Did you read my post about another kind of fraud? Should con artists and psychics be allowed to lie to people to make money, just because people seem to want to be lied to?

It's just so much easier to prove financial fraud then psychic fraud. If psychic fraud could be proven as easily, this whole conversation would probably be moot. I do wish ALL people who preyed on vulnerable people could be stopped, but alas sometimes we break moral laws that cannot be prosecuted legally. Life is sometimes unfair!

[Garrette]

The reason that I am refusing to call a fake psychic a fraud is not entirely because a victim participates, although that’s part of it. The reason I refuse to call it fraud is because if a person goes to a psychic and asks for a psychic reading, THEY WILL GET A PSYCHIC READING. Ummm.....No.

They will get a reading that is portrayed as being psychic. And therein lies the fraud.

Now you may have a mental mechanism which causes you to read "Psychic Reading" as "a deceptive string of statements meant to convince the sitter that the reader is speaking with the dead, the purpose of which is to separate the sitter from his money." If so, I agree.

And if instead of "Psychic Reading" the psychic advertised the above definition, I would say the psychic is not guilty of fraud.

But when the sitter pays for a "Psychic Reading" he is assuming something along the lines of "Information obtained by the reader from the spirits of the deceased."

It is the psychic's knwoing perpetuation of this definition that makes it fraud.

[JoeTheJuggler]

First off, you guys keep saying I’m blaming the victim for what the “criminal” is doing to them.

No, I'm not--and I'm pretty sure no one else here is either. We're saying, the culpability (or lack thereof) of the victim does not excuse or exculpate the psychic.

Again, I (and others) are responding to the part of your OP in bold below:

I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with.

And back to your recent post:
This is not the case at all. I’ve said repeatedly that fake psychics are vultures who prey on vulnerable victims and they are responsible for their actions. What I am saying is that the “victims” are participating in their victimization and the actions they take are what leads up to their “victimization.”

Yes, but you also said that psychics can't be consider frauds because of the victims participation. THAT is what I and others have taken issue with.

Are you changing your position and agreeing that a psychic who takes money is committing fraud regardless of the victim's participation?



Let’s again go back to the example of the young girl who dresses provocatively in a bad part of town and gets attacked. Are you going to blame the girl for being attacked? Are you going to say, oh it’s your fault, you dressed like that, you deserved everything you got? No of course not. Are you going to try to explain to the girl that although in a perfect world we would all be free to do exactly what we want, sometimes we need stop and think about our actions because anytime we make ourselves vulnerable to predators we are likely to suffer severe consequences? Yes, you would!!!!

Maybe I would, but it's irrelevant to the point I was making with that analogy: even if the girl exercised bad judgment, it in no way would exculpate the rapist. The point where I and others disagree with you is your statement that the psychic is not a fraud because of the victim's participation. I brought up the rape analogy to point out that you wouldn't excuse the rapist no matter how slutty the girl was or how she dressed or where she was.


The reason that I am refusing to call a fake psychic a fraud is not entirely because a victim participates, although that’s part of it. The reason I refuse to call it fraud is because if a person goes to a psychic and asks for a psychic reading, THEY WILL GET A PSYCHIC READING.
Now we're getting somewhere.

The point of fraud is that they pay to get a psychic reading and they do NOT GET A PSYCHIC READING because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF PSYCHIC POWERS. If you define a "psychic reading" as being whatever someone who calls herself a psychic says, then you'd be right. Unfortunately, the psychic is claiming supernatural abilities, and that's what the victim is paying for. They're not getting it. It's fraud.

Again, in a perfect world, if the psychic is lying, we would all be able to prosecute them for fraud.

They have lied and committed fraud merely by taking money for a psychic reading (regardless of the content of the psychic reading). They are claiming powers that they don't have.

However, I would argue that the reason psychics aren’t often prosecuted is because, I (and apparently our court system and most jurors) would expect any reasonable person to have a FUNCTIONING definition of what a psychic really is. If a person goes to a psychic and falls for every word they say, although the jury may have sympathy, I do believe that it’s “common knowledge” that psychics can and do engage in deceptive behavior and ALSO people are absolutely responsible for allowing any person, psychic or not to take control of their lives w/o good reason.

I disagree. The main reason they aren't usually prosecuted (except in the most extreme cases) is that there are a great many believers, and prosecutors (attorneys general, district attorneys or whatever) are political animals.

Also for many people belief in psychics is very similar to a religious belief. Even people who don't believe think that it's just a matter of opinion and they must respect other people's right to believe.



The person who visits the psychic is in no way responsible for the behavior of the psychic, but they are responsible for walking in and handing control over to them. The rape victim is of course an entirely different story, she was engaging in activities that may have unintentionally contributed to the crime, but she did not offer herself up to the rapist, the rapist took by force what she would not have given him voluntarily.

You've made this point before, and it's still wrong. No one offers themselves up to be defrauded. They actually believed the psychic's claim to paranormal powers. These claims are false. The false claims are the basis for taking money, therefore it is fraud. (The victim's motives are irrelevant, but I guarantee you no one wants to be defrauded.)

Further, part of the definition of rape has to do with not having the victim's consent. That is NOT part of the definition of fraud (if we're using consent in your way of reading it--that the client willingly went to the psychic and willingly handed over the money). If that were true, the vast majority of fraud cases would be thrown out because the victim believed the scammer and willingly wrote checks.

[panchov]

and that Mr. Garrette is where we disagree profoundly. As I said, I think it's common knowlege that psychic readings are often "pretend" readings meant to get money or make people feel good. and even if the the customer believes wholeheartedly in psychic abilities, they still have no reason to believe that every person who hangs a shingle saying psychic and tells them they have a curse on them is actually psychic.

When you go to doctor, you would take reasonable actions to make sure the person is actually a doctor, wouldn't you? If the doctor is a fake doctor and gives you indications all the way that he is fake (I'm diagnosing you with someting that beings with A - and you have to supply appendicitus). well something's wrong, you probably wouldn't keep throwing money at him.

I know some psychics have elaborate schemes that can be very tricky. Total sympathy I have for that, and I think the more elaborate the scheme the more likely they will be commiting provable fraud and be liable to prosecution. Hopefully anyway.

[Garrette]

JoeTheJuggler has it absolutely correct. To give a further analogy, I will use the example of The Travelers (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/publications/Brochures/HomeRepairScams.pdf). If you have not heard of this scam, read the link; it's not long.

I've heard of the Travelers. Most of my friends and family have, but not all of them. Not all elderly people have, either, and they are the primary targets. Frankly, even if I had never heard of the Travelers, I would be wary of anyone who knocked on my door out of the blue offering a roof repair, but not all people are so wary.

According to your thinking, panchov, The Travelers are not guilty of fraud even if they don't actually fix the person's roof because the person paid for a Roof Repair and got a Roof Repair.

I'm being serious, and the analogy fits.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's just so much easier to prove financial fraud then psychic fraud. If psychic fraud could be proven as easily, this whole conversation would probably be moot. I do wish ALL people who preyed on vulnerable people could be stopped, but alas sometimes we break moral laws that cannot be prosecuted legally. Life is sometimes unfair!
Psychic fraud (in a legal sense) is financial fraud. It's the taking of money by deception or trickery.

If a person were to claim psychic powers, but never take anyone's money based on that claim, it would not be fraud (in a legal sense). The financial aspect is required.

[Garrette]

I posted my previous post prior to perusing panchov's prior post.

and that Mr. Garrette is where we disagree profoundly.Yes, it is, but the disagreement is more than one of differing interpretations of a subjectively viewed incident. It is one in which your line of thinking is demonstrably inconsistent and incorrect.


As I said, I think it's common knowlege that psychic readings are often "pretend" readings meant to get money or make people feel good. and even if the the customer believes wholeheartedly in psychic abilities, they still have no reason to believe that every person who hangs a shingle saying psychic and tells them they have a curse on them is actually psychic.What else do people have "no reason" to believe completely in? For how many of them do you use this fact to excuse fraud?


When you go to doctor, you would take reasonable actions to make sure the person is actually a doctor, wouldn't you? If the doctor is a fake doctor and gives you indications all the way that he is fake (I'm diagnosing you with someting that beings with A - and you have to supply appendicitus). well something's wrong, you probably wouldn't keep throwing money at him.I'd not only do that, I'd pursue him by every legal means available. This analogy does not help your case. If I go to the doctor for medical care and he provides me medical care, then by your definition it isn't fraud even if the medical care is really medical care.


I know some psychics have elaborate schemes that can be very tricky. Very few schemes are elaborate. The successful ones rely on normal, well understood human frailties and foibles. It does not take great effort to deceive; it takes great confidence.

[JoeTheJuggler]

When you go to doctor, you would take reasonable actions to make sure the person is actually a doctor, wouldn't you? If the doctor is a fake doctor and gives you indications all the way that he is fake (I'm diagnosing you with someting that beings with A - and you have to supply appendicitus). well something's wrong, you probably wouldn't keep throwing money at him.
If you go to someone who holds himself out as a doctor and he is not a doctor, that person has committed a crime. (If he took your money, he'd be guilty of fraud, though I suspect his other crimes would be prosecuted first.)

No psychic I've heard of (except perhaps for the ones that really are for entertainment only at parties--and even they tread the line as I've said) holds himself out to be a fake psychic offering nothing but non-supernatural advice. If you've heard of one, tell me the details. If such a thing exists, it is the exception to the rule to say the least.

You seem to ignore the fact that psychics make false claims. They claim they can foresee your future, that they can lift curses, that they can communicate with deceased loved ones, that they can tell you how to achieve financial and romantic success. These are all fraudulent claims. People pay money thinking they're really going to get these things, but they don't.

[panchov]

Ok, maybe this will help (man didn’t I think I was giving up last night)? – If a person goes to psychic and the psychic says, “I see a little old lady standing over your shoulder,” she might very well be seeing one even if she’s making it up. Sometimes if a person is letting their imagination go wild, trying to come up with something, they can actually see what is in their imagination, therefore they might not be lying. You can’t prove that she’s not seeing a little old lady and you cannot prove that if she is seeing an old lady, it’s not coming from psychic abilities.

If the travelers knock on your door and promises to build siding, but they don’t, you can prove that.

So maybe you are not understanding that I absolutely consider fake psychics to be committing fraud in the MORAL sense – they are taking advantage of vulnerable people through lies, intimidation and manipulation. But in the legal sense, because NOTHING CAN BE PROVED OR DISPROVED, no it is not fraud, unless they engage in further fraudulent activities that can be proved. As I said previously, if you find a way to prosecute these people, I am all for it, but how can you do it? You have to educate people about what is going on instead.

