Open Records Memo (for MPA class)

Memo

To: Leona Clerk, the City Clerk of Leon County

From: Melissa Duvall Becker

Re: Public Records Request Issues 7/10/14

Situation:

You’ve presented my office with three different situations involving public records requests. The first situation involves a records request by the city of Tampa for documents created by Leon County for the benefit of visitors and tourists. You want to know if you must respond to a request made by a city. You also are concerned that the requested record includes information which was created at taxpayer expense and that it will be used to financially benefit the requestor.

The second issue involves a frequent requestor of records who has acted in a way which has disrupted the staff. You are wondering if there is a way to limit this person’s ability to request records. You would also like to know if there is any way to limit the requestor from making requests in person.

The final issue involves a request made for meeting minutes which includes thousands of records. The requestor has given a 48 hour deadline which can only be met by having the staff work through the night.

 Questions Presented

1)      Can a public records request be refused because the requestor is a municipal body?

2)      Can a public records request be refused because the requestor will be using a resource created with taxpayers money for their own financial benefit?

3)      What options are available for limiting the how a specific person is able to make a records request?

4)      What options are available when a record requestor is asking for completion of the request in a short period of time?

Summary:

As to question 1, Section 119.01 states that “All state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person.” A county government has been found to meet the definition of person in Hillsborough County, Florida v. Buccaneers Stadium Limited Partnership. A city would similarly meet the definition of a person and is able to make a public records request. For this reason, it is not permissible to deny a records request made by the City of Tampa based on their status as a municipal government.

As to question 2, the fact that the requestor will be able to use the information to gain a financial benefit even though taxpayers paid for the record is not a valid reason to deny a records request. There is no statutory authority to deny a request based on the reason behind the request or what the records would be used for. “The motivation of the person seeking the records does not impact the person’s right to see them under the Public records act.” Curry v. State, 811 so. 2d 736, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).  All public records are made with taxpayer funds in one form or another, and is not a reason to deny a request.

That being said, there is a public records exemption for county tourism promotion agencies from disclosing information that is either a trade secret or business records of booking information. In your question you specified that the record requested was a map that included points of interest for visitors. This information would not be a trade secret or booking information, and therefore is not exempt. A map that is given to visitors would not meet either of these exemptions. If there were other records in the request that you believe might fall under one of these exemptions please contact me so we can look at them specifically to see if they are exempt.

As to Question 3, Section 119.07 says that “every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so”. This is exceptionally broad and does not permit the banning of a person making public records requests, even if the requests are frequent and burdensome. Any rule that would limit access only to certain modes of communication are not permissible. See Informal Attorney General Opinion to Cook, May 27, 2011, “The courts of this state have invalidated measures which seek to impose any additional burden on those seeking to exercise their rights to obtain records under Chapter 119” this includes limiting requests to those that are written.

Similarly, there is no crime in making frequent public records requests. In Curry v State the court said that an individual’s frequent requests for public records of a specific person could not violate stalking law because the requests in themselves, no matter the reason, were legitimate under public records law. If an individual violates the law in the course of their legally protected request for public records, for example by assaulting someone or making physical threats, then they can be arrested for that crime.

Applied to your situation, this means that you cannot institute a ban on this requestor from making requests. You also cannot limit the method by which they are able to make a request. If this person’s behavior in how they interact with the employees becomes violent or violates a law you may involve law enforcement, however the frequency or subject of their requests cannot be criminal.

As to Question 4, Florida’s 2014 Sunshine annual says that “the custodian of public records and his or her designee must acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good faith.” There is no specific time requirement that must be met and there is no requirement that the custodian works outside of normal working hours to meet that request. However, an unjustified delay can be considered to be an unlawful refusal to provide the records (Sunshine Manual page 141). If the staff is diligently working on meeting the request, but simply not working overtime, the court will likely find the effort to be in good faith.

However, it is in the best interest of everyone that any litigation be avoided and we maintain a good relationship with someone making the request. If there is a report or other collection of the information available that will help the requestor find the information they need you may point the requestor to its existence and suggest that they request that. Similarly, you can ask if there is any particular type of information they need from the minutes (for example, just the minutes of meeting where travel expenses were discussed) which could help you narrow down the records and meet the request more quickly.

