Conference hydra::dejavu

    I believe laws like this tend not to be enforced because
    it is very difficult to word such laws in a way that excludes
    professions like weather forecaster, economist, etc.
    
    If someone is scamming people out of their hard-earned cash
    it might be more appropriate to use standard bunko laws.
    IMO.
    
    Joel
    

    Those were my concerns as well, Joel.  The law itself seems redundant at 
    best, and possibly archaic.  Misrepresentation laws and such already
    exist without having laws that specifically prohibit speculating about the
    future for profit.  Next thing you know, investment counselors
    will be sitting next to bunko artists in jail.  ;-)
    
    							todd	

Re .0 (todd):

    >I wonder if Palm Readers, Astrologers, Tarot Readers and in fact
    >anyone else practicing divination and charging for their service 
    >could be brought under the penalty of this law ?

In Massachusetts, under the Laws of the Commonwealth, it is illegal to tell
fortunes (or equivalent) unless licensed.  This law is rarely enforced,
though the license is issued on a town-by-town basis.  That it _can_ be
enforced is a story unto itself.

In at least one instance I know of, an owner of a shop that employed card
readers and astrologers was raided (and readers detained) citing the law.
From other things I heard, this was used as an excuse to "reach" the owner,
for other [nonrelevant] reasons.

Re .1 (Joel):

    >I believe laws like this tend not to be enforced because
    >it is very difficult to word such laws in a way that excludes
    >professions like weather forecaster, economist, etc.

I disagree: it's very easy to spell out such things as astrology, 
cartomancy, phrenology, palmistry, and cheiromancy when formulating
such laws (the constitutionality of such laws is another matter; however,
I doubt any appeal would be heard by a higher court).
    
    If someone is scamming people out of their hard-earned cash
    it might be more appropriate to use standard bunko laws.
    IMO.
  
But this is prejudging the efficacy of the prognostications.  IF, say, a law
is written that says that charging fees for Tarot readings in a particular
township is illegal, then whether or not the person doing the reading produces
accurate results is immaterial; it's the activity (prognostication-for-hire)
that's been declared illegal.

Using standard bunco laws, if the defense had sharp lawyers, they'd force the
prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the particular reader
being tried was really running a scam.  That could turn a trial into a real
circus.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .3 (Steve)
    
    Good points.  I should have said that many laws now on the
    books aren't enforced because they were not written very
    well, and court tests indicate they do not exclude such
    professions as I cited.  Your point is well taken.
    
    But it is, of course, not all that difficult to find a way
    around large portions of the statute books, court decisions,
    etc.  Example - heard on NPR the other day that some government
    agency had been prohibited from allowing Good Friday as a
    holiday.  Because of the possible church/state separation
    issues.
    
    No problem.  They now have a "spring holiday" which just
    happens to fall on the Friday before Easter.
    
    If I were going to write a law prohibiting Tarot readings I
    would have to keep this sort of thing in mind.  Like, I
    would go to great lenghts to try to define a Tarot deck,
    what constitutes payment, etc.  Else someone will get a
    Tarot deck and call it something else.
    
    Reminds me how, years ago, my father's VFW used to get around
    the bingo laws.  (until they were re-written in this locality)
    You couldn't sell Bingo cards, nor could you receive prizes
    for Bingo games.  So they would sell you a pack of gum for
    a dollar and GIVE you a Bingo card.  And the prizes?  Well,
    if you won a game you would be given a little card which had
    no material value.
    
    And then, after the games were over for the night, the VFW would
    buy the little card back from all the holders.
    
    So I guess you could write a reasonably tight law prohibiting
    the practice of astrology, tarot, whatever, but the lawmakers
    better cover all the angles.  Or, buy a crystal ball, the
    better to foretell the various challenges!   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

re: 1562.2 
PRMS00::TSTARK 

>    future for profit.  Next thing you know, investment counselors
>    will be sitting next to bunko artists in jail.  ;-)

	Do the names "Michael Milikan" or "Dennis Levine" strike a
	familiar note ?  Actually, the investment counselors usually
	get sent to *much* nicer prisons than plain old bunko artists.