This is what I mean when I say there are moral laws we break that cannot be punished by law.

[Garrette]

Well, panchov, that seems a bit different from the stance you began with, but maybe it's that none of us understood to this point. Or maybe it's that the exercise of trying to communicate it forced you to articulate it more clearly.

That said, I think you need to rethink your position a bit more. Proving fraud with the Travelers is not so clear cut, either. What was agreed to? What is in writing? How can you prove the condition of the roof prior to the Travelers working on it?

Further, you seem to make a distinction with psychics that you do not make with any other profession, i.e., unless they are convicted they have not committed a crime. From the viewpoint of the state/government, you are correct; the government cannot and does not call someone guilty until they are convicted (with the obvious exception of the prosecutor). If that is your criteria, fine, but use it for every profession. The doctor and the Traveler are not guilty of fraud, either, until prosecuted, regardless how easy you think it would be to prove it.

Which gets back to the first point about your apparent misconception regarding relative ease and difficulty of proof.

But let me see if I understand your position. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Real psychics do not exist

2. Alleged psychics are guilty of a moral infraction

3. Alleged psychics are generally not guilty of a legal infraction

Anything else?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok, maybe this will help (man didn’t I think I was giving up last night)? – If a person goes to psychic and the psychic says, “I see a little old lady standing over your shoulder,” she might very well be seeing one even if she’s making it up.
That doesn't matter. She's claiming to have a supernatural power that she doesn't have. It doesn't matter if she hallucinates and thinks the hallucinations are real. She's claiming to have a power she doesn't have and is charging people money based on that claim.

Again, in the real world, I'm not so concerned with small-time "intuitive advisors" or whatever--or even those few psychics who are self-deluded and believe their own nonsense. I'd be happy if the most outrageous psychics--those who financially ruin people, were prosecuted for fraud.

Nonetheless, a small fraud is still fraud. And all these extenuating circumstances do not mean it is wrong to call what they're doing fraud.

Sometimes if a person is letting their imagination go wild, trying to come up with something, they can actually see what is in their imagination, therefore they might not be lying.

They would not be lying if they told you that their advice consists of letting their imagination run wild. If they claim that their advice is based on psychic abilities (and they do--those statements I mentioned ARE actually in psychic's advertisements), they are lying.



So maybe you are not understanding that I absolutely consider fake psychics to be committing fraud in the MORAL sense – they are taking advantage of vulnerable people through lies, intimidation and manipulation.
That's nice. I agree with you except that when you use the term "fake psychics" you imply that there are "real psychics". There are not.

But in the legal sense, because NOTHING CAN BE PROVED OR DISPROVED, no it is not fraud, unless they engage in further fraudulent activities that can be proved. As I said previously, if you find a way to prosecute these people, I am all for it, but how can you do it?
Who says nothing can be proved or disproved? I can easily test the claim that someone can see the future. Read some of the protocols in the Million Dollar Challenge section of the forum to see how it's done.

You have to educate people about what is going on instead.
I agree that education is important. To borrow from RSLancaster, a dose of skepticism can give you immunity to being taken in by con artists in a time of desperation.

I disagree that there is a dichotomy. That because education can protect people from victimization, you don't consider what psychics do to be the crime of fraud. (Again, police try to educate people that it's a good idea to lock your car and not leave valuables in it, but if you did that and someone steals your property, the stealing is still a crime.)


This is what I mean when I say there are moral laws we break that cannot be punished by law.
And there are moral laws that can be broken and are punishable by the legal system. Fraud is one of them.

By the way, I notice you have turned the topic from the question of whether it is fraud to the question of whether they can be successfully prosecuted for it. These are two different issues. I've stated several times the reason why many of these cases aren't prosecuted. That doesn't mean that what the psychic is doing is NOT fraud. The "not fraud" business is the point from your OP that we've been discussing.

[panchov]

No, as for one, I don't know if real psychics exist. Maybe they do and we just haven't seen one yet. (I sort of tend to agree with you guys, that if they did we would know by now, but I don't see that as written in stone).

2, maybe not all of them. I mean if your aunt comes up to you and says she's having a psychic premonition that your going to marry your boyfriend. Maybe not. But anyone who takes money with malicious intent, or who allows themselves to be self deluded to the point where they cause others pain - yes.

3. If it can be proven. Yes they are guilty of a legal infraction.

It may be harder to prove the travelers didn't do your roof, but in this case you would be more likely to have the same documentation that you would ask from any roofer, a signed contract, etc. Now see this could solve the psychic problem right there, if customers walked into a psychic's offce and demanded signed contracts for the things psychics promise (money, husband, whatever) they would have proof, right? How many people would do that though?

The other thing is, if you as a roofer for a contract and they don't give it to you, you might be alarmed enough to stop doing business with them. If you ask a psychic for a contract and they get all up your ass about your negativsim and spirituality you might be intimidated, ashamed of yourself for doubting and you might give the money anyway. But truly, roofers and psychics are really two entirely differnt things - (it's possible to have a picture to document what your roof looked like before, it's not possible to have a picture to document a curse on you that the psychic was supposed to break). Same with doctors or whatever. You can have an exray of a broken bone and a later xray to prove the doctor didn't do what he said. You can prove a fake doctor is fake doctor but how do you prove a fake psychic is fake?

[panchov]

Joe - back to Sylvia - there is nobody who is more open and conspicious that what she's doing is wrong. Unless she submits to the protocol you mentioned, we can't prove she's a fraud (and by the way, that can't prove that psychic abilties don't exist, it can only prove that whomever takes the test doesn't have them).

According to everything you've said repeatedly, a fake psychic is engaging in legal fraud. Ok, this woman is out there and in the open, she's engaged her activties with vulnerable distraught families, she's sent the police on empty chases, she's made incrediblely stupid predictions that didn't come true. So prosecute her. Tell me how to do it and I'll help you!

[JoeTheJuggler]

It may be harder to prove the travelers didn't do your roof, but in this case you would be more likely to have the same documentation that you would ask from any roofer, a signed contract, etc.


The point of the Travelers scam is that you said people who are scammed by psychics got what they bargained for, when they obviously did not.

Now see this could solve the psychic problem right there, if customers walked into a psychic's offce and demanded signed contracts for the things psychics promise (money, husband, whatever) they would have proof, right? How many people would do that though?

I don't see how that would change anything. Fraud is not breach of contract. Even if it were, having a written contract is not a requisite for proving breach of contract.

Again, you seem to be arguing that it's difficult to prosecute a case of fraud (or win a civil suit for fraud) against psychics in some circumstances. I agree with that. I don't think anyone here has said otherwise.

I disagree that what psychics do is not fraud based on the victim's participation (or really any of these other extenuating circumstances you've been raising).

[panchov]

You didn't answer my question. IF a psychic is fake (and according to you they all are) they are commiting legal fraud. Sylvia is a psychic, sylvia is very open about all of her activities. Why isn't she being prosecuted for fraud? (answer, she's not commiting legal fraud.)

[Garrette]

You're bouncing around, panchov. I'll bow out, though, because we're at a point where I agree completely with what JoeTheJuggler is saying. So to save you responding to both of us, I'll let him speak for me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You didn't answer my question. IF a psychic is fake (and according to you they all are) they are commiting legal fraud. Sylvia is a psychic, sylvia is very open about all of her activities. Why isn't she being prosecuted for fraud? (answer, she's not commiting legal fraud.)
Asked and answered on at least 3 occasions.

ETA: Another point already made: if you think that someone's not being prosecuted (for whatever reason) means the crime no longer exists, wouldn't that mean that even one known murder who wasn't prosecuted implies that murder (or at least murder under those circumstances) is not a crime?

ETA (again): See post numbers 40, 92 and 99 for the three occasions. Also, post 41 pointed out that many cases ARE successfully prosecuted.

[Garrette]

Okay, I'm back in for one more. In response to your Sylvia-not-being-prosecuted argument, do you really think that stands up to even the slightest scrutiny?

First, there are many possible reasons for lack of prosecution; the primary one is limited resources. You seem to be laboring under the misperception that there is an all-seeing, all-knowing entity ready and able to swoop down at any time upon anyone who commits a crime. The system doesn't work that way.

Second, by your thinking, the wife beater who is never jailed simply because his wife is too afraid, too shy, too embarrassed, too financially-dependent, to go to the police isn't guilty of a crime.

[ExMinister]

Ummm.....No.

They will get a reading that is portrayed as being psychic. And therein lies the fraud.

Now you may have a mental mechanism which causes you to read "Psychic Reading" as "a deceptive string of statements meant to convince the sitter that the reader is speaking with the dead, the purpose of which is to separate the sitter from his money." If so, I agree.

And if instead of "Psychic Reading" the psychic advertised the above definition, I would say the psychic is not guilty of fraud.

But when the sitter pays for a "Psychic Reading" he is assuming something along the lines of "Information obtained by the reader from the spirits of the deceased."

It is the psychic's knwoing perpetuation of this definition that makes it fraud.

That was a great definition by the way.

Sylvia's web site is a perfect example of a psychic's "knowing perpetuation of this definition." I notice that many of the small-time internet/phone line variety psychics have "For Entertainment Purposes Only" disclaimers on their sites. It seems to ring a bell that Montel has a similar disclaimer regarding Sylvia. There is no such clause on Sylvia's site. Obviously, no sane person pays $750 to a psychic just to be entertained. So is Sylvia just sliding by on this? Has she taken an age-old con to a new level? I wonder what the courts would feel is the limit a person like Sylvia can get away with under the "For Entertainment Purposes" only clause. Not to mention what she can get away with without even bothering with such a disclaimer.

[RSLancastr]

I would really like to poll some members of sylvia's or edward's audiences to see just how many of them have been exposed to the concept of cold reading or whether they are able to recognize that psychics might be frauds. If someone convinced me that the majority of the people were truly unexposed to any such ideas, I might agree with you entirely. I just think they'd have to be living in a cave not to have heard it.I would wager that the vast majority of Browne's audience has never heard of "cold reading." And further, that th majority of those who HAVE heard of it, do not really understand what all it entails.

Since the SSB site began, I have intended to put together an article which goes into detail about what cold reading is, and specifically how Browne uses it. The article would include video clips to illustrate the points. Unfortunately, I have yet to get around to it.

I do refer to cold reading in many articles, and have occasionally included links to some sites where it is defined. And hardly a week goes by without me receiving at least one email from someone who says "You say that you think Sylvia is 'cold reading.' What exactly is that?"

[Garrette]

"You say that you think Sylvia is 'cold reading.' What exactly is that?"It's how you're left feeling when you watch the scam and finally realize it's a scam.