It is important to make clear that in offering these other options you are not refusing the original request, simply looking to help them get the information they need as quickly as is reasonably possible. Since the requestor also needs to pay for the copies made for the request, narrowing the scope of records may also be in their interest since it reduces the expense. 

Memo on Federal Evidence Rule 15

QUESTION PRESENTED

Can the new amendments to Rule 15 be used to prevent Mr. G from traveling to the UK to be physically present at a deposition?

BRIEF ANSWER

Probably; Mr. G’s situation meets all the qualifications under the new rules to allow for a foreign deposition without his physical presence. Mr. G’s pre-release conditions could not be replicated in the UK, and his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom creates additional flight risks that necessitate that he not be allowed to travel out-of-custody. If he wishes to travel as an in-custody defendant it would only be possible if the British official agree to take control of him, and even then there is a risk that he may not return because he could face charges over there.

ANALYSIS

On December 1, 2012 an amendment to Rule 15 of the FRCRP will go into effect regarding the taking of depositions in foreign countries. The purpose of the rule is to provide “a procedural framework” in cases involving foreign witnesses distilling the analysis used in existing caselaw. (June 2011 Memo of the Advisory Committee on the FRCRP). The entire amendment is as follows:

 (c) Defendant's Presence.

(1) Defendant in Custody. Except as authorized by Rule 15(c)(3), the officer who has custody of the defendant must produce the defendant at the deposition and keep the defendant in the witness's presence during the examination, unless the defendant:

(A) waives in writing the right to be present; or

(B) persists in disruptive conduct justifying exclusion after being warned by the court that disruptive conduct will result in the defendant's exclusion.

(2) Defendant Not in Custody. Except as authorized by Rule 15(c)(3), a defendant who is not in custody has the right upon request to be present at the deposition, subject to any conditions imposed by the court. If the government tenders the defendant's expenses as provided in Rule 15(d) but the defendant still fails to appear, the defendant--absent good cause--waives both the right to appear and any objection to the taking and use of the deposition based on that right.

(3) Taking Depositions Outside the United States Without the Defendant's Presence. The deposition of a witness who is outside the United States may be taken without the defendant's presence if the court makes case-specific findings of all the following:

(A) the witness's testimony could provide substantial proof of a material fact in a felony prosecution;

(B) there is a substantial likelihood that the witness's attendance at trial cannot be obtained;

(C) the witness's presence for a deposition in the United States cannot be obtained;

(D) the defendant cannot be present because:

(i) the country where the witness is located will not permit the defendant to attend the deposition;

(ii) for an in-custody defendant, secure transportation and continuing custody cannot be assured at the witness's location; or

(iii) for an out-of-custody defendant, no reasonable conditions will assure an appearance at the deposition or at trial or sentencing; and

(E) the defendant can meaningfully participate in the deposition through reasonable means.

…

 (f) Admissibility and Use as Evidence. An order authorizing a deposition to be taken under this rule does not determine its admissibility. A party may use all or part of a deposition as provided by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 15

Even though the rule is not yet in effect it will be in effect by the time Mr. G’s trial begins. The rule states that it is to apply to all ongoing cases, therefore for the sake of efficiency the court should use the new rule early. Otherwise, it risks having to having to amend its own decision in just a few months to comply with the rules. Furthermore, because the rule has been written over six years with the advice of many legal experts and has been given the approval of the Supreme Court, it should be considered a reputable authority on the issue.

Amended Rule 15(c)(3) says a deposition outside the united states can be taken without the presence of an out-of-custody defendant, like Mr. G, when “no reasonable conditions will assure an appearance at the deposition or at trial or sentencing.” The question of what constitutes a reasonable condition for release in a foreign country should be similar to the analysis used when deciding any kind of pretrial release conditions. US v. Sapse, 2011 WL 1576898 (D. Nevada, 2011).  The actions taken to overcome these concerns in order to secure the physical presence of the defendant at a foreign deposition “must be undertaken in good faith, [but] they need not be heroic, and the possibility of using a deposition does not evaporate even if those efforts prove fruitless.” United States v. McKeeve, 131 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1997) (Involving an in-custody defendant who the U.K. refused to take custody of for the duration of the deposition).

