Court TV psychic Noreen Renier: Fails lawsuit

Sherlock · 29th November 2006, 06:27 PM

From John Merrell: A further update is now posted following the loss by "psychic detective" Noreen Renier to skeptic John Merrell in a Washington federal court. This judgment came in response to a "breach in settlement" agreement reached in 1992, but in 2005 breached by Renier with the publication of her book A Mind for Murder. For information see the web site with Amindformurder in it's name. (I'm a new member and cannot provide the site). With the judgment rendered, I'm now attempting to move the settlement of the damages to a court binding arbitration. I assume this may be accomplished over the next 60-90 days. My site also further updates some information about Renier's claims to have found a missing plane with four passengers.

Rodney · 29th November 2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by amindformurder

From John Merrell: A further update is now posted following the loss by "psychic detective" Noreen Renier to skeptic John Merrell in a Washington federal court. This judgment came in response to a "breach in settlement" agreement reached in 1992, but in 2005 breached by Renier with the publication of her book A Mind for Murder. For information see the web site with Amindformurder in it's name. (I'm a new member and cannot provide the site). With the judgment rendered, I'm now attempting to move the settlement of the damages to a court binding arbitration. I assume this may be accomplished over the next 60-90 days. My site also further updates some information about Renier's claims to have found a missing plane with four passengers.

According to the site -- http://www.amindformurder.com --

"... This web site also explores a separate 2006 investigation which reveals police psychic Noreen Renier provided untrue statements amid an incredible fantasy she shared with millions of television viewers --- and the readers of her book --- about locating a crashed aircraft with four passengers aboard.

"Psychic medium Noreen Renier's Seattle attorney Shelley Hall, (with Seattle legal firm Stokes Lawrence) stated in the November 9, 2006 issue of the Hook, that 'Our position is that these statements in her book are well within her First Amendment rights.' But a week later a U.S. federal judge in Washington filed the judgment order noting 'The court rejects Ms. Renier's claim that she did not breach the Settlement Agreement because her statements in A Mind for Murder are, according to her, true.'"

The above leaves the clear impression that the court found that Ms. Renier's statements in her book about the crashed aircraft were untrue, when, in fact, the court simply found that Ms. Renier had violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement by criticizing Mr. Merrell.

Questioninggeller · 29th November 2006, 07:57 PM

I guess her "abilities" weren't working the day she filed the lawsuit.

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2...uit-B.rtf.aspx

Steven Howard · 29th November 2006, 08:13 PM

Wow, deja vu.

Rodney · 30th November 2006, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

I guess her "abilities" weren't working the day she filed the lawsuit.

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2...uit-B.rtf.aspx

She didn't file the suit, he did: "In December 2005, Mr. Merrell, by then a Washington resident, brought this action in Snohomish County Superior Court against Ms. Renier, Ms. Lucks, the company that published A Mind for Murder, one of the company’s subsidiaries, and an editor who worked for the publishing company. See -- http://www.amindformurder.com/Present2006.htm -- and click on "November 16, 2006, Court Order/Summary Judgment"

Garrette · 30th November 2006, 11:43 AM

Sadly, since I really don't see him as a honest debater, I have to agree with Rodney as I did in the thread Steven Howard as linked to. Integrity requires it, drat the luck...

This case was neither a victory nor defeat for either Merrell or Renier in regard to determining the veracity (or legal status) of psychic claims.

Rodney · 30th November 2006, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Sadly, since I really don't see him as a honest debater, I have to agree with Rodney as I did in the thread Steven Howard as linked to. Integrity requires it, drat the luck...

Careful now, Garrette, if you agree with anything I say, you've gone over the edge in the eyes of the True Randi Forum Believers.

Garrette · 30th November 2006, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Careful now, Garrette, if you agree with anything I say, you've gone over the edge in the eyes of the True Randi Forum Believers.

But I'm one of 'em, Rodney. You can't see the glazed look in my eyes because I turned off the lights.

Luke T. · 30th November 2006, 12:30 PM

I'm a little dense. I've waded through some of the links and I can't tell exactly what it is the psychic was sued for and why she lost.

The way it looks to me, sometime in the past, the two parties signed a legal binding agreement that they wouldn't talk about each other in public any more. And then the psychic talked about Merrell in a book after that agreement was signed. And that is what the suit was about.

Am I right?

If so, what is to prevent her from excising Merrell from her book and republishing it?

Garrette · 30th November 2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Luke T.

I'm a little dense. I've waded through some of the links and I can't tell exactly what it is the psychic was sued for and why she lost.