[Frankenstyle]

First, there are many possible reasons for lack of prosecution;


Not the least of which being the difficulty of finding someone willing to attempt to prosecute her in the face of the ensuing poo storm, which would be sure to follow. What government employee would want to be in the center of that media orgy? Sylvia’s supporters would get hours of free press as they scream, “It’s the witch trials all over again! They can’t prove scary mind powers don’t exist”!

Then they’d spend their time in court bogged down while trying to explain why they can’t prove a negative, and that while it may be the prosecution’s job to prove fraud, it’s the defendant’s job to prove any claim of super powers, all in a series of statements as ponderous awkward as this sentence. Since rational thinking isn’t typically conducive to sexy bumper sticker style sound bytes, they’d be perpetually misquoted and portrayed as bumbling idiots. And through it all, Sylvia would be doing interviews incessantly pointing out that if her powers weren’t real, the government wouldn’t find her to be such a threat.

In a court case, even if she lost, she’d win.

[panchov]

Okay, I'm back in for one more. In response to your Sylvia-not-being-prosecuted argument, do you really think that stands up to even the slightest scrutiny?

First, there are many possible reasons for lack of prosecution; the primary one is limited resources. You seem to be laboring under the misperception that there is an all-seeing, all-knowing entity ready and able to swoop down at any time upon anyone who commits a crime. The system doesn't work that way.

Second, by your thinking, the wife beater who is never jailed simply because his wife is too afraid, too shy, too embarrassed, too financially-dependent, to go to the police isn't guilty of a crime.


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
How does saying Sylvia is not committing fraud mean that a wife beater is not guilty of wife beating? That's like saying because OJ Simpson was not found guilty, this Peterson guy is not guilty. One thing has nothing to do with another. Focus on Syliva - if Sylvia was committing Fraud, Sylvia would at the very least have been tried for fraud. She is a very public figure and she is openly doing everything that you guys are labeling as fraud. Nobody has so much as brought charges against her. She is not committing legal fraud.

This isn't a matter of a frightened wife in fear for her life, this is a matter of a very public women, who has many many people who dislike her and would love to see her in jail, but have no means to put here there. She is not committing legal fraud.

[panchov]

Not the least of which being the difficulty of finding someone willing to attempt to prosecute her in the face of the ensuing poo storm, which would be sure to follow. What government employee would want to be in the center of that media orgy? Sylvia’s supporters would get hours of free press as they scream, “It’s the witch trials all over again! They can’t prove scary mind powers don’t exist”!

Then they’d spend their time in court bogged down while trying to explain why they can’t prove a negative, and that while it may be the prosecution’s job to prove fraud, it’s the defendant’s job to prove any claim of super powers, all in a series of statements as ponderous awkward as this sentence. Since rational thinking isn’t typically conducive to sexy bumper sticker style sound bytes, they’d be perpetually misquoted and portrayed as bumbling idiots. And through it all, Sylvia would be doing interviews incessantly pointing out that if her powers weren’t real, the government wouldn’t find her to be such a threat.

In a court case, even if she lost, she’d win.

I suspect there are a lot of prosecutors and govt officials who see the misery she causes and would charge her if they could. The people in the Hornbeck case would almost certainly charge her, they aren't frightened of her.

As for her winning even if she loses, thats a weak argument, if shes committing a crime she should be in jail and I don't see a jail sentence as winning. At the very least, it would open a lot of people's eyes to how she was really operating.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I would wager that the vast majority of Browne's audience has never heard of "cold reading." And further, that th majority of those who HAVE heard of it, do not really understand what all it entails.

Since the SSB site began, I have intended to put together an article which goes into detail about what cold reading is, and specifically how Browne uses it. The article would include video clips to illustrate the points. Unfortunately, I have yet to get around to it.

I do refer to cold reading in many articles, and have occasionally included links to some sites where it is defined. And hardly a week goes by without me receiving at least one email from someone who says "You say that you think Sylvia is 'cold reading.' What exactly is that?"

That's exactly what I thought.

The problem is that they've never heard of cold reading in their lives before and don't have any explanation for how she or any other psychic do what they do, other than that they must be psychic.

If everyone in the world knew what cold reading was and fully understood it, just about no one would fall prey to these flim flam artists.

[panchov]

I just thought of something to put this into perspective.
Think about how often some psychic is on tv or written up about and Randi or Shermer are also interviewed and go into details about how the psychics are using tricks. Do you think that all of those psychic followers who have heard them speak are running for their lives from the psychics? NO!!! They don't want to believe it. They choose not to.
I wish we could do a poll and find out which one of is right.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Focus on Syliva - if Sylvia was committing Fraud, Sylvia would at the very least have been tried for fraud.

That's a false statement, and we've already told you many of the reasons why psychics aren't usually prosecuted for fraud. That she has not be tried or sued doesn't mean she is innocent of fraud. (By the way, she and her husband were actually convicted of fraud, but it wasn't in relation to the psychic business.)

Another one that Frankenstyle touched on is that for a civil suit you need to be a person who can prove damages. Shawn Hornbeck's family can't prove any financial damage (they never paid Sylvia anything, and I doubt they lost any wages or anything like that over Sylvia's reading--maybe they could sue for psychotherapy bills, but Sylvia's contribution to that was probably far less than Michael Devlin's). Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress is a possibility, but you'd need to prove intention (and I honestly doubt that Sylvia's intention was to cause emotional distress--she was just playing the odds since most kids who are missing that long are in fact dead).

[JoeTheJuggler]

I just thought of something to put this into perspective.
Think about how often some psychic is on tv or written up about and Randi or Shermer are also interviewed and go into details about how the psychics are using tricks. Do you think that all of those psychic followers who have heard them speak are running for their lives from the psychics? NO!!! They don't want to believe it. They choose not to.
I wish we could do a poll and find out which one of is right.

You're correct. But this observation is still completely irrelevant to whether or not the psychic has committed fraud.

FWIW, there are believers who are persuaded by facts and logic to change their attitude. As someone recently pointed out (somewhere in the JREF forums) most skeptics were once believers--at least in our younger years. Up until the age of 13 or so, I ate up all the pseudoscience and woo woo stuff I could find in the library.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I suspect there are a lot of prosecutors and govt officials who see the misery she causes and would charge her if they could. The people in the Hornbeck case would almost certainly charge her, they aren't frightened of her.

As for her winning even if she loses, thats a weak argument, if shes committing a crime she should be in jail and I don't see a jail sentence as winning. At the very least, it would open a lot of people's eyes to how she was really operating.
For Hornbeck's family to sue, they'd need to prove damages (see above).

I think you're wrong that prosecutors would press charges if they could. I think just the opposite. They would prefer to avoid it at all costs. Only in cases where the psychic has bilked someone out of their life's savings do they seem to be willing to press charges. It's not a popular thing to do given the huge number of believers.

Again, we've already covered this, and none of it has any bearing on the point of contention--your assertion that psychics don't commit fraud because of the victim's participation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If everyone in the world knew what cold reading was and fully understood it, just about no one would fall prey to these flim flam artists.

I agree. In another thread where the topic was something like, "Could you ever be desperate enough to turn to a psychic for help?" Robert made the point that while most people in dire straits would be vulnerable, a good dose of knowledge ahead of time can make you immune to that option even in the most tragic of circumstances.

[panchov]

For Hornbeck's family to sue, they'd need to prove damages (see above).

I think you're wrong that prosecutors would press charges if they could. I think just the opposite. They would prefer to avoid it at all costs. Only in cases where the psychic has bilked someone out of their life's savings do they seem to be willing to press charges. It's not a popular thing to do given the huge number of believers.

Again, we've already covered this, and none of it has any bearing on the point of contention--your assertion that psychics don't commit fraud because of the victim's participation.

ok I'm go to say something, its going to look like like screaming, but it's not screaming, it's emphasis -

PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT I SAID IT'S IT'S NOT FRAUD BECAUSE THE OF THE VICTIMS PARTICIPATION.

IT'S NOT FRAUD BECAUSE ANY RATIONAL ADULT KNOWS THAT A PSYCHIC READING MAY OR MAY NOT BE LIES TOLD FOR FUN OR PROFIT, AND THUS WHEN THEY PAY FOR A PSYCHIC READING THEY ARE GETTING WHAT THEY ASK FOR.

MY POINT ABOUT THEM PARTICIPATING IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OFF THE PSYCHIC FOR THEIR ACTIONS. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT, THE PSYCHIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. HOWEVER, IF PEOPLE STOP PUTTING THEMSELVES IN VULNERABLE POSITIONS IN THE PATH OF PREDATORS, THE PREDATORS WON'T BE EATING SO MANY OF THEM FOR DINNER.

I feel better. You're probably going to repeat what I just told you isn't true anyway, but at least I got it off my chest.

and yes my comment about randi and shermer is EXACTLY to the point because your whole argument is, if they knew what a cold reading was, if they knew psychic's were frauds, if anybody had ever told them that, they would not participate. My argument is, most of them know exactly what a psychic reading really is, something that has no proof and may or may not be true, yet the choose to believe. They are participants. That does not mean that the psychic is not guilty, the psychic is totally responsible for their own actions. OK OK OK OK?

[JoeTheJuggler]

ok I'm go to say something, its going to look like like screaming, but it's not screaming, it's emphasis -

PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT I SAID IT'S IT'S NOT FRAUD BECAUSE THE OF THE VICTIMS PARTICIPATION.

IT'S NOT FRAUD BECAUSE ANY RATIONAL ADULT KNOWS THAT A PSYCHIC READING MAY OR MAY NOT BE LIES TOLD FOR FUN OR PROFIT, AND THUS WHEN THEY PAY FOR A PSYCHIC READING THEY ARE GETTING WHAT THEY ASK FOR.

Bull.

Here's what you said in the OP (again):
I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

In this post you are suggesting that the victim's participation is what makes it not fraud.

OK--even though you certainly imply that it is the victim's participation that is the reason why you say it's not fraud, I'll go back to your text.

I guess you're separating "adults" from "victims"? In your OP I read that be referring to the same group of people.

So I guess you're saying that since we adults (other than the victims of psychic fraud) know that they're all "hoo hoo", anyone who falls victim is irrational and that somehow makes the psychic's actions not fraud??

Seriously, if you're not saying what it looks like you said (that the victim's participation is the reason you say it's not fraud), then I don't know how to read your OP--which is what we've been discussing.

The bit I bolded in your OP is exactly what I'm focused on.