	-Art

Re .4 (Joel):

    >If I were going to write a law prohibiting Tarot readings I
    >would have to keep this sort of thing in mind.  Like, I
    >would go to great lenghts to try to define a Tarot deck,
    >what constitutes payment, etc.  Else someone will get a
    >Tarot deck and call it something else.
  
Why make a complex law?  A law saying, "Those engaged in cartomancy for a fee
must be licensed," followed by the licensibng requirements, and possibly spelling
out the penalties for those who don't comply with the law.  Such a law would
include Tarot cards, standard playing cards, and other decks (such as the
"Gypsy Witch" [brand name] fortune-telling deck).  Similar laws could cover
scrying, conducting seances, palmistry, phrenology, etc.

    >So I guess you could write a reasonably tight law prohibiting
    >the practice of astrology, tarot, whatever, but the lawmakers
    >better cover all the angles. 

Agreed. But "for a fee" could include "or equivalent trade," or some such.
I'm not a lawyer, but one could probably come up with a global.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

       Re.-1,

       An alternative might be to have all Ads for cartomanciers/
       fortune tellers display "Caveat Emptor: This is not a 
       recognized commercial exchange". (More or less like the
       Surgeon General's warning on Cigarettes.)

       This informs the customer, but reduces the burden on the 
       courts from settling this kind of disputes, and also removes
       the need for an additional bureaucratic set-up for licensing.

       I think the best way of closing loopholes is by reducing laws.
    
       Of course, the diviners are still subject to standard bunko
       laws like everyone else. Additionally, if a scam is exposed,
       everyone in the chain of word-of-mouth publicity becomes an
       accomplice  in some way, and people might be more careful in
       advertising their diviners.

       Jana
    

Re .7 (Jana):

       >An alternative might be to have all Ads for cartomanciers/
       >fortune tellers display "Caveat Emptor: This is not a 
       >recognized commercial exchange". (More or less like the
       >Surgeon General's warning on Cigarettes.)

Small nit: anything including a fixed, or agreed-upon, fee, is a "commercial
exchange," even if it's illegal.  (They put Al Capone away on income-tax-evasion
charges, even though reportedly every cent he had was obtained illegally.)

For interstate transactions, there's apparently some law already on the Federal
books (or maybe it's a regulation with "weight of law"): some years ago, my wife
saw a TV show with a lady "psychic" on it.  This woman had an 800 number, and
would do personal readings on requerst, and for a (fairly hefty) fee.  My wife
was sufficiently intrigued to ring up the number for details; after getting her
mailing address, the operator on the other end said the details would be
mailed to her.

In the envelope was an affadavit my wife would have had to sign before any 
reading would be given.  The affadavit stated that the signer acknowledges
that the "psychic" was doind the reading for entertainment value only, and that
no claims of [whatever term they used -- supernatural/paranormal/magical]
ability were being made, explicitly or implicitly, by the reader.

Had my wife really wanted a reading, and had signed the paper, then she would
have been legally freeing the "psychic" from any prosecution, even on bunco
charges.

    
       >Of course, the diviners are still subject to standard bunko
       >laws like everyone else. ...

But then you have to prove that the diviner in question is a deliberate fraud.
If the diviner fought it, it'd makec an interesting case.  Maybe an entertaining
circus, if it's a slow news period.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re. -1, Steve,

->  (They put Al Capone away on income-tax-evasion
->  charges, even though reportedly every cent he had was obtained illegally.)

    I think there's a fine point there. Al Capone would have been put
    away for income-tax evasion for possessing "assets disproportionate
    to income". The IRS does not probe the method by which income is
    obtained in such cases (I might be mistaken..). The mere fact that
    an individual is in possession of assets which are not in proportion
    with his declared income is sufficient to establish undeclared income,
    and therefore tax evasion. Usually this is easier in cases like Al
    Capone's rather than attempting to produce evidence for 'accessory to
    homicide' or some such charge.

->that the "psychic" was doind the reading for entertainment value only, 

    Yep, if you look carefully at the TV Ads, there's usually a brief
    flash of small print that appears amidst other chatter and it goes
    something like "For Entertainment Purposes Only. Must be over 18."