The way it looks to me, sometime in the past, the two parties signed a legal binding agreement that they wouldn't talk about each other in public any more. And then the psychic talked about Merrell in a book after that agreement was signed. And that is what the suit was about.

Am I right?

As far as I can tell, yes.

Originally Posted by Luke T.

If so, what is to prevent her from excising Merrell from her book and republishing it?

Nothing, if that mention was the only thing that breached the earlier settlement.

Sherlock · 1st December 2006, 10:31 PM

None of the court action that has taken place in Oregon (1986), Tennessee (1989-1992), Florida (1991-1992), or currently in the state of Washington addressed the psychic abilities of Noreen Renier --- though Renier has in the past made it seem so to the media. However part of the testimony that happened during the original litigation --- a lawsuit brought by Noreen Renier --- was based in large part on Renier's testimony to the Oregon jury that she had found a plane. In 1989-1990 it was discovered that Noreen Renier had actually contacted me for assistance investigating herself -- but through a letter signed by her under another name --- Nancy Uzdavinis.

The present judgment that was just awarded to me is for a breach in the settlement agreement from 1992 --- when I reluctantly provided $23,800 in addition to other previous payments covering my $25,000 original loss of the Oregon case.

While there was no issue in the present lawsuit related to the truth or error in Renier's writings in her book --- that question was likely a concern of the publisher's when they made the business decision to halt further publication of a new and well-selling international book.

The ability to prove the paranormal abilities of any psychic would difficult without the cooperation of the psychic. However I believe any reader who reads the segments relating to Renier's claims about locating the crashed aircraft and the events of the passengers aboard will draw a clear conclusion. That conclusion will likely be that a jury or a judgment from the court is not required to know that a fantasy was created and portrayed to a jury and millions of television viewers as factual.

It is difficult to condense 20 years of litigation and investigations into a single website. This one takes a careful read-through --- and you shouldn't go to the legal documents before you understand the background. Once you understand the background you will find the litigation is of little importance. The facts are clear for all to see.

Sherlock · 1st December 2006, 11:27 PM

This evening I have further revised the website HOME page some of you cited to further remove any confusion.

29th November 2006, 06:27 PM	#1
Sherlock Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 425	Court TV psychic Noreen Renier: Fails lawsuit From John Merrell: A further update is now posted following the loss by "psychic detective" Noreen Renier to skeptic John Merrell in a Washington federal court. This judgment came in response to a "breach in settlement" agreement reached in 1992, but in 2005 breached by Renier with the publication of her book A Mind for Murder. For information see the web site with Amindformurder in it's name. (I'm a new member and cannot provide the site). With the judgment rendered, I'm now attempting to move the settlement of the damages to a court binding arbitration. I assume this may be accomplished over the next 60-90 days. My site also further updates some information about Renier's claims to have found a missing plane with four passengers.
Sherlock Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 425

29th November 2006, 06:58 PM	#2
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by amindformurder From John Merrell: A further update is now posted following the loss by "psychic detective" Noreen Renier to skeptic John Merrell in a Washington federal court. This judgment came in response to a "breach in settlement" agreement reached in 1992, but in 2005 breached by Renier with the publication of her book A Mind for Murder. For information see the web site with Amindformurder in it's name. (I'm a new member and cannot provide the site). With the judgment rendered, I'm now attempting to move the settlement of the damages to a court binding arbitration. I assume this may be accomplished over the next 60-90 days. My site also further updates some information about Renier's claims to have found a missing plane with four passengers. According to the site -- http://www.amindformurder.com -- "... This web site also explores a separate 2006 investigation which reveals police psychic Noreen Renier provided untrue statements amid an incredible fantasy she shared with millions of television viewers --- and the readers of her book --- about locating a crashed aircraft with four passengers aboard. "Psychic medium Noreen Renier's Seattle attorney Shelley Hall, (with Seattle legal firm Stokes Lawrence) stated in the November 9, 2006 issue of the Hook, that 'Our position is that these statements in her book are well within her First Amendment rights.' But a week later a U.S. federal judge in Washington filed the judgment order noting 'The court rejects Ms. Renier's claim that she did not breach the Settlement Agreement because her statements in A Mind for Murder are, according to her, true.'" The above leaves the clear impression that the court found that Ms. Renier's statements in her book about the crashed aircraft were untrue, when, in fact, the court simply found that Ms. Renier had violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement by criticizing Mr. Merrell.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942

29th November 2006, 08:13 PM	#4
Steven Howard Custom Title Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 1,798	Wow, deja vu.
	__________________ See also:LiveJournal flickr