MY POINT ABOUT THEM PARTICIPATING IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OFF THE PSYCHIC FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT, THE PSYCHIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

Sorry--but that is in direct contradiction with the bit in bold. You said you don't consider what they do to be fraud.

and yes my comment about randi and shermer is EXACTLY to the point because your whole argument is, if they knew what a cold reading was, if they knew psychic's were frauds, if anybody had ever told them that, they would not participate.
That's like saying if we could only put burglar alarms or some other fool proof anti-theft device on every car, then cars wouldn't be stolen. I agree wholeheartedly, but that doesn't mean that stealing cars is not a crime--not even if the victim's car has no burglar alarm--or even if he leaves the car unlocked and the keys in the ignition.

I agree that we should do our best to educate everyone in the world about cold reading and so on. However, that doesn't mean that bilking people out of their money with claims of psychic powers is not fraud.



My argument is, most of them know exactly what a psychic reading really is, something that has no proof and may or may not be true, yet the choose to believe. They are participants.

And there I think you're simply wrong and contradicting yourself.

The wrong part: people who go to psychics by and large believe in the purported abilities. They pay their money to get the benefit of these powers. The powers don't exist, so they're not getting what they paid for.


The contradictory part: You just said if they knew what was really going on (cold reading), but here you're saying they do know what's going on and yet choose to participate anyway.

That does not mean that the psychic is not guilty, the psychic is totally responsible for their own actions. OK OK OK OK?
OK. So you've changed your position since the OP. Thank you.

[panchov]

Shoot I just went back and looked it up, I did say that its not fraud when the victim participates. I think I meant that in the sense a victim fills in the blanks for the psychic, you can't call the psychic fraudulent for telling them what the victim said themselves.

I've been arguing about this for too long. But there is no way that anything the victim does that makes the psychic less guilty. It just doesn't work that way.

Here's the thing - I say a victim (and I still have trouble with that word) knows what a psychic reading is, and you interpret that as me saying the "victim" is asking to be defrauded. What I'm saying is that they know the psychic COULD be a fraud. Of course if they believed that John Edward was a fraud they wouldn't hand over their money and ask for a reading, but they know he could be. THey CHOOSE to believe.

But just to make my point, even in an instance where the "victim" absolutely believed the psychic was a fraud - an example of that would be a police sting. So this person is KNOWINGLY handing over money to someone who is scamming them. Does this in any way make them responsible for the actions of the psychic? Does it absolve the psychic of any guilt? No of course not. Neither does someone who chooses to believe and hands over the money in any way lesson the guilt of the psychic. But their actions did contribute to the outcome.

[my_wan]

I disagree. There is still fraud if they hold themselves out as offering a service that is based on the claim that they are psychic or have paranormal powers.

It doesn't matter if the only advice they give is normal, common-sense advice, they are still advertising themselves as psychic. Their ability to take people's money is based on this claim, which is false or deceptive, so it is still fraud.

However, in realistic terms, I would be in favor of going after the ones who have done the most egregious things, bilking people out of their life's savings before worrying about small time stuff. (Also, there are psychics who work parties and tread the fine line between pure entertainment and actually holding themselves out as offering information and advice from paranormal means.)

I'm with you here. I noted when I spoke of the possible content of a new law that I wasn't entirely happy with it. It's just a pragmatic "entertainment" concession to protect the most vulnerable among us. At least if all that ever happened was people losing $30 bucks on a reading I could get a good laugh at their expense. I wouldn't have to deal with the gut anger at seeing the emotionally and financially vulnerable sucked dry by these vampires.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Shoot I just went back and looked it up, I did say that its not fraud when the victim participates. I think I meant that in the sense a victim fills in the blanks for the psychic, you can't call the psychic fraudulent for telling them what the victim said themselves.
(My bolding.)
I don't know about that, but you can call them fraudulent for taking the victim's money by claiming to have psychic powers.

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? I've said this before. It doesn't matter if the psychic only gives common sense advice. The point is, they are holding themselves out as having supernatural powers (which they don't). The victim is paying for the benefit of those powers and not getting what is bargained for.


I've been arguing about this for too long. But there is no way that anything the victim does that makes the psychic less guilty. It just doesn't work that way.

I agree completely (in fact that's what I've been saying to you repeatedly), but you're contradicting what you just said above (see bolded text) and earlier in this thread.


Here's the thing - I say a victim (and I still have trouble with that word) knows what a psychic reading is, and you interpret that as me saying the "victim" is asking to be defrauded.

No, I pointed out that they are NOT asking to be defrauded. No more than I am asking to be punched in the nose in my doctor's office analogy. You said the two are different because the victim of psychic fraud is asking for it. In fact, they are asking for something they're not getting (a reading based on paranormal powers).

You have said that the victim is getting what he wants, and I disagreed pointing out that no one wants to be defrauded or lied to. (Again, the lying need not be in the reading--just in the fact that the psychic claims to have supernatural powers which they most certainly do not have.)

What I'm saying is that they know the psychic COULD be a fraud. Of course if they believed that John Edward was a fraud they wouldn't hand over their money and ask for a reading, but they know he could be. THey CHOOSE to believe.

Yes, and I know my car COULD be stolen today. So? If it's stolen, it's still a crime.
I'm not sure what you're driving at now. You do admit that what psychics do is fraud and that the victim's state of mind or motivation or whatever does nothing to exculpate the psychic, right?

Here it sounds like you're contradicting yourself--that the victim thinks the psychic is fake yet chooses to believe--although as you point out if they thought she was fake they wouldn't hand over their money.

But just to make my point, even in an instance where the "victim" absolutely believed the psychic was a fraud - an example of that would be a police sting. So this person is KNOWINGLY handing over money to someone who is scamming them. Does this in any way make them responsible for the actions of the psychic? Does it absolve the psychic of any guilt? No of course not. Neither does someone who chooses to believe and hands over the money in any way lesson the guilt of the psychic. But their actions did contribute to the outcome.
Good example. In fact, this is the only situation I can think of (a police sting, or a skeptic doing research) where a psychic has a customer who disbelieves the psychic claims. Another possible exception would be at a party where a "fortune teller" is there for entertainment, and people are just playing along for fun--though again, these things tend to tread the line between "entertainment" and taking them seriously.

[panchov]

(My bolding.)
I don't know about that, but you can call them fraudulent for taking the victim's money by claiming to have psychic powers.

You haven't been reading my posts, have you? I've said this before. It doesn't matter if the psychic only gives common sense advice. The point is, they are holding themselves out as having supernatural powers (which they don't). The victim is paying for the benefit of those powers and not getting what is bargained for.


I agree completely (in fact that's what I've been saying to you repeatedly), but you're contradicting what you just said above (see bolded text) and earlier in this thread.


No, I pointed out that they are NOT asking to be defrauded. No more than I am asking to be punched in the nose in my doctor's office analogy. You said the two are different because the victim of psychic fraud is asking for it. In fact, they are asking for something they're not getting (a reading based on paranormal powers).

You have said that the victim is getting what he wants, and I disagreed pointing out that no one wants to be defrauded or lied to. (Again, the lying need not be in the reading--just in the fact that the psychic claims to have supernatural powers which they most certainly do not have.)


Yes, and I know my car COULD be stolen today. So? If it's stolen, it's still a crime.
I'm not sure what you're driving at now. You do admit that what psychics do is fraud and that the victim's state of mind or motivation or whatever does nothing to exculpate the psychic, right?

Here it sounds like you're contradicting yourself--that the victim thinks the psychic is fake yet chooses to believe--although as you point out if they thought she was fake they wouldn't hand over their money.


Good example. In fact, this is the only situation I can think of (a police sting, or a skeptic doing research) where a psychic has a customer who disbelieves the psychic claims. Another possible exception would be at a party where a "fortune teller" is there for entertainment, and people are just playing along for fun--though again, these things tend to tread the line between "entertainment" and taking them seriously.

First off, Happy THanksgiving Everyone!

Our whole point of disagreement seems to be (and I'm pretty sure I've said "our whole point of disagreement seems to be.." before but I thought it was something else) - I think though, it is what we expect a reasonable person to know about a psychic reading. Because when I say, they asked for a psychic reading and they got it, so it's not fraud, I"m not saying they asked to be tricked so the got it. I"m saying they asked for a psychic reading knowing full well that the person may or may not be psychic and the reading may or may not be true. The fact that they choose to believe the person is psychic in no way takes away the fact that they KNOW SHE MIGHT NOT BE.

Dragging stolen cars and Enron into is not helping. The question of fraud is the question Did they get what they paid for? I say, yes, they got information from someone that any reasonable adult would know was possibly not true. You say no because no reasonable adult is expected to use reasonable judgment, but when they see a psychic it is instead reasonable to believe everything that psychic says without question.

Did I get that wrong? I think I got it right.

[panchov]

I'm with you here. I noted when I spoke of the possible content of a new law that I wasn't entirely happy with it. It's just a pragmatic "entertainment" concession to protect the most vulnerable among us. At least if all that ever happened was people losing $30 bucks on a reading I could get a good laugh at their expense. I wouldn't have to deal with the gut anger at seeing the emotionally and financially vulnerable sucked dry by these vampires.

Would you do me a favor and tell these people why you would get a good laugh at the expense of people they are calling victims? It might help me. Thanks.

[Big Les]

panchov, your suggestion that the clients CHOOSE is simplistic. Sure, some believers, given umpteen chances to review the sceptical side of the story, still visit psychics. They are wilfully ignorant and are to some extent deserving of what happens to them. This still does not absolve the psychic of blame, as you've acknowleged.

Now, many other believers are not so strong in their belief, but simply haven't had occassion to hear about cold reading, warm reading, subjective validation and confirmation bias. They aren't equipped to make an informed choice. They still choice, but they do so without knowledge that, if they had it, might make them slap their foreheads and curse their own gullibility. These people, by my estimation, especially deserve help in the form of any education we get to them, and if possible, some form of sanction for the psychic that tricked them. Even better would be psychics in general to avoid people being caught them out in the first place, but let's not go back down the practicality of legal action route again...

[panchov]

Well I was so curious, I pulled out my old Lexis Nexis and did some research.
Check this out:

The essence of fortune-telling and prophecy, on the other hand, is the expression of an opinion about the future. To the extent these opinions prove to be wrong, they are closer to the realm of false ideas than to false statements of fact. The Supreme Court has distinguished false ideas from false statements of facts: "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. [Fn. omitted.]" ( Gertz v. Welch, supra, 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [41 L.Ed.2d 789, 805].)

Admittedly, "everyone knows" (including the members of this court) that no one can really predict future happenings in an individual life or a society. And certainly "everyone knows" one cannot discern those happenings in a palm, a crystal ball, or tea leaves. But that "everyone" considers it a "false idea" someone can do so and rejects the opinions so derived as "false opinions" does not diminish their status as ideas and opinions. And as such they have some social importance within [*19] the meaning of the First Amendment, especially since the topic they concern -- the future -- is itself a matter of substantial significance to the general public.