Flight Concerns

Currently, Mr. G’s pre-trial release conditions include a curfew and electronic monitoring. He also has had to surrender his passport. For the past four years, Mr. G has complied diligently with these rules, but there is no way to replicate them in the UK. The U.S. Marshal’s service lacks authority to enforce these rules on foreign soil. (McKeeve at 7). They have no authority to compel Mr. G to appear at the deposition. If he were to choose to just walk away from them, they would have no authority to stop him.

Furthermore, while the current pre-release conditions may be satisfactory in the United States, they would be inadequate overseas. Mr. G is a citizen of the United Kingdom with friends and family in that nation. As a U.K. citizen the potential for flight are greatly increased if he were allowed to return to his home country. Even though he has surrendered his passport, once he was in the U.K. he could file to get a new passport and receive it the same day under the Identity and Passport Service’s Premium One-Day Service. He could also possibly borrow a passport from a friend and use it without being detected because of lax security demonstrated by news reports of an 11 year old boy flying from the UK to Rome with no passport or ticket, a BBC reporter who was able to fly out of and into the UK on a private plane without any passport check, and a couple who flew swapped passports and went undetected through security- nobody noticing that the name, picture, or genders didn’t match.

This is a huge issue because with a UK passport and no visa he could travel to a number of countries that lack extradition treaties with the United States including Croatia[1], The Marshall Islands[2], and Micronesia. Even though the United States has extradition treaties with a number of other EU nations that is no guarantee that the foreign nation will agree to extradition or that it would be accomplished in a timely manner (see Polanski, Roman). Even without a passport he could travel to any of the places within the UK common travel area like Scotland, Ireland, and The Isle of Man making it possible for him to disappear from justice.

Because of concerns over flight, the only reasonable condition available to allow Mr. G’s physical presence is to be placed into custody of U.K. officials, but even that may prove difficult to arrange. In McKeeve the British authorities refused to take custody of a defendant. If they similarly refuse to take custody in Mr. G’s case the courts will not force the issue. In U.S. v. Salim the French government’s refusal to allow a defendant to be present at a deposition within the country did not render the deposition unusable in the Second Circuit. “A sovereign nation is entitled to refuse to acquiesce in the use within its borders of American methods of gathering, preserving and presenting evidence; such refusal, however, should not automatically and invariably cause the prosecution to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence abroad.” United States v. Salim, 855 F.2d 944, 950 (2d Cir. 1988).

The government must make a good faith effort to allow the defendant to appear at the deposition, but we are not held responsible for the decisions of other nations. Our offer should be to allow the defendant to travel in-custody if the UK authorities agree to take responsibility for his care and transport to the deposition. It is possible that they will refuse, as they did in the McKeeve case, but we have at least demonstrated that we have made the effort which is all that will matter if the issue is appealed.

Potential Charges in Foreign Countries

Another potential issue arises when a defendant’s crimes may subject them to criminal charges in the country where they wish to travel for the deposition. The problem isn’t one of flight, but that defendant will be subject to arrest and prosecution while in the foreign nation, thus delaying his return to the United States to face trial and sentencing. While this is not as strong an argument as the Flight issue, it is still a potential problem which we could raise in regard to concerns surround Mr. G’s travel to the U.K.

In U.S. v. Medjuck the 9^th circuit found that the fact that there was a Canadian warrant for his arrest justified his preclusion from an in-person appearance at the deposition of a Canadian witness. Medjuck, 156 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1998). A warrant does not need to be issues for this concern to be valid. In U.S. v. Abu Ali, one of the cases the Judicial Committee cites as using during their drafting of the new rule, a 4^th Circuit court found that concern that the defendant’s conduct “might subject him to prosecution overseas” were reasonable. U Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 239 (4th Cir. 2008). The threat of prosecution needed to be reasonable. In U.S. v. Snapse a district court found that the fact that the defendant had been investigated for criminal activity in Romania would not prevent him from being able to appear at a deposition in the Ukraine as long as there was not an international warrant for his arrest. Sapse, 2011 WL 1576898 (D. Nev. Apr. 26, 2011).