30th November 2006, 11:40 AM	#5
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller I guess her "abilities" weren't working the day she filed the lawsuit. http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2...uit-B.rtf.aspx She didn't file the suit, he did: "In December 2005, Mr. Merrell, by then a Washington resident, brought this action in Snohomish County Superior Court against Ms. Renier, Ms. Lucks, the company that published A Mind for Murder, one of the company’s subsidiaries, and an editor who worked for the publishing company. See -- http://www.amindformurder.com/Present2006.htm -- and click on "November 16, 2006, Court Order/Summary Judgment"
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942

30th November 2006, 11:43 AM	#6
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,545	Sadly, since I really don't see him as a honest debater, I have to agree with Rodney as I did in the thread Steven Howard as linked to. Integrity requires it, drat the luck... This case was neither a victory nor defeat for either Merrell or Renier in regard to determining the veracity (or legal status) of psychic claims.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

29th November 2006, 07:57 PM	#3
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	I guess her "abilities" weren't working the day she filed the lawsuit. http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2...uit-B.rtf.aspx

30th November 2006, 11:51 AM	#7
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by Garrette Sadly, since I really don't see him as a honest debater, I have to agree with Rodney as I did in the thread Steven Howard as linked to. Integrity requires it, drat the luck... Careful now, Garrette, if you agree with anything I say, you've gone over the edge in the eyes of the True Randi Forum Believers.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942

30th November 2006, 12:21 PM	#8
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,545	Originally Posted by Rodney Careful now, Garrette, if you agree with anything I say, you've gone over the edge in the eyes of the True Randi Forum Believers. But I'm one of 'em, Rodney. You can't see the glazed look in my eyes because I turned off the lights.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

30th November 2006, 12:30 PM	#9
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	I'm a little dense. I've waded through some of the links and I can't tell exactly what it is the psychic was sued for and why she lost. The way it looks to me, sometime in the past, the two parties signed a legal binding agreement that they wouldn't talk about each other in public any more. And then the psychic talked about Merrell in a book after that agreement was signed. And that is what the suit was about. Am I right? If so, what is to prevent her from excising Merrell from her book and republishing it?
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

30th November 2006, 12:44 PM	#10
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,545	Originally Posted by Luke T. I'm a little dense. I've waded through some of the links and I can't tell exactly what it is the psychic was sued for and why she lost. The way it looks to me, sometime in the past, the two parties signed a legal binding agreement that they wouldn't talk about each other in public any more. And then the psychic talked about Merrell in a book after that agreement was signed. And that is what the suit was about. Am I right? As far as I can tell, yes. Originally Posted by Luke T. If so, what is to prevent her from excising Merrell from her book and republishing it? Nothing, if that mention was the only thing that breached the earlier settlement.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

1st December 2006, 10:31 PM	#11
Sherlock Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 425	Response from Merrell None of the court action that has taken place in Oregon (1986), Tennessee (1989-1992), Florida (1991-1992), or currently in the state of Washington addressed the psychic abilities of Noreen Renier --- though Renier has in the past made it seem so to the media. However part of the testimony that happened during the original litigation --- a lawsuit brought by Noreen Renier --- was based in large part on Renier's testimony to the Oregon jury that she had found a plane. In 1989-1990 it was discovered that Noreen Renier had actually contacted me for assistance investigating herself -- but through a letter signed by her under another name --- Nancy Uzdavinis. The present judgment that was just awarded to me is for a breach in the settlement agreement from 1992 --- when I reluctantly provided $23,800 in addition to other previous payments covering my $25,000 original loss of the Oregon case. While there was no issue in the present lawsuit related to the truth or error in Renier's writings in her book --- that question was likely a concern of the publisher's when they made the business decision to halt further publication of a new and well-selling international book. The ability to prove the paranormal abilities of any psychic would difficult without the cooperation of the psychic. However I believe any reader who reads the segments relating to Renier's claims about locating the crashed aircraft and the events of the passengers aboard will draw a clear conclusion. That conclusion will likely be that a jury or a judgment from the court is not required to know that a fantasy was created and portrayed to a jury and millions of television viewers as factual. It is difficult to condense 20 years of litigation and investigations into a single website. This one takes a careful read-through --- and you shouldn't go to the legal documents before you understand the background. Once you understand the background you will find the litigation is of little importance. The facts are clear for all to see.
Sherlock Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 425

1st December 2006, 11:27 PM	#12
Sherlock Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 425	Additional note from Merrell This evening I have further revised the website HOME page some of you cited to further remove any confusion.
Sherlock Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 425