One need not have a scientific basis for a belief in order to have a constitutional right to utter speech based upon that belief. Indeed the belief may be one so absurd as to be unworthy of scientific investigation, yet be an appropriate subject of constitutionally protected speech. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that the underlying premises of fortune-telling currently are the subject of serious scientific research. Several well-regarded universities, colleges and independent research institutes have active programs in the area of parapsychology or PSI research. 11 Among the topics under study in this field is "precognition" -- the question whether some individuals indeed have an ability to foresee the future. 12 This is not to say that precognition has been scientifically validated or that it ever will be. But the mere fact the phenomena underlying fortune-telling are the subject of serious scientific inquiry underscores the danger of writing off any belief as completely incredible or prohibiting any speech [*20] based on such belief on grounds it is inherently false and fraudulent.

[my_wan]

Would you do me a favor and tell these people why you would get a good laugh at the expense of people they are calling victims? It might help me. Thanks.

Don't go there, your characterization is upsetting. I'm not with you on this issue. Laughing at a psychic idiot that's done no more harm that a ticket to a magic show does not lend anything to your argument here. Claiming psychics lack culpability because victims are responsible for taking part is atrocious. As I noted when I agreed to concessions I didn't like it. It was a purely pragmatic legal concession so long as it doesn't lead to extortion.

[panchov]

Don't go there, your characterization is upsetting. I'm not with you on this issue. Laughing at a psychic idiot that's done no more harm that a ticket to a magic show does not lend anything to your argument here. Claiming psychics lack culpability because victims are responsible for taking part is atrocious. As I noted when I agreed to concessions I didn't like it. It was a purely pragmatic legal concession so long as it doesn't lead to extortion.

My characterization is upsetting? I've gone into detail several times about why I don't believe the psychics loose any culpability regardless of what the customer does. And you did not say you were laughing at the psychics, you said you were laughing at the psychic's customers. I must not be psychic because I'm not reading your true intent here at all.

[Cuddles]

You didn't answer my question. IF a psychic is fake (and according to you they all are) they are commiting legal fraud. Sylvia is a psychic, sylvia is very open about all of her activities. Why isn't she being prosecuted for fraud? (answer, she's not commiting legal fraud.)

The obvious point that I haven't noticed anyone make yet is that Sylvia has in fact been convicted of fraud (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/peoplevsbrown.shtml). Admittedly not in relation to her psychic claims, but as the old saying goes, a convicted fraudster doesn't change her spots.

[remirol]

The question of fraud is the question Did they get what they paid for? I say, yes, they got information from someone that any reasonable adult would know was possibly not true.

That's not an accurate statement of the circumstances; it's a special-pleading for the psychic's cause via the terms "reasonable adult".

There is no justification for the assumption that the client paid for possibly-inaccurate information other than your already-refuted statement that "everyone knows psychics aren't real." It is patently obvious that _not_ everyone knows this, and in fact a large portion of the public has been improperly educated about whether or not such a thing (psychic phenomena) is even possible. (Watch Montel sometime, or any other talk show where psychics appear. Look at those people and tell me they don't believe.)

Given that the psychic said he/she could do X, the client paid for X, and instead received Y, that is fraud.

The client should certainly learn from this, make no mistake; repeated visits to a psychic when the psychic was wrong every time start to fall into the "no sympathy" category. But to say that the client necessarily shares any blame here for the FIRST visit is simply wrong; it's the blame-the-victim mentality all over again.

[Big Les]

panchov's post #182 suggests that US law allows for psychics possibly being the real deal, based on the fact that some people continue to investigate their claims scientifically. This makes about as much sense as an ashtray on a motorbike. How does the attempt to prove an idea true lend it any credence???

Note though that they are talking about the beliefs behind participation in psychic nonsense, not dealing with the taking of money based on that nonsense. In other words can can spout as much psychic chat as you like as long as you are either not charging for it, or have a suitably worded disclaimer (ie entertainment only).

The changes in UK law stand a chance of making it easier to bring charges and successfully prosecute charging psychics under similar precepts as Trade Descriptions, which is still not directly addressing the veracity of supernatural claims that might be at the root of a given case, but given a suitable case precedent where it is demonstrated that the psychic can't prove their abilities, who knows...

[panchov]

Of course they believe, I"m not saying they don't. But did you read what the judge said repeatedly in the order 'EVERYBODY KNOWS'. THey have the information, they decide to believe.

Why do you think whenever someone goes to a psychic the first thing they do is talk about how many hits they psychic got? EVERYBODY KNOWS it might be wrong.

Some of the research I've come up with - (as you read in the order) psychic speech is protected by freedom of speech. Criminal utterances are never protected. Otherwise our traveler friends when brought to court would be able to say, Oh I said I would build a roof? What's wrong with that, this is America, I can say anything I want.

THe judge said it way better than I did. I psychic reading is an opinion. That's exactly what I mean when I say they get what they ask for. THey ask for the psychic's opinion. I"ve heard famous psychics say it over and over, "It feels like I'm going crazy, but this is how the spirits talk to me." Or "It feels like I'm making it up, but this is how the spirits talk to me." Opinion.

Legally, a psychics opinion is considered to be in the same category as a sports forecast or weather prediction. Opinion. You wouldn't accuse them of fraud, would you? What would you say to someone who made a huge bet based on a sports prediction, then tried to sue the sportscaster for fraud?

I was reading some more stuff about Sylvia - there was one story where she told a woman her father wasn't her father. In my opinion, this a type of violence. Unfortunately, I see know way it can be called fraud or no way it can be prosecuted for anything.

[panchov]

Well now I can use it.

The post wasn't some guy talking about psychics (my fault, I should have made it clear). It was taken from a Judge's opinion, thus it is all about the law. Secondly, the case was about a professional psychic (who took money for her services) whom the city tried to shut down. SHe sued and what you read was part of the judge's ruling.

[ExMinister]

Well I was so curious, I pulled out my old Lexis Nexis and did some research.
Check this out:

The essence of fortune-telling and prophecy, on the other hand, is the expression of an opinion about the future. To the extent these opinions prove to be wrong, they are closer to the realm of false ideas than to false statements of fact. The Supreme Court has distinguished false ideas from false statements of facts: "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. [Fn. omitted.]" ( Gertz v. Welch, supra, 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [41 L.Ed.2d 789, 805].)

Admittedly, "everyone knows" (including the members of this court) that no one can really predict future happenings in an individual life or a society. And certainly "everyone knows" one cannot discern those happenings in a palm, a crystal ball, or tea leaves. But that "everyone" considers it a "false idea" someone can do so and rejects the opinions so derived as "false opinions" does not diminish their status as ideas and opinions. And as such they have some social importance within [*19] the meaning of the First Amendment, especially since the topic they concern -- the future -- is itself a matter of substantial significance to the general public.

One need not have a scientific basis for a belief in order to have a constitutional right to utter speech based upon that belief. Indeed the belief may be one so absurd as to be unworthy of scientific investigation, yet be an appropriate subject of constitutionally protected speech. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that the underlying premises of fortune-telling currently are the subject of serious scientific research. Several well-regarded universities, colleges and independent research institutes have active programs in the area of parapsychology or PSI research. 11 Among the topics under study in this field is "precognition" -- the question whether some individuals indeed have an ability to foresee the future. 12 This is not to say that precognition has been scientifically validated or that it ever will be. But the mere fact the phenomena underlying fortune-telling are the subject of serious scientific inquiry underscores the danger of writing off any belief as completely incredible or prohibiting any speech [*20] based on such belief on grounds it is inherently false and fraudulent.

Even the supreme court sounds confused. First, "everyone knows" (even the members of the court) that it's all bunk. Then, there is a "danger," thanks to the existence of scientific research being carried out on the subject, of writing off any such belief as "completely incredible."

Research is obviously necessary and important. Unfortunately, it strikes me that the fact that this is being researched by "well-regarded universities" makes it even easier for "reasonable adults" to be duped these days by someone like Sylvia Browne. Combine that with the best-selling books/DVDs out there like what the bleep and the secret, where quantum physics is said to support this type of phenomenon, and suddenly people even think there's scientific validation for it. Whether there is or isn't (physics isn't my strong suit; wish it was), it has created the ideal conditions for someone like Sylvia to thrive. So again, I'll repeat that while I fully agree that people are responsible for their actions and choices, it's just not true that the average reasonable adult knows this is all "hoo hoo."

[ExMinister]

I agree it's a form of violence. That's a good way to put it. Regardless of where the law stands, charging people for something you are only pretending to do for them is wrong. I think we can all agree that especially when we see this happening on a large scale, which is a greater public threat than some little pyschic on a street corner, it's worthwhile for those who know better to come forward to try to educate the public and put a stop to it. Personally, I think it's the average "reasonable" adult who is most grateful for this type of information when they've for one reason or another started to get drawn in by such a person.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It was taken from a Judge's opinion, thus it is all about the law.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things written in an opinion that do not constitute case law. It could be dictum (stuff a judge says that goes beyond the scope of the case and can sway future opinions, but isn't binding law), it could be a dissenting opinion, or it could be out-dated case law (where other cases have said otherwise).

You're citing from a civil case, so it also has no bearing on the crime of fraud--just the tort.

Also, what you cited is patently wrong. "Everyone" does not know that psychics can't tell the future (or communicate with the dead, lift curses, etc.). Psychics make those claims and offer to do those things for money. That is fraud.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course they believe, I"m not saying they don't. But did you read what the judge said repeatedly in the order 'EVERYBODY KNOWS'. THey have the information, they decide to believe.

Why do you think whenever someone goes to a psychic the first thing they do is talk about how many hits they psychic got? EVERYBODY KNOWS it might be wrong.

Some of the research I've come up with - (as you read in the order) psychic speech is protected by freedom of speech. Criminal utterances are never protected.
I'm certain that's not true as a blanket statement the way you are characterizing it. My proof? That psychics have in fact been convicted of fraud. By your reading these prosecutions are always impossible.

I would agree that the speech is protected--they're free to say they talk to angels or whatever. I'm equally certain that they cannot use lies and deception to take your money.

Otherwise our traveler friends when brought to court would be able to say, Oh I said I would build a roof? What's wrong with that, this is America, I can say anything I want.
By your reading, our Traveler friends have an airtight defense by saying that their statements were told to them by angels. Thus their statements were psychic utterances, and protected. It doesn't matter that the statements were false. The same could be true with cases of libel and slander--and any other crime that depends on a speech act. Just say it's psychic, and you can't be prosecuted.

