Buyer Beware
Let’s say that you go out and buy a big bucket of snake oil. It’s sold with the label “Snake Oil! New and improved!” You take the snake oil home and try and use it to heal a sore leg. Not surprisingly, it doesn’t work. Are you now allowed to sue the snake oil salesman? A woman in Morris County, NJ, has decided to sue her psychic for $160,000, after the psychic’s predictions did not come true. Well, she first asked for her money back, but after the psychic said no, the woman decided to sue. I am a firm believer that psychics don’t exist. I would love if they did, I’d actually really enjoy having super-powers, and as a fan of the X-men, there’s always been a part of me that wanted to be Charles Xavier with hair and the ability to walk. But whether someone should be able to sue their psychic… that’s a stickier issue.
The woman in question here is a Ms. Karen Brown of Randolph, NJ. Not only did Karen have cancer, but to add to her woes, her husband left her. This is clearly a woman who any decent human being would not mess with, and there is no question in my mind that the psychic in question, Paula Lee, is not a decent human being. Paula told Karen she could solve her problems – reunite her with her husband, find her new romance, and cure her cancer. Of course, none of these things happened, but as Karen was strung along, she wound up giving Paula a whopping total of $160,000 in cash and gifts. Paula Lee is the kind of person that makes me wish there was an afterlife, just so she could burn in hell. She exploited an obviously vulnerable and unfortunately gullible woman, and now Karen has little to nothing left. But the question remains: should Karen win her case?
On the one hand, promises were made to Karen which were unable to be fulfilled. Paula was able to use Karen’s dower situation against Karen’s pocketbook, and then she greedily took everything her venomous little hands could grab. We can ask why there isn’t a system which keeps poor women like Karen from becoming rubes for a horrible little piss-ant like Paula.
But on the other hand, it seems from the story like Karen gave Paula the money and gifts of her own accord. And it wasn’t as though Paula didn’t say that she was a psychic, a title we should afford all the same respect as Professional Lover of Goats. Is it the job of the legal system to protect citizens from their own gullibility? If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that there was no heaven, would we expect the Catholic Church to give back all the donations it’s received since its doors opened? I’d say no to that – though you might disagree.
At the same time, I do feel that the Church of Scientology should be forced to give back a good percentage of its proceeds to those people who have been emotionally blackmailed into staying with the church when the church refused to tell them exactly who they were and what they believed. So I guess I would hold that if it could be shown that Paula was able to put Karen in a state where she believed the only possibility to get her life back on track was to give Paula the $160,000 in gifts and cash, then Karen should win her case.
It puts a bad taste in my mouth trying to argue the case of a psychic against the innocent they screwed, but from a legal perspective, I just don’t feel like Karen’s on solid ground. Was she lied to? Yes. But don’t we need to consider that a given the second we pass by the tarot cards in the window? Perhaps being able to put that knowledge into the minds of those in the New York/New Jersey region is what the NYC Skeptics could do to take a stand on this kind of issue. Get the public information on what cold and hot readings are, perhaps a public lecture on the topic. Because unfortunately, I don’t see another place where we can really make a difference in the lives of people like Karen Brown.
How can we make psychics illegal? Should psychics be illegal? If we make them illegal, won’t they simply hide behind the idea that being a psychic is a religious belief, and won’t that allow them to find protection through the establishment clause of the constitution? My guess is that they would, and that therefore declaring them illegal would have as much enforceability as me declaring it illegal that girls in my apartment not wear undergarments.
In summary, I’d like to wish Karen Brown my condolences for all that she’s lost. But I don’t believe that she has much chance of winning her case, and though I feel something really bad should happen to Paula Lee, I don’t see much of a way to prosecute her for it. Maybe there are lawyers out there who could tell me how wrong I am? Please?
What is a “dower situation”? There’s no adjective “dower”, and the noun doesn’t really lend itself to attributive use. So I don’t understand.
Anyway, I, too, have mixed feelings about this, but let me suggest this:
Suppose I should design a device that you can give a spin to, and it will keep spinning for more than a year and a half. Suppose I should sell this device to you, billing it as a perpetual-motion device that will spin forever, once started. And suppose you should buy it under those assumptions, find out that it stops in, say, 19 months.
Should you be able to sue for your money back, because what I sold you didn’t work the way I promised? Or should you have known that obviously there is no such thing as perpetual motion, and, so obviously this was a well-known bogus thing, and you were a victim of your own gullibility?
The problem in the case you’re talking about is that, regardless of whether psychics exist or not, people present themselves as psychics — some outright fraudulently, and some with honest (but deluded) intent — and many people (enough to matter) believe them.
With that in mind, why should someone selling you psychic services and then not delivering on that sale be treated any differently to someone selling you lawn services and then never showing up to do your lawn?
It may be fraud, or it may simply be inability to deliver what she promised, but the fact is that the victim paid for something that wasn’t provided. Should the fact that the victim was naïve (to use a kind term) in believing that it was possible for those services to be provided mean that the “psychic” can do any bogus thing she wants, with impunity?
I have often wondered about the legality of the “business” of being a psychic. While I whole-heartedly believe that you should not be allowed to sell something based on fraudulent claims, I can see many loop holes in place that would allow for a psychic medium to set up shop legally on any street corner in the city and pay taxes like any other business person. I have a feeling that somewhere in every psychic or astrologist’s shop there is a tiny, illegible sign that is the equivalent of “these claims have not been approved by the FDA” as are on supplements, or “these items are for novelty use only” which you see in head shops and adult entertainment shops. If this is true, then “caveat emptor,” I guess.
“If it were conclusively proven tomorrow that there was no heaven, would we expect the Catholic Church to give back all the donations it’s received since its doors opened? I’d say no to that – though you might disagree.”
A key component of fraud is intent. If it were conclusively proven that there was no heaven and that the Pope and other officials in the Catholic church were aware of this, then you would have a legitimate case for fraud (and conspiracy to commit fraud as well. You migh even have a racketeering case), and they should be obliged to honor any request for return of funds w/in the statute of limitations. However, the claimants would need documentation to prove they did actually donate money.
If it can be reasonably determined that the psychic in question knew they were not clairvoyant (and it can be shown that they made such a claim), then that constitutes fraud or theft by deception.
The “gifts” could be a little problematic.
Oops, that’s a typo. I meant to write “dour.”
Ah. I don’t think “dour” (rhymes with “tour”, not with “sour”, which is why I didn’t pick up on it) is the right word either (I think one can have a dour disposition, but not a dour situation). But now I know what you mean.
In reference to the comment Page made,
“these items are for novelty use only” which you see in head shops and adult entertainment shops”
I once read that in some states the sale of legitimate sex toys is illegal, so the ‘for novelty use only’ is a way of getting around that rule. Of course it allows for a loophole where quality control slips through.
From what I understand [and I could of course be wrong], psychics exploit the same sort of loophole. They don’t ‘charge’ for service, but people seeking their advice are encouraged to make a ‘gift’ to them. I don’t know if that is what happened in this case, the linked article didn’t seem to say, but it’s typical practice for psychics. It’s their version of limited liability, I guess.
@Lisa Bauer,
That’s where you have a chance for the more difficult charge of theft by deception. (My earlier comment may still be held up for moderation.)