->Maybe an entertaining circus, if it's a slow news period.

    I wonder if the 'handlers' investigated this angle, whether one of the
    parties had ever been to a 'psychic'. Might provide sufficient grounds
    to reduce someone's credibility.

    Jana
    

    re: (Steve)
    
    Well sure, if you make it illegal to tell fortunes without
    a license, there's a horse of a different, er, suit.
    By all means, I don't see why any particular business should
    be exempt from licensing practices may/should apply.  (e.g.,
    we wouldn't necessarily concern a Tarot reader with the
    sort of health/environmental regulations that would apply
    to a restaurant.)
    
    Joel
    

re: 1562.9 
DEVIL1::JANA 


>    to income". The IRS does not probe the method by which income is
>    obtained in such cases (I might be mistaken..). The mere fact that
>    an individual is in possession of assets which are not in proportion
>    with his declared income is sufficient to establish undeclared income,
>    and therefore tax evasion. 

	This is true.  In fact, a few years ago there was a case where
	some gangster was pulled into court for tax evasion by the IRS.
	At his trial, he brought out a meticulous set of records, declared
	all his income, and paid the fines imposed by the court.  The judge
	even complimented him on the completeness and accuracy of his books,
	saying he wished everyone who came before him were so well-prepared
	and cooperative.

	Of course, his testimony in tax court became the basis for further
	prosecution...

	-Art

    The 1040 instruction book tells you exactly which line to put "income
    obtained from illegal sources" on.

What about the ethics of charging for divinatory 
practices to begin with?  My teacher felt very strongly, that those
who are gifted with certain uncommon abilities, ie healing, clairvoyance,
etc., who wish to help others should not charge for that guidance or help.

Of course, priests and clergy often charge a nominal fee for some services,
or ask for donations.  Casting a horoscope and interpreting it
certainly takes some time, what is the value of that?  

Did Edgar Cayce charge for his readings?  I don't think so, but
certainly many supporters contributed money and more which grew
into the ARE.

What are your thoughts about this aspect of professional divination?

Regards,

Pat

    Never having done so for money, but having done a few readings, I can
    understand why someone who does it full time would charge.  It is
    tiring, and not without dangers.  When the information the "client"
    seeks is "protected" from revelation by another psychic, the reader can
    place themselves in jeapordy by finding the information.  The analogy I
    found interesting is that it was kind of like breaking into a computer
    with several levels of security.  If you are really good, you can walk
    by the security "guards", but that's if you are REALLY good.  Odds are,
    you will trip off something that at least lets someone know that you
    were there, even if they don't catch you at the time you did it.  It
    may be a gift, but the reader should not have to pay for the results of
    finding the information - they personally don't need/want it.  So, the
    client can either pay money for the protection the reader provides
    them, or accept the consequences of information acquisation.
    
    Which is better?  IMHO neither; if the client won't accept the
    consequences, and it's not paid for, the client won't receive the
    desired information.  A reader should not be expected to take shoulder
    the burden of the consequences all by themselves.
    
    Beth 

    Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the concept of charging a fee for
    a service when using one's talent.  Power corrupts... you know?
    Or it can if you let it.  Each to his or her own choice though.. 
    The individual knows whats best for him/her self.

   I'm not sure that I understand.  I charge Digital for my talents.  A good
   shoemaker or anything maker charges for his or her talents.  Why is this
   any different?  Why is there guilt associated with the talent of
   divination or any other psychic ability?  What's the fear here?


   							Terza

The concern here is that society has deemed psychic talent as a gift, and 
the usage of this gift can't truly be "labor".  However, it is labor.  It takes
time, energy, training, and effort.  It is societies mind set towards the talents
vs. the results of the talent.  It could be argued that any discovery made by any
person that "benefits" mankind (benefits is quoted because the description of
what is a benefit is subjective) should be public property - no one gets a
reward.

Using psychic skills is like researching, or carrying a load, or even 
"administering the faith" (clergymen, priests, etc).  Society has deemed these
as necessary tasks, hence you are compensated for doing it, especially if it
is not directly necessary for your survival.  If using psychic talents for
another, it is not directly necessary for your survival.  It may even be
detrimental to your survival.  Compensation, some how, should be paid.  If not,
in money, than in other ways (a meal or a favor, for example).  You earn a 
livlihood from other talents (sewing, programming, selling, etc), why not from
this one?