Trouble is, that's simply not true.

By the way, before this gets very confused, as I've said repeatedly, the fraud is not necessarily in what the psychic says during a reading. She could give normal common sense advice, say everything is just an opinion. The fraud is that she is claiming (in advertisements and so on) to have supernatural powers that she does not possess. The victim is giving money based on this claim.


THe judge said it way better than I did. I psychic reading is an opinion. That's exactly what I mean when I say they get what they ask for. THey ask for the psychic's opinion. I"ve heard famous psychics say it over and over, "It feels like I'm going crazy, but this is how the spirits talk to me." Or "It feels like I'm making it up, but this is how the spirits talk to me." Opinion.

Again, it's a huge stretch to characterize these things that way. (How is, for example, "I see a figure next to your shoulder" a statement of opinion?) Even if it's an opinion, it's an opinion that's claimed to be based on supernatural powers. That's what they're paying for, and they're not getting it.

How about this, some psychics are only mediums. Their "readings" consist of pretending to converse (or in some cases "channel") your deceased loved ones. This is all a sham--it's fake, it's acting. The people who pay for it believe it. How is this in any way an opinion? Surely you're not claiming that the people who eat this up really know that it's fake, but just want to give their money away for something they know is fake? And even if they did--so what? How would their masochism excuse the fact that the medium is using faked voices, sometimes using (bad versions of) magician's tricks and hot reading to enhance the effect? How would it change the fact that the medium is lying to the client/victim when he or she says he is communicating with your Aunt Edna?



Legally, a psychics opinion is considered to be in the same category as a sports forecast or weather prediction. Opinion. You wouldn't accuse them of fraud, would you? What would you say to someone who made a huge bet based on a sports prediction, then tried to sue the sportscaster for fraud?

I don't buy that for a minute.

Weather forecaster: There's an 80% chance of showers tomorrow afternoon.
Psychic: Your son is dead and buried in the woods to the west of your town near a couple of large rocks.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's some victim's accounts:

http://www.gypsypsychicscams.com/realstories.html

These are the victims of con artists.

Here's another arrest story:

http://starbulletin.com/98/01/16/news/story2.html
IN this one, they charged the con artist with "second-degree theft". I suspect that the difficulties in prosecuting fraud (as have been mentioned several times) is why frequently they'll find easier to prove charges, depending on the circumstances of the case. Here's a great quote from the article:
"It's a typical, gypsy-type scam," [police detective] Kiyotoki said. "It's theft by deception."

Here's a story from across the pond where arresting a psychic healer turned up a drug ring:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6296265.stm

And do you even want to try to say that psychic surgeons aren't committing fraud? These are the people who use chicken guts (or other animal organs) and blood to fake removing tumors from people's bodies with their bare hands. They take their victims money based on the assertion that they're healing them of cancer or whatever.

The "cursed money" scam seems to be the biggest one for bilking victims out of their life savings. This is where it's obvious that it's a confidence game. They develop a rapport with the victim over time leading up to these outrageous statements only when the victim would trust them literally with their life's savings. Here's another example of that racket:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2537420/detail.html

I utterly reject the notion that someone will turn over their life savings to a stranger if they have any suspicion that it could be fake. They believe utterly. And, once again, even if the victim were some sort of person who knows it's fake but writes the check for tens of thousands of dollars (or hands over a stack of hundred dollar bills, or whatever), this apparently contradictory situation (that you assert--people who know it's fake but choose to believe) does NOTHING to change the fact that the con artist is a criminal.

[panchov]

Joe, you do understand that psychics legally practice all over the country and most of them have licenses issued from their municipalities to practice?

I really tried to find ONE instance where a psychic was prosecuted solely on the basis that he/she took money because they said their readings were from paranormal sources. The ones I found who were prosecuted had gone above and beyond that and were prosecuted because they engaged in things like keeping money they said they had burned.

THere were however, several cases where psychics had been shut down and sued the government (like the one above) - in every instance that I found, the psychic won. THe case I cited has a lot to do with criminal law, it explains why you can't find any evidence that Sylvia is a fraud. According to our government, she's not one!

And no the travelers would not be protected because even if they said the angels told them to make a contract to build your roof, they still would have made the contract to build your roof. Psychics when they take your money, they make a contract to give you their opinions. That's what they do. Again, are you going to sue the sportscaster?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fortune teller arrested in Calgary: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/10/05/fortune-arrest.html

Psychic already being sued for fraud is arrested for shoplifting:
http://www.cultnews.com/?p=873

In 1975, the FTC cracked down on psychic surgery tours (where the psychic surgery was done outside of US jurisdiction) calling it "a total hoax":
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E17F73C5B157493C7AB178BD95F41 8785F9
(I'm not sure, but you may need to be a NY Times subscriber to read these articles. I am, so I'm never sure what non-subscribers see on-line.)

Here's a statement on faith healing and psychic surgery by the National Council on Health Fraud:
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/faith.html

Japanese psychic arrested for exorcism fraud:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2682871.stm

Psychic healer arrested in Toronto:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15400022
Nice quote from this article:
According to Detective Doug Dunstan, "Our concern is that he is a fake and he is taking money away from people who are suffering from serious illnesses like cancer."

Apparently the psychic healers are easier cases to make (or they garner more sympathy and less political risk for prosecutors), but there's nothing fundamentally different about a psychic healer and a medium and a fortune teller. They're all making claims to powers they don't have and taking money based on those deceptions and lies.

Also, it seems like it's easier to get people who use the mail or telephones--mail fraud and wire fraud are probably easier cases to make. Remember, Al Capone was only busted for tax evasion--it doesn't mean he committed no other crimes, just that that was the only crime they could make a good case for.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, you do understand that psychics legally practice all over the country and most of them have licenses issued from their municipalities to practice?
No, I don't understand that. I'm certain my municipality does not issue a license to practice psychic powers. They issue generic business licenses, which is not what you're claiming here.



I really tried to find ONE instance where a psychic was prosecuted solely on the basis that he/she took money because they said their readings were from paranormal sources. The ones I found who were prosecuted had gone above and beyond that and were prosecuted because they engaged in things like keeping money they said they had burned.

Again, that it's difficult to prosecute is not the same thing as saying it's not a crime.

Listen, Panchov, you're just repeating the same assertions which have already been addressed. You also keep shifting the topic around.

The point I disagreed with (and never thought would expand into this) is that the participation of the victim does not mean that what a psychic does is not a fraud. Your assertion that everyone knows that psychics are fake so what they do isn't fraud is simply not true (and doesn't even make sense).

I totally agree that education and helping people avoid becoming victims is a good thing. I also agree that it is very difficult to prosecute psychics for fraud.

[panchov]

No, I don't understand that. I'm certain my municipality does not issue a license to practice psychic powers. They issue generic business licenses, which is not what you're claiming here.


Again, that it's difficult to prosecute is not the same thing as saying it's not a crime.

Listen, Panchov, you're just repeating the same assertions which have already been addressed. You also keep shifting the topic around.

The point I disagreed with (and never thought would expand into this) is that the participation of the victim does not mean that what a psychic does is not a fraud. Your assertion that everyone knows that psychics are fake so what they do isn't fraud is simply not true (and doesn't even make sense).

I totally agree that education and helping people avoid becoming victims is a good thing. I also agree that it is very difficult to prosecute psychics for fraud.

No I'm not shifting things around.

First off, I'm not getting into the foreign cases because I don't know how and where they apply free speech. I'm talking about American law here.

Second the case that I cited you was about a woman's practice being shut down by her city. I don't think it's so much that they have a specific license for psychics only, it's that they can only issue generic licenses to people engaging in legal activities. They would for instance, not issue a license to someone selling crack. And if they did issue a license to someone whose business was synonymous with fraud, and someone was hurt, they would be as liable as the psychic.

In the case above, and in many others, the city tried shut her psychic services down on the grounds that they felt psychic activities were fraudulent, but the court overruled them every time saying this is a matter of free speech. Everybody knows that psychic readings are the opinion of the psychic, both the psychic and the client have a right to exercise free speech in discussing it. What they choose to believe regarding what they discuss is up to them.

You never answered my question about the sportscaster, and I'm not the one drawing the analogy between the sportscaster and the psychic, it comes from court opinions.

Also, I didn't read all of your links, but the for instance with the woman and the worm - as soon as she starts using props and lying about the props it becomes fraud, it is no matter an issue of her opinion. She's flat out lying in a attempt to coerce people into giving her money and committing fraud.

Somebody count for him how many times I have said that what the victim does has nothing to do with the culpability of the criminal (except I would argue when the client supplies information that the psychic repeats back them because then you'd just be calling the psychic a fraud for agreeing with the victim). The psychic isn't committing fraud because giving psychic readings is not fraud.

It's absurd that you keep saying over and over it's hard to prove that psychics give psychic readings, that's ALL they do. The psychic on my block has a huge sign up saying that. When she applied for business license I'm sure she wrote that down in English and it was approved by the city.

Sylvia gives readings once a week on national tv. How can you keep saying you can't prove that's what she's doing and that's why you can't charge her?

Scams using props are entirely different things.

The fact that you've addressed my assertions in no way invalidates them, you're not using logic.

[remirol]

In the case above, and in many others, the city tried shut her psychic services down on the grounds that they felt psychic activities were fraudulent, but the court overruled them every time saying this is a matter of free speech.

And in the other cases cited, the psychics were convicted of fraud, right?

Everybody knows that psychic readings are the opinion of the psychic,

Could you please stop saying this? It simply isn't true. Stop trying to base assertions on it. Stop trying to cite it as a premise for an argument. "Everybody knows..." is junk logic, pure and simple.

:deadhorse

both the psychic and the client have a right to exercise free speech in discussing it. What they choose to believe regarding what they discuss is up to them.

This shouldn't even be a free speech issue; the psychic's place of business is private property, and "free speech" as defined by the First Amendment is specifically related to governmental interference with same.

Somebody count for him how many times I have said that what the victim does has nothing to do with the culpability of the criminal

... and in the same paragraph,

The psychic isn't committing fraud because giving psychic readings is not fraud.

You realize your left and right hand aren't talking to each other at the moment, yes? You claim it isn't fraud because of the "everyone knows" statement above; in other words, the victim should have known better, so it's not fraud. That _is_ blame-the-victim. No, really.

When she applied for business license I'm sure she wrote that down in English and it was approved by the city.

Don't be too sure of that. I would bet she wrote down something related to "entertainment", not "psychic readings".