Mr. G’s legal situation in the UK is not as certain as the one in the Medjuck case, where a warrant had been issued. That being said, it is similar to the situation in Ali where prosecution was possible. Mr. G has been questioned by the UK authorities, and while they have given us no reason to believe that they are interested in their own prosecution, we also have no way to prevent them from doing so. Mr. G, like the defendant in Ali and distinguishable from the one in Sapse, is asking to enter the country where the potential violation occurred. In Sapse the risk of the defendant being held in Ukraine for activities in Romania would have required jurisdictional hurdles making it less likely. Once Mr. G is in the boarders of the United Kingdom, and possibly in their custody, there is nothing preventing them from going forward with their own case other than their verbal assurance that they won’t.

It’s possible that the court may take the UK’s assertion that they are not going to proceed with their own charges against Mr. G to be enough to eliminate these concerns. The existing cases to not deal with that particular issue or offer court guidance in deciding what types of overseas legal threats are reasonable. The Ali case clearly leaves this concern open as one that may be used by courts in denying the appearance of a defendant, but it is not as strong as the issues surrounding flight.

Use of Deposition at Trial

It is important to note that the taking of a deposition under rule 15 does not assure that it can be used at trial. It would still need to meet Rule of Evidence 804 showing that a witness continues to be unavailable to testify at trial. Additionally, the drafters of the new Rule 15 said that it might be possible for a deposition taken in accordance with the new rules to be unable to be used at trial if “the technology [used for video conferencing] is inadequate or fails” because such a deposition might violate the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause if the court finds the technological glitches hampered the defendant’s ability to meaningfully assist counsel in the cross-examination of the witness.

CONCLUSION

The amended Rule 15 should be used in advance of its official enactment for the sake of judicial efficiency. If the court’s ruling does not comply with the new rule now, then it will be possible to appeal that decision once the rule becomes effective before the start of trial. Under the new rule, Mr. G could appear at the deposition in a foreign nation if reasonable conditions are in place to assure his appearance at the deposition and his return to face trial. Mr. G’s status as a UK citizen, and the ease with which that status would allow him to disappear in Europe, means that the only reasonable condition to allow for his appearance would be to enter into custody. Even that may not be enough, since the UK may not accept custody and if the UK choses to go forward with a prosecution there is no way to compel his timely release. The flight argument is probably the stronger of these issues since UK officials have offered assurances they do not intend to go forward with their own prosecution. Although case law suggests that the fact that prosecution is possible, even without a warrant or indication that prosecution is imminent, may be enough to prevent a defendant’s travel.

---

[1] Technically there is an extradition treaty from 1901, but it is not being followed by the Croatian government who refused to allow convicted arms dealer Peter Walaschek  to be returned to the United States. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/declassified/2010/01/15/u-s-angered-as-allies-fumble-extraditions-of-alleged-iranian-agents.html

[2] He would need a Visa, but these are available upon entry at the airport with no prior authorization.

Crystal Balls and Criminals: Regulations of Psychics using Law and Economics

            Harry Houdini was considered one of the great magicians of the 20^th century, but his best trick may have been turning a congressional hearing about the regulation of business licenses in the District of Columbia into a four day entertainment extravaganza featuring undercover detectives, an impromptu psychic reading, and a surprise appearance by Mrs. Houdini. The topic of debate was a law that would criminalize fortune telling. This new law, modeled on one from New York, would replace D.C.’s practice of requiring fortune tellers to acquire a license.

            Total bans on fortune telling were common at the time. The laws against fortune telling had roots back to colonial America and the British 1736 Witchcraft Act.[1] While the title of the law might conjure images of a witch being weighed against a duck and then burnt, the act was not about prosecuting real witches. Instead it was a consumer protection act meant to stop fraud.[2]

            By the time of the Houdini hearings in 1926 fortune telling was no longer considered to be inherently fraudulent. Three years earlier New Jersey’s Supreme Court said that taking money for giving a fortune was protected religious speech in State v. De Laney, 122 A. 890, 891 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1923), and the academic field of parapsychology had begun experiments trying to prove the existence of Extra sensory perception.