Beth

    Well.....  psychics can effect The Whole in ways unsuspected by unaware
    mundanes.  The only limits on the truly talented are the limits they 
    place upon themselves.  If one tries to keep one's focus upon the good
    of The Whole, then one usually stays out of trouble... but once one's
    focus shifts to oneself... and one's work becomes self benefiting or
    self promoting, then one sometimes allows oneself to justify
    and rationalize whatever one does in order to personally profit.  It's a
    slippery slope (in my humble opinion).  The work is for the most part
    unseen... no critics.. no regulators... old habits die hard and most
    people always revert back to character.  
    
    I suppose it is ok if one can trust oneself completely... I mean each
    individual knows him or her self best.  And it would depend upon who
    one works in concert with too, I imagine.... the work requires stabile
    trusting relationships.... I think anyway.
    
    The other side to that coin is that by accepting pay, one does bring
    a certain amount of regulation and openness into the process.... and
    perhaps that is what it needs.... hmmm...  I don't know... 
    
    Mary

> The concern here is that society has deemed psychic talent as a gift

Beth, I think you're mistaken. Society has largely deemed (correctly or
not) that "psychic talent" is (at least sometimes) a hoax, and *that's*
why charging for it (or claiming to be a professional at it) is seen to
be a problem (under the principle that you can't charge for something
which you can't genuinely provide). There's plenty of precedent that
the use of a gift can command a fee: just look at any artist or athlete.

Concerning the morality of charging for psychic services, I've heard it
said that truth and wisdom are obtained at great spiritual cost. To
provide them to another for any finite sum cheapens them, and reduces
their usefulness to the receiver.

So, in principle, the teacher can never charge enough for wisdom. It
must therefore be given at no material cost, but under circumstances
where it will be correctly perceived and valued. That some teachers may
charge a fee while they are providing a service is sort of incidental.
The charging of a fee may serve some completely unrelated purpose. For
example, the teacher may be collecting money to be used in some other
effort. Or the teacher may be providing the student with an opportunity
to observe his/her own attachment to money. Etc. There's certainly no
relationship between the value of the actual wisdom provided and the
price charged, nor between the price and the training/experience/wisdom
of the teacher.

    And remember... a true talent who lacks ethics and integrity doesn't
    need to charge a fee.  He can influence the stock market and find
    numerous ways to rip people off.  The more he does it though... the
    farther he gets from the source of his own power.. the weaker he
    becomes.... until finally he is just another con artist.

    ...Sunday on my way out of L.A., at the airport, there was a 
    "priest" (man in black outfit with cleric's collar--and a ponytail)
    collecting money for children or something...somehow it irritated
    me enough to comment as I walked by "It used to be the Moonies..."
    The guy looked at me with anger and said "What?" but I was on my
    way up the escalator...
       
    Value, money, elegance, concern, manipulation, coercion,
    guilt-tripping...who's judging?  is it black and white or gray?
    
    Frederick
    

    
    This can be such a touchy area and I've given it a lot of thought.
    I do astrological readings for a modest fee.  If a person cannot
    afford what I suggest, then I let them suggest the fee.  In the
    past I've done readings as give-aways, or have done barters.  I
    don't feel as uncomfortable as I used to about charging a fee for
    the large amount of time I put into researching a chart.  I also
    don't feel that I have any special talent in this - I have just
    put in a lot of hard work over quite a number of years.  Anyone
    can learn astrology if they set their mind to it, and could do a
    credible reading.  Of course, some are better at synthesizing the
    info than others, and are also able to add their intuition/psychic
    sensitivities to the process.  This all enhances the reading.
    
    When I am through with my Polarity Therapy training, I intend to
    charge a fee for them, just as a Massage therapist or any other
    body-worker does.  This doesn't mean that I won't also do this
    as a give-away too.  There is a level of psychic attunement that
    is incorporated in this work.  For me also, I would open myself to
    be a vehicle for Divine healing energy to pass through me to the
    person in need.  I would never turn someone away who was in need and
    could not cover the fee.....and it is also important not to let
    yourself be used either.  This can easily happen to.  It takes
    sensitivity and balance.
    