Sylvia gives readings once a week on national tv. How can you keep saying you can't prove that's what she's doing and that's why you can't charge her?

Regarding national TV, my guess is that "nobody's paying Sylvia" is why you couldn't charge her. Can't defraud someone out of $0.00.

Regarding what she says to individuals in private, the only people party to what Sylvia actually says are Sylvia and the individual. "He-said, she-said" cases are not particularly open and shut. How will you prove what Sylvia claimed in the first place, much less that it was false? THAT is the problem with these.

[panchov]

And in the other cases cited, the psychics were convicted of fraud, right?



Could you please stop saying this? It simply isn't true. Stop trying to base assertions on it. Stop trying to cite it as a premise for an argument. "Everybody knows..." is junk logic, pure and simple.

:deadhorse



This shouldn't even be a free speech issue; the psychic's place of business is private property, and "free speech" as defined by the First Amendment is specifically related to governmental interference with same.



... and in the same paragraph,



You realize your left and right hand aren't talking to each other at the moment, yes? You claim it isn't fraud because of the "everyone knows" statement above; in other words, the victim should have known better, so it's not fraud. That _is_ blame-the-victim. No, really.



Don't be too sure of that. I would bet she wrote down something related to "entertainment", not "psychic readings".



Regarding national TV, my guess is that "nobody's paying Sylvia" is why you couldn't charge her. Can't defraud someone out of $0.00.

Regarding what she says to individuals in private, the only people party to what Sylvia actually says are Sylvia and the individual. "He-said, she-said" cases are not particularly open and shut. How will you prove what Sylvia claimed in the first place, much less that it was false? THAT is the problem with these.

1. Why don't you guys pay Sylvia for a reading, then charge her with fraud? If she's too expensive, go the neighborhood psychic, it won't matter who did it to the law, just what they did. Take a tape or a witness. Saying it's too hard to prove is lame, you've all just spent 3 days passionately arguing that these people are criminals and you are incredibly troubled by the continuance of this crime. Too hard is not justification for allowing it to continue. This would also take care of your assertion that they are not charged because people are to shy to come forward.


2. Even if she didn't put psychic on her application, why don't the police who pass her very large neon sign that says "psychic readings" come and arrest her? If somebody had a sign up that said We sell Crack Cocaine, I promise you, they would be out of business pretty quickly.

I'm pretty sure she has to put psychic on the application though, because they do have to be approved and that would be too vague. Entertainment could mean prostitution or drug parties or anything really.

3. I'm not the one who said "everybody knows," I'm quoting the judge. Tell him and all the other judges who have ruled in favor of the psychics that it's not important.
There's that whole issue of people counting up psychic hits (Ive mentioned it before) - they count the hits because they know going in it might not be true. You guys are getting what they know mixed up with what they feel. Legally, these are two different things. Reasonable standards of belief aren't based on what people feel only, they also take reality into account. Also, if you hire a professional to do a job, you don't go up and scrutinize every aspect of their job, unless you have reason to think they botched it. You wouldn't for instance go look at a roofing job and say to your buddies, oh yeah he got the shingles right, but the nails were way off without that being a huge problem and sign that maybe this roofer wasn't what he claimed to be.

The believing part comes after the hearing, thinking, deciding, rationalizing, justifying, making excuses for. It doesn't change what they knew going in.


4. of course it's a first amendment issue, the government wants to interfere on the grounds of WHAT IS BEING SAID regarding beliefs and opinions. They can't do that.

5. Reasonable standards (what the client knows before she sees the psychic) is an issue of how the crime itself is defined, not what the client is doing. It doesn't matter what the client is doing, if it's fraud it's fraud, if it's not it's not. What I mean is, although I think the client's actions lead to the victimization (because they seek the client out and willingly pay), that in no way lessons the crime of the psychic when the psychic engages in activities that actually are criminal (like the worm scam). Whether it's a crime to give a psychic reading is not up to you or me, it's a matter of law.

[ExMinister]

HI there, it's me panchov with another question that vexes me...
we were having this discussion about whats her name from england the fake psychic and I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

I'm wondering how most of you feel about this. For instance Sylvia and what she's done to families of the dead (ive learned from this site), she's sickening and of course I would guess that anybody hearing about it would have sympathy for the families - but I also can't help but think that I mean face Sylvia is so obviously faking it - Ive known very little about her before I came here, only seen her a few times and it was immediately obvious. Not only does she fake it, but she's nasty. So if somebody's kid is missing and they're dumb enough to go to her for advice, aren't they kind of asking for whatever they get?

Or am I just cold and cruel (really I do have sympathy for them, she's a blankety blank) - I just think they hold SOME responsibility. Not all. Help me out here someone Please.

The other thing is, while I think Sylvia should be allowed to keep going as long as adults are wanting to pay her money (even though it's disgusting), I do think if she's leading police on goose chases, ect, someone should try to do something. WHats going on here, why don't the police at the very least come out and forcefully publicly say that she's wasting their time? Why is it only here that I'm hearing that? The police should stop each other from using her by word of mouth! If they don't, then again, they hold some of the responsibility.


Thanks, Panch

This seems to have gone far afield from your original post, asking for the opinions of others on this forum about whether people who seek out Sylvia's advice should hold some of the responsibility. So, just to go back to the beginning to recap: Yes, people who seek psychic readings hold the responsibility for making the choice to do so. I do agree with you about that.

Sometimes I want to strangle people who continue to insist Sylvia's the real thing in spite of my having given them loads of evidence to the contrary. So I understand the emotion behind what you're saying. And if these people want to go on to get a reading in spite of what I said, then I say they deserve what they're getting, too!

Unfortunately what was so obvious to you, that Sylvia is not only faking it but she's nasty, is interpreted by others as her confidence. It's attitude in the good sense. I wish it was obvious to everyone else as it was to you! If it was, Sylvia would be out of business.

So we are not talking about the people who have had the benefit of talking to an ex-minister or looking at the all the evidence and still choose to ignore it!

Here's where we all began to disagree, and this is something that is important to me, which is why I am willing to say it again: No, it is not true that these people all "know it's all hoo hoo to begin with." They absolutely do NOT KNOW it. They may suspect it, if that is what you are trying to get it, but they have to have been pretty well convinced (conned) in order to be willing to pay her outrageous fee for a reading ($750).

For this, I blame Sylvia Browne and the media, Montel in particular, for marketing her as a person who holds the answers when she doesn't.

if you're nitpicking at straws with this: Do people secretly hold reservations about whether or not their reading with her will be as genuine as they've been convinced it will be? Probably most do; I would agree you are not totally wrong, no. Probably many of them who are in dire circumstances or who have had to scrimp and save to afford the reading, are especially anxious once the reading is underway. But again you've got to remember they have had to be convinced to a certain extent to be willing to pay for this in the first place. Does that make them entirely responsible, since they chose to seek out a reading in spite of knowing that it might not be what they hoped? Of course.

So whether what Sylvia is doing fits a legal definition of fraud is irrelevant. We've already agreed that the legal definition of fraud is not at issue here. We're not even talking about legal issues; when it comes to stopping this type of thing, most of us are focused on trying to inform the public about what's really going on. If it were a legal issue, she'd have been shut down long ago. It's not, unfortunately. She is taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable by pretending to do something she can't do; that's why we call it "fraud." And the fact that she's doing this deliberately - she isn't even self-deluded - is what galls most of us. It's cold blooded.

You said, "Somebody's kid is missing and they're dumb enough to go to her for advice, aren't they kind of asking for whatever they get?"

As an ex-minister for Sylvia Browne, I can assure you it's not a matter of being "dumb." She's set up, and Montel helps her, to look pretty convincing if you don't know much about cold-reading. I didn't know the first thing about cold-reading; now, when I watch Sylvia, it looks so obvious, it's embarrassing to watch. (In fact, I don't even think she's any good at it!!) And I can't imagine how I didn't see it before. Which is my whole point: I didn't. Others don't.

And I know you can't possibly think that someone with a missing child is "asking" to be lied to. So, no. What they are asking for is psychic help which doesn't exist. They've been conned into believing it does; maybe they desperately want to believe. But I know extremely intelligent people who have fallen for this.

As for your assertion that they are willingly participating in their own victimization, it's true that they set themselves up by seeking Sylvia's help. But if you think about it, very few people willingly and knowingly victimize themselves. What they sought was help or they wouldn't have gone in the first place. They couldn't have willingly participated in being victimized unless they went in desiring to be victimized. And they don't! They desire help.

I think the reason I'm emphasizing this point is because in my experience, people who seek out someone as expensive as Sylvia Browne for a psychic reading are almost always going through a crisis of some kind. People in crisis are at their most vulnerable.

And yes, it would be nice if the police and others who have had readings or other negative encounters with Sylvia Browne would come forward. Hopefully, they will find Robert Lancaster's web site and realize there is in fact someone who's interested in giving them a voice.

That's all I will bother you with. It took me a long time to figure out what you noticed right from the start! I only wish it had been so obvious to me.

[panchov]

This seems to have gone far afield from your original post, asking for the opinions of others on this forum about whether people who seek out Sylvia's advice should hold some of the responsibility. So, just to go back to the beginning to recap: Yes, people who seek psychic readings hold the responsibility for making the choice to do so. I do agree with you about that.

Sometimes I want to strangle people who continue to insist Sylvia's the real thing in spite of my having given them loads of evidence to the contrary. So I understand the emotion behind what you're saying. And if these people want to go on to get a reading in spite of what I said, then I say they deserve what they're getting, too!

Unfortunately what was so obvious to you, that Sylvia is not only faking it but she's nasty, is interpreted by others as her confidence. It's attitude in the good sense. I wish it was obvious to everyone else as it was to you! If it was, Sylvia would be out of business.

So we are not talking about the people who have had the benefit of talking to an ex-minister or looking at the all the evidence and still choose to ignore it!

Here's where we all began to disagree, and this is something that is important to me, which is why I am willing to say it again: No, it is not true that these people all "know it's all hoo hoo to begin with." They absolutely do NOT KNOW it. They may suspect it, if that is what you are trying to get it, but they have to have been pretty well convinced (conned) in order to be willing to pay her outrageous fee for a reading ($750).

For this, I blame Sylvia Browne and the media, Montel in particular, for marketing her as a person who holds the answers when she doesn't.

if you're nitpicking at straws with this: Do people secretly hold reservations about whether or not their reading with her will be as genuine as they've been convinced it will be? Probably most do; I would agree you are not totally wrong, no. Probably many of them who are in dire circumstances or who have had to scrimp and save to afford the reading, are especially anxious once the reading is underway. But again you've got to remember they have had to be convinced to a certain extent to be willing to pay for this in the first place. Does that make them entirely responsible, since they chose to seek out a reading in spite of knowing that it might not be what they hoped? Of course.