           

            One reason for the change in opinion was the rise of spiritualism as a religious practice in the United States. Founded in New York in 1848, Spirtualists believed that people could communicate with the dead who could impart knowledge from heaven about future events.[3] After the American Civil War belief in spiritualism spiked as people grieving those lost in the war wanted to find some type of closure by contacting them through mediums, séances, or the use of spirit or Ouija boards.[4]         

Much of the conversation in the Houdini hearing focused on discussions about spiritualism as a religious practice. Leaders of spiritualist societies wanted exemptions for those who were members of their sect, while skeptics said that it would be wrong to allow fraud under the color of religion. The one thing that both sides seemed to agree on was that the licensing wasn’t the right way to go. Houdini spoke for those urging the ban saying that “Washington is the only place where you can buy a license for $25 with which to blackmail and rob the public”[5]. At the same time practicing spiritualists who conferred with spirits felt that they should not have to acquire a license in order to practice their faith.[6]

Although licensing seemed unpopular with both sides, it has ended up being the path that many cities have taken in trying to allow fortune tellers to practice while also protecting the public from fraud. The existence of these licenses are sometimes held up as an example of over-regulation of businesses or government inefficiency. One think thank spokesperson joked that fortune telling licensing is pointless since “it is literally impossible to be a competent fortune teller." [7]This comment, like so much conversation on fortune telling, is premised on first deciding if psychic abilities are real.

By centering the conversation on the legitimacy of fortune telling what has been ignored is the practical problem of consumer protection. This paper looks to address that issue by not focusing on proving, or disproving, psychic phenomenon but by trying to limit criminal activity related to psychics using an economic model of offender action.

Section One of this paper discusses the problem of fortune telling focusing on the factors that make some type of government intervention both necessary and difficult. Section Two will discuss the offender model proposed by Gary Becker. Section Three will apply the model to the types of interventions used by governments and evaluate how well they work to prevent criminal acts by fortune tellers.

             Section One: The Problem of Fortune Tellers

As an initial matter, it is important to define what we are talking about with the phrase fortune tellers. For the purposes of this paper, fortune telling will encompass all of the types of predictive services offered for sale. This includes the well known techniques like astrology, palmistry, numerology, tasseograpghy (tea leaf readings), casting of runes, scrying (the use of a crystal ball), and cartmancy (the use of cards). It also includes the services offered by mediums who claim to be able to connect and receive messages from the dead (think of Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost). Mediums may not always make predictive comments but the services they offer have the same types of difficulties of proof as those that offer to tell the future.

There are four factors related to fortune telling that make it difficult for governments to deal with:

1)      There is a demand for fortune telling services from people who believe that these abilities exist.

2)       There is no scientific proof that psychic abilities or communication with the dead are possible and no universally accepted test of abilities.

3)      Some percentage of people claiming to be fortune tellers do not have the abilities they claim.

4)      Some number of people purporting to be fortune tellers use the position to find targets for criminal activity.

There is a demand for fortune telling services from people who believe that these abilities exist.

            2.6 million people tune into the TLC series Long Island Medium, now in its sixth season, which follows Theresa Caputo as she connects people with deceased family members who she claims to be in contact with, and who offer her predictions of the future from the other side. Caputo’s series is just one of many reality shows which present fortune telling as real. You have The Dead Files which features a retired homicide detective who works with a medium to solve violent crimes and the upcoming Psychic Matchmaker whose premise is in the title[8]. While some may watch these shows for entertainment, there are many who believe they represent real phenomenon.

2009 poll by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life found that many people believed in the supernatural and the types of services offered by fortune tellers.15% of respondents had consulted a psychic.[9]  16% reported a belief in the ability of some people to cast spells or curses, a service offered by some fortune tellers along with services that report to remove curses from people. A full quarter of people said they believed in astrology, and the ability of the location of planets to influence events in a person’s life. Finally, 29% of the respondents said that they believed they had been in touch with someone who had died, important because such ability to “cross over” to the spirit realm is a core belief of mediums and psychics who claim to get their information from the dead.