    If one wants to do their life's work, you need to be compensated to
    some degree so that you can cover your own survival needs.  I don't
    see anything wrong with this.
    
    Maybe it has a lot to do with how we view money, and perhaps that needs
    to shift a bit to allow honest compensation for honest effort.
    
    Carole

>    Maybe it has a lot to do with how we view money, and perhaps that needs
>    to shift a bit to allow honest compensation for honest effort.
    
    At the core of this issue, though, as I think Mike G. alluded to a few back
    in different words, is Harvey MacKay's saying :
    
    "They don't pay off on effort, they pay off on results."  
    
    I think you'll find that there is some very strong support for
    that attitude, in terms of value given for value received.  If someone
    can live on their own and share their gift, that's fine.  But if
    they require taking money from others in exchange for a service in
    order to live, then they should be able to demonstrate tangible results of
    some kind, since they are getting tangible benefits in the form of
    medium of exchange.  Results directly in 
    accordance with what they advertise as their service.  I think this
    same principle applies to all services.   If they turn out results
    in accordance with what they advertise, then yes they should be
    compensated for their efforts in exchange.
    
    Where the charlatanism comes in is with the discrepancy 
    between what is claimed and what is produced, not with the nature
    of divination or Fortune Telling, in my opinion.   
    
    							todd

    I think astrology and body work is a service though, Carole.  
    I don't know... but I see it differently.
    
    What if your speciality were making atomic bombs.  Would you feel free
    to sell your services to whomever walks in the door?
    
    Astrology and body work are valuable services ... and I really don't
    think they are harmful or dangerous.  
    
    High Magick is an entirely different story however...

    
    I agree with you Mary.
    
    Carole

    There is also the issue of providing a service and being able to
    guarantee results.
    
    High Magick is closer to science.  The scientist cannot guarantee that
    he will find a cure for cancer or the common cold.  He can merely
    perform his speciality as best he can.  Results are not guaranteed.
    
    It's more or less the same thing with the military.  They do the best
    they can but they cannot guarantee that they can win every war.
    
    Nor does the major league player... he does his best for his team 
    but he cannot write into his contract a guarantee of success in every
    game...  It isn't realistic.
    
    You wouldn't want a practioner of High Magick to be a soldier of
    fortune ... selling his services to the highest bidder, any more than 
    you would want a nuclear scientist to act in that manner...it would be
    too dangerous for us all.
    
    It all comes down to common sense, I think.
    
    Mary

    Hi Carole (.22),
    
    As a student of Polarity, I too expect to charge for sessions at some
    point.  I've done a lot of thinking about charging a fee as I've
    noticed some practioners appear to become very greedy in their fees.
    That doesn't feel right for me personally, so I would expect to keep my
    fees modest.  I do plan to leave DEC at some point and concentrate on
    healing arts full time so I would count on being compensated as it
    became my life's work.  Trading, bartering, and just out of Love and
    compassion would be part of that too.
    
    As you know and have mentioned, polarity requires (or one develops)
    a sensitivity to the energies of the client and a certain reverence and
    openess to become a channel for the Universal energy to flow through one.
    The more I give and receive polarity, the more I am in awe of how
    powerful it is. 
    
    
    One might even say 'magikal'...
    
    Ro
    

    I have seen some practitioners put a "donation" box at their door. The
    person then gives the amount they feel is justified. If the client is
    not impressed with the "treatment", then they give nothing at all.
    However, if the results are good, the practitioner is rewarded
    accordingly.
    
    Also when some sections of the community get something for nothing, it
    is not appreciated as much as when it is paid for. When a stranger gives
    you something for free, you become somewhat suspicious ?
    
    -Suspiciously,
    
    Brian

    :-)... you have a definite point, Brian.

    
     "Did ya hear the cops finally busted Madam Marie for tellin' fortunes
      better than they do..."
    
                                             - Bruce Springstein

    
    
     re -1.
    