So whether what Sylvia is doing fits a legal definition of fraud is irrelevant. We've already agreed that the legal definition of fraud is not at issue here. We're not even talking about legal issues; when it comes to stopping this type of thing, most of us are focused on trying to inform the public about what's really going on. If it were a legal issue, she'd have been shut down long ago. It's not, unfortunately. She is taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable by pretending to do something she can't do; that's why we call it "fraud." And the fact that she's doing this deliberately - she isn't even self-deluded - is what galls most of us. It's cold blooded.

You said, "Somebody's kid is missing and they're dumb enough to go to her for advice, aren't they kind of asking for whatever they get?"

As an ex-minister for Sylvia Browne, I can assure you it's not a matter of being "dumb." She's set up, and Montel helps her, to look pretty convincing if you don't know much about cold-reading. I didn't know the first thing about cold-reading; now, when I watch Sylvia, it looks so obvious, it's embarrassing to watch. (In fact, I don't even think she's any good at it!!) And I can't imagine how I didn't see it before. Which is my whole point: I didn't. Others don't.

And I know you can't possibly think that someone with a missing child is "asking" to be lied to. So, no. What they are asking for is psychic help which doesn't exist. They've been conned into believing it does; maybe they desperately want to believe. But I know extremely intelligent people who have fallen for this.

As for your assertion that they are willingly participating in their own victimization, it's true that they set themselves up by seeking Sylvia's help. But if you think about it, very few people willingly and knowingly victimize themselves. What they sought was help or they wouldn't have gone in the first place. They couldn't have willingly participated in being victimized unless they went in desiring to be victimized. And they don't! They desire help.

I think the reason I'm emphasizing this point is because in my experience, people who seek out someone as expensive as Sylvia Browne for a psychic reading are almost always going through a crisis of some kind. People in crisis are at their most vulnerable.

And yes, it would be nice if the police and others who have had readings or other negative encounters with Sylvia Browne would come forward. Hopefully, they will find Robert Lancaster's web site and realize there is in fact someone who's interested in giving them a voice.

That's all I will bother you with. It took me a long time to figure out what you noticed right from the start! I only wish it had been so obvious to me.

Ok, you agreed that it's not fraud, but you think it's fraud. I agree with you to some extent. I really just can't get past the notion that most people are more aware than you think about what a psychic reading is, no matter how much they allow themselves to be convinced that any particular psychic is real. We should just stop arguing about that because alas we will never convince each other.

What I will say though, is one more reason that I think it's wrong to call it fraud is because when something abusive isn't going on, and it's just frilly frilly your daddy says hi from heaven and you just thought he hated you, no he loved you stuff, the clients love it. This is what they come for. They want to believe this. I don't know how to explain this to you but, sometimes hearing something like that can profoundly heal people and let them get on with their lives. And I mean people who might have found no other way to get healed. And while this in no way makes the psychic "right" to be doing it, whatever "fraud" is going on, is going on both ways, the client truly is as much a participant as the psychic. And I say, if you have a choice between living your life in bitterness and misery, and all it takes is a little white lie to yourself that allows you to believe 5 minutes from a psychic over your whole lifetime of experience with your dad who hated you, maybe you are right to do it.

These psychics, I would call them not so much frauds as predators. They prey on the vulnerable (doesn't matter why at that time in your life - sorrow, anger, sadness), but vulnerability seems to be the main common denominator. So what would we do, make a rule where only when it turns out bad can we punish them? I would under normal circumstances say that an adult is an adult and if they choose to see a psychic they should be left with that choice (if a person wants to see one and you shut them down, they'll likely get angry at you). I've never heard JVP or JE (as much as they annoy me) say anything like the things Sylvia has said, this woman is like bin Laden except she's smart enough to go for emotions and not stuff she can get arrested for. I think something should be done to stop her, I don't think fraud is the right name for what she does, but whatever it is it's evil. This stuff is tough though because that's what free speech is all about - people are free to say what they want, and we are free to believe it or reject it. Once you start tampering with that, where does the tampering end?

[Big Les]

3. I'm not the one who said "everybody knows,"...

Except you are. Both because you are advocating what the judge says, and because you've been saying that same thing through most of this thread and at least one other (the Lisa Williams thread).

Your latest version was of course;

"Why do you think whenever someone goes to a psychic the first thing they do is talk about how many hits they psychic got? EVERYBODY KNOWS it might be wrong."

Of course they know that some of it might be wrong. No-one can expect 100% accuracy from any service. The point is that they expect at least some of it, and in most cases the majority of it, to be accurate. That's what they're paying for. In fact, since what the psychic proposes to be doing has no basis in reality, they can't supply ANY correct information. They are therefore selling a service they can't possibly provide.

[ExMinister]

Ok, you agreed that it's not fraud, but you think it's fraud. I agree with you to some extent. I really just can't get past the notion that most people are more aware than you think about what a psychic reading is, no matter how much they allow themselves to be convinced that any particular psychic is real. We should just stop arguing about that because alas we will never convince each other.

What I will say though, is one more reason that I think it's wrong to call it fraud is because when something abusive isn't going on, and it's just frilly frilly your daddy says hi from heaven and you just thought he hated you, no he loved you stuff, the clients love it. This is what they come for. They want to believe this. I don't know how to explain this to you but, sometimes hearing something like that can profoundly heal people and let them get on with their lives. And I mean people who might have found no other way to get healed. And while this in no way makes the psychic "right" to be doing it, whatever "fraud" is going on, is going on both ways, the client truly is as much a participant as the psychic. And I say, if you have a choice between living your life in bitterness and misery, and all it takes is a little white lie to yourself that allows you to believe 5 minutes from a psychic over your whole lifetime of experience with your dad who hated you, maybe you are right to do it.


I didn't say it wasn't fraud. I said whether or not it is enforceable as fraud in a strictly legal sense isn't the point.

And as for explaining the above to me, no one is in a better position than I am to understand the psychology of those who seek the help of someone like Sylvia Browne. No, they don't suspect she's a fraud. And I've never seen someone come away believing that what they learned was a white lie but was better than the truth. No, they think what they've heard IS the truth and sometimes they make important life decisions on this basis. It is not right to do this. IMO all it does it put off the inevitable time when these people will need to cope with their life crises or grief in healthier ways. And they will have spent $750 on zilch.

[RSLancastr]

The obvious point that I haven't noticed anyone make yet is that Sylvia has in fact been convicted of fraud (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/peoplevsbrown.shtml).Sorry, but no.

She (and her ex) were charged with fraud (among other things), but they pled guilty to (and so were convicted of) selling securities without a license.

[panchov]

I didn't say it wasn't fraud. I said whether or not it is enforceable as fraud in a strictly legal sense isn't the point.

And as for explaining the above to me, no one is in a better position than I am to understand the psychology of those who seek the help of someone like Sylvia Browne. No, they don't suspect she's a fraud. And I've never seen someone come away believing that what they learned was a white lie but was better than the truth. No, they think what they've heard IS the truth and sometimes they make important life decisions on this basis. It is not right to do this. IMO all it does it put off the inevitable time when these people will need to cope with their life crises or grief in healthier ways. And they will have spent $750 on zilch.

Whether it's enforceable in a legal sense is a huge issue. It's a very good indication of whether or not a crime has been committed. (Everyone else here is calling it fraud, but giving various excuses to why it can't be prosecuted.) This is exactly why laws are passed, to avoid such confusions, and to have a means to punish the guilty. It's not fraud in the legal sense but it is fraud, I could agree with you, but what's the point? The point is, is she doing something that we can stop by law, or would stopping her REQUIRE that her victims change their behaviors that lead up the "victimization?"

[JoeTheJuggler]

Whether it's enforceable in a legal sense is a huge issue.
No it's not. By your reasoning, Al Capone never committed any crime except for tax evasion.

[panchov]

No it's not. By your reasoning, Al Capone never committed any crime except for tax evasion.

Oh Lord now you're dragging Al into this?

Let me make sure I have your argument correct:


Psychic reading = Fraud
NYC issues licenses to psychics so that they're businesses are legal
NYC issues licenses so that people can commit fraud legally

[Big Les]

Huh? NYC issue licences for psychics? Sorry, was I asleep during that bit?

[panchov]

Huh? NYC issue licences for psychics? Sorry, was I asleep during that bit?

You might have been, I explained that I meant they are allowed to operate in NYC legally. I think they have to post a sign saying it's for entertainment purposes only in order to be legal, but it's still a psychic business. So if they have a sign up saying that, isn't it even more reason to think the customers should have an understanding that it might be fluffy stuff going on?

I know for instance, if I went to get communion at church and saw a sign that said for entertainment purposes only, I might not think these people were entirely dedicated to the notion of spirituality.

[my_wan]

Huh? NYC issue licences for psychics? Sorry, was I asleep during that bit?

Unfornutately yes. Like this lady that bills herself as "a certified licensed psychic in the states of New York and New Jersey". I was ill concieved IMO. I wonder how hard it would be to lose those licences if they got too many complaints?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh Lord now you're dragging Al into this?

Let me make sure I have your argument correct:


Psychic reading = Fraud
NYC issues licenses to psychics so that they're businesses are legal
NYC issues licenses so that people can commit fraud legally

I dragged Al into at least a page ago. You're obviously not reading my posts, which is also why you keep saying the same things over and over again, even though your notions have been answered.

As you pointed out, they're entertainment licenses. I mentioned this problem previously in this thread in addressing why it's difficult to prosecute psychics for fraud.

The points I disagree with are 1) that everyone knows psychics are fake, so psychics can't be called frauds, and 2) that the complicity of the victim has anything to do with whether or not someone is a fraud.

[Big Les]

Thanks for the clarification there. Well, psychic licences are the exception - no such scheme exists in my own country for example.

[panchov]

Thanks for the clarification there. Well, psychic licences are the exception - no such scheme exists in my own country for example.

OHHHH YOU'RE WRONG YOU"RE WRONG YOU"RE WRONG! Only kidding, ahah. You guys, we just differ on this, we're never going to convince each other. I really understand what you are saying and where it comes from, I just totally don't agree with you.

I really like this place though, I think you guys are very thoughtful and maybe you will make changes for the better. Other than that, I have no idea what to say to you without going in further circles.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No, I'm from Texas! That's my cat's name - Pancho Vea (i know thats not how you spell it, he was named after a coworker). My name is Linda.

Wait a second, your co-worker is Pancho Villa? :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

[panchov]

The Pancho part is named after him. He's a wild one too!