            American’s do not only believe in these things, they spend their money in actively using psychic services. Psychic consultation was expected to bring in 1.9 billion dollars in revenue in 2014, and that study only looked at one-on-one consultation.[10] Not included in that statistic are the revenues brought in by mass market astrologists like Susan Miller (whose astrology zone website gets 20 million monthy page views) and the money earned from the television programs previously mentioned. [11]

            People who visit psychics are often facing some type of personal crisis; the end of a relationship, loss of a loved one, or financial difficulties.[12] A study looking at belief in psychics found that people were most likely to hold a belief in precognition when they felt out of control in their own lives, and that such beliefs can help people feel they have control in their lives. [13] Counterintuitively, the fact that a psychic reports to see their future makes these believers feel that they have power in their life and that they aren’t passively predestined to a certain fate.

            Belief in fortune tellers and the paranormal seems to be a natural part of certain personality types that can’t be dissuaded even with evidence of trickery. [14]  When self-reported believers in the paranormal were told in advance how a psychic demonstration was done without paranormal powers they reported that they believed they had witnessed a paranormal experience, rejecting the mundane explanation they had been given in advance.[15]

            For a good number of people belief in psychics is a core belief which is not simply dissuaded, and which seems to offer some benefits to feelings of well-being and control. There is a demand for psychic services worth billions of dollars annually which wants to be served.

There is no scientific proof that psychic abilities or communication with the dead are possible and no universally accepted test of abilities

            In 1922 Scientific American offered $2500 for anyone able to demonstrate proof of psychic phenomenon or spirit communication. While a few people attempted to claim the prize, their demonstrations were debunked as fraudulent- Look up some examples. Since then many organizations have offered a bounty for proof that precognition, astrology, or other paranormal abilities are real including the $1,000,000 James Randi Foundation Award name.

            None of these awards have ever been claimed.

            There have been attempts to use scientific methods and investigation to prove the existence of the paranormal in an academic field called parapsychology. Once a field of intense interest (Duke and Stanford both had parapsychology laboratories, the later as recently as 1980) the remaining parapsychology programs are focused more on examining why people believe in the paranormal than trying to prove its existence.[16]            

            Decades of failed experiments, or successful ones that were unable to be replicated under scientific conditions, led to the end of the field.[17] Studies of psychic abilities still exist, but are rare and still have not stood up to tests of replicability.

            Psychics claim that the rigors of science hamper the ambiance needed to commune with the beyond. When psychic Patricia Putt learned that her attempt to claim the Randi prize had failed she said that the conditions meant the subjects were “not really free to link with Spirit making [her] work a great deal more difficult."[18] The need for a positive atmosphere is a necessary condition for many psychic practioners, which is incompatible with the detachment that a part of scientific research.

            Whether the lack of proof of psychic ability is because it does not exist or because of the vibes of researches is not important. In either case there is no accepted test of these abilities. For this reason there is no way to offer a qualification exam to demonstrate the psychics have the powers they claim. The lack of any proof is used by many as evidence that paranormal phenomenon does not exist, but this is not persuasive to believers. For this reason focusing on proving, or disproving, that psychic abilities exist is a pointless exercise since both sides are assured they are right.

Some percentage of people claiming to be fortune tellers do not have the abilities they claim.

            In 2004 the mother of missing teenager Amanda Berry appeared on the Montel Williams talk show to talk about the case and try and get clues on the case from psychic Sylvia Browne. Browne appeared regularly on talk shows, including the news interview program Larry King Live. The author of a dozen books, including one that offered tips on how to choose a real psychic, Brown was a psychic medium whose insights came from messages from the dead who had gained omniscience once they enter the spirit world.

On the show, Browne claimed to be speaking to the spirit of Berry who had been killed. She also offered a location where police could find a jacket with DNA that would belong to the killer. The jacket was never found, but Amanda Berry was in 2013. She had been held captive for a decade, not dead as Browne had claimed. [19]

The very public failed predictions of fortune tellers like Browne is proof that at least some of those who claim to predict the future are not able to do so. We also have confessions from those who once worked as fortune tellers, like Mark Edwards, who have explained that their insight came from the mundane and not supernatural.