     Isn't that Air Supply ?
    
     Bob
    

    Whatever happened to Caveat Emptor?  It seems to me that people are
    being denied the opportunity to learn their _own_ lessons about life -
    who to trust, who not to - by laws which effectively take much of the
    risk out of life, and therefore also remove opportunities to grow.  
    
    I'm not advocating anarchy (at least not much :')), but I think there
    are so many laws of this type ( and other types) that individuals are
    too "protected" - and eventually they _will_ run across someone who
    will take them for every penny, simply because they never had the
    chance to learn. 
    
    There are always good and bad folks out there selling things.  Let us
    make our own choices, Big Brother. 
    
    Just a thought. 
    
    - Russ. 
    

I agree with you on this one. I don't feel we need legislation to
protect us, and if people want to pay money for something which nobody
can prove or disprove they're getting, that should be their right.

There are times when the consumer should be protected from certain
misleading practises and statements, but, in my opinion, this is not
such a case.

    The problem here, as I see it, is that there are some quite different
    things going on.  Like it or not there *are* phonies out there who use
    tricks from the subtle (conscious "cold-reading" techniques) to the
    overt (hidden speakers, searching the wallet/purse for information,
    hidden devices, etc., etc.).  They *are* misrepresenting themselves and
    the consumer deserves to be protected from them as much as from e.g., car
    sellers who use bait-and-switch or other unsavory practices

    When this is combined by a belief by many that these phenomena cannot
    occur and that therefore *all* practitioners must be fakes (though if
    forced to it, some would agree that "a few" practitioners may not know
    they are fakes), and a cultural bias that such practices are unsavory
    at best even if they are effective (this is a traditional Christian
    attitude which was strongly reinforced in the 19th and early 20th
    centuries as a backlash against spiritualism which was/is frequently
    non-Christian and virtually always subversive to the religious power
    structure -- not to mention feminist in orientation), we get blanket
    laws.

    Not helping the confusion any is that some sincere practitioners feel
    that it is sometimes (or even normally) necessary to supplement what
    they can do.

    Obviously the "just" law would require that fraud or other misleading
    practices be demonstrated in order to make the case.  But as long as
    there are judges who will take conventionally "impossible" claims as
    prima facea evidence of fraud just laws will not lead inevitably to
    justice anyway.

				    Topher

>             <<< Note 1562.34 by STRSHP::COOPER "Topher Cooper" >>>
    
    	Good one.  Heinlein, right ?  :-)
    
>    there are judges who will take conventionally "impossible" claims as
>    prima facea evidence of fraud just laws will not lead inevitably to
>    justice anyway.
    
    		Thanks for those useful distinctions.  Especially between
    	laws and their interpretation by the courts.
    
    								todd

RE: .35 (todd)

>                    -< _The Cat who Walked Through Walls_ >-
>
>>             <<< Note 1562.34 by STRSHP::COOPER "Topher Cooper" >>>
>    
>    	Good one.  Heinlein, right ?  :-)

    Not consciously.  What in particular did you thing was Heinleinesque?

				    Topher

    The perceived pun 'Starship Cooper,' re: 'Starship Trooper.'  Wasn't that 
    one of Heinlein's ?   If I got the wrong author that would really make
    my remark obscure, huh ?  :-)
    
    			Head Zombie in charge of cryptic self-amusal

RE: .37

    Ah!  The light dawns!  Yes, its by Heinlein (Actually its "Starship
    Troopers" with an "s").  I missed it completely.  STRSHP is the node
    name of one of our "boot" nodes (major nodes in a cluster), and has
    been since before I joined my present group.  There has been some
    problems lately in our "cluster alias" (CADSYS) which is what you
    are used to seeing me come from.  So not only wasn't it conscious,
    it was that most valuable of puns -- "found humor".

    (Reminds me, for no good reason, of when my ex-wife first started
    dating me.  She told her mother that she had a new boy-friend.
    Naturally she wanted to know some more details.  She got no further
    than "Well, his name is Topher Cooper" when her mother broke up.  She
    felt she detected a bit of a pattern.  You see, Rachel's previous boy-
    friend had been the director Tobe Hooper).

					Topher