The most common technique used by fraudulent fortune tellers is a technique called Cold Reading. A fortune teller may start the reading with a generic statement or one which is statistically likely to be correct. For example, “you are having a difficult time in your life right now,” has a high likelihood of being correct since most people seeing a psychic are going through some type of difficulty.

The client may then drop a hint about why they are there (“yes, I’m getting a divorce”) which allows the psychic to elaborate the reading. Even if they do not explicitly say their reasons, body language and facial expressions allow the fortune teller to see what statements seem to connect with the client and which ones don’t.

Cold reading works because of the Barnum effect, which is the tendency of people to think that generic or universal things are uniquely directed towards them. You, dear reader, have a tendency to be critical of yourself. I was likely correct, not because I have written this for a particular person but because part of the human condition is to be self-critical. By using generic statements a fortune teller can appear to have crafted a highly personal.[20]

Along with cold reading, fortune tellers may attempt a “scattershot” method of prediction. This was most famously done by 60s psychic Jeane Dixon, who came to prominence when she predicted the assassination of John F. Kennedy nine years before it happened. What is often overlooked is that along with predicting that the 1960 Democratic candidate would win but would die in office during his first or second term, she also predicted that Richard Nixon would win the election, and that Kennedy would not win the democratic nomination. Dixon made many different, often conflicting, predictions but after the fact only her successes were discussed. In a reading a fortune teller might make many guesses, some of which are incorrect, but they will focus on the things they get correct with the knowledge that most people will recall those times when they got something right while minimizing the misses. It helps that most people seeing a psychic are already believers. Confirmation bias, the human tendency to accept things that conform to our existing beliefs, is very helpful to the cold reader since the client will ignore things that are wrong because they want to believe.

Along with cold reading, some fortune tellers use advanced information in order to appear to have insights into client lives. John Edward is a medium who sells out shows nationwide and can be seen on the series John Edward Cross Country connecting families with their dead loved ones. Unlike one-on-one consultation, Edward tends to work in a large room where he will often be speaking to multiple spirits at once, with any confusion in what they are saying being explained by the confusion of trying to talk to multiple ghosts. In an article for Time Magazineon Edward, the writer noted that his show’s staff gathered details from the audience including family trees and details on what they were hoping to hear which could be fed back to Edward[21]. This is called hot reading, when a fortune teller has advanced knowledge on a client that they use to appear more credible.

Hot reading is much easier in the era of Facebook and the internet. Someone making an appointment with a fortune teller may be asked to leave their email to receive a confirmation, but that same email can be used to scan social media to find out their relationship status, career, and what they have on their Amazon wish list. Other methods of hot reading use a plant in the waiting room to make small talk which gathering information. If cold readings methods of generic statements can seem impressive to a receptive client, when someone has the specific knowledge gained through hot reading they are even more credible. This credibility may lead in the client being more likely to believe claims that they are under a curse or that they need to buy an expensive charm to protect them, which can be part of larger criminal frauds.

Even without those criminal activities, the fact that cold and hot reading techniques have been exposed by former psychics and professional skeptics means that someone who is hiring a fortune teller cannot know immediately if they are dealing with someone who truly has a gift, or is using these techniques. Fortune telling is an example of a post-experience good where consumers may not know the quality of the good even after using it since they may not know if the predictions are truly from the beyond, or simply guesses from someone who appears to have insight through other means.

Skeptics would say that all fortune tellers use these methods, and that is one reason that the industry should be banned. However, for believers the fact that some fortune tellers are frauds does not mean that they all are. What both sides can agree on is that some percentage of fortune tellers do not actually have the skills they report to have, and that consumers can’t clearly tell the real from the fake.

Some number of people purporting to be fortune tellers use the position to find targets for criminal activity.

            Jude Deveraux’s marriage was failing and her son had recently died. Depressed and desperate she went to a psychic for advice. Over the next seventeen years Deveraux would continue to see the psychic and was amazed at the accuracy of her readings. Soon, the psychic was offering to help her ease problems in her life by conducting rituals. $1,200 for a ritual that would insure an easy divorce. One million dollars for use in a ritual that would help her son be reincarnated back into her life. When Deveraux would become suspicious something amazing would happen to convince her that the psychic was real. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell began a romantic correspondence with Deveraux, just as the psychic had predicted. She came into contact with a woman who had given birth to Deveraux’s child after a mix up at a fertility lab, a story which the psychic had explained even though the lab denied it. Through it all the psychic needed more and more money to use in rituals to keep Deveraux’s family safe.

            In 2013 Deveraux saw her psychic for the last time. It was in a court room where Deveraux was having to embarrassingly testify that she had fallen victim to a con artist for over 17 million dollars. The letters from Powell were really from a friend of the psychic. The child from the in vitro mix up was the psychic’s nephew. The money hadn’t been destroyed in a ritual, but kept by the psychic, who was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in federal prison for the fraud committed on Deveraux on others.

Some people would argue that there is no real difference between the fortune teller who defrauded Deveraux and the fortune teller using cold reading techniques; both are committing frauds. Yet, it seems important to draw a distinction between the pretender fortune teller and they type of large scale criminal activity used against Deveraux. The fortune teller who lacks actual ability must still satisfy their client’s desire for information. If it doesn’t come to pass then they will not come back in the future. On the other hand, the criminal psychic will deceive the client into believing the prediction DID happen. There is a difference between the fraudulent fortune teller making a general statement about meeting a man, and hiring someone to pretend to be that man to gain the credibility of the client.

Since many people turn to fortune tellers during times of emotional crisis, the position can be used as a “roper” to capture targets for large scale frauds and theft. In the 1920s Medium H.E. Parker ran a scam where he would claim that spirits were suggesting the purchase of certain stocks which just happened to be owned by associates.[22] One of the most common types of criminal frauds conducted by fortune tellers is the bujo or egg scam, which is described by the Illinois State Police in this fictional example:

After several visits, Jane is told the "dark evil" surrounding her life is being caused by her late husband's insurance money. The "psychic" rubs an egg around Jane's body to absorb some of the evil. When the egg is cracked open, an ugly, disgusting mass (usually made up of hair, bread, and maybe a small plastic devil's head) is discovered inside the egg. The "psychic" tells Jane she must bury the insurance money in the graveyard. Jane is understandably reluctant to perform such an act. The "psychic," pretending to be a compassionate person, volunteers to bury the money for Jane (the psychic buries the money right into her own pocket).[23]

Similar to the bujo is the bag scam, where someone is told that they must make a sacrifice to lift a curse on them. The sacrifice normally takes the form of money which is placed in a bag and set on fire. Only the bag has been swapped out and the fire is burning worthless paper. [24]

            In these cases the fortune teller is taking property under false pretenses and not providing the service for which they have been contracted. While laws against theft and fraud already cover these crimes the unique relationship of trust given to the psychic can make these cases difficult to detect and prosecute. In the bag switch scam, a victim may not even realize that a theft has been committed since they believe the money to have been destroyed. Other victims may not come forward because they are embarrassed to admit they believed in the paranormal. Without victims making reports, law enforcement is almost powerless to detect these types of frauds.

How These Four Factors Work Together

            There is a demand for fortune tellers but no clear way to test to see if a fortune teller is qualified. We know that some number of fortune tellers do not have the abilities they attest to, and that some number have criminal motivations.

            It may help to place fortune tellers into one of four groups based on their legitimacy and mendacity. We have the legitimate psychic criminals, the fraudulently psychic criminals, the legitimate non-criminal psychics, and the fraudulent non-criminal psychics. A perfect regime would be one where only the legitimate non-criminal psychics would practice, however the lack of any test makes this difficult. Since there is no accepted way to determine legitimacy, we must instead shift to try and prevent clients from coming into contact with a criminally minded fortune teller.[25]

                       

Section Two: The Beckerian Offender Model

            A community looking to prevent the negatives of psychics, such as fraud or deception, while also maintaining the potential benefits of psychics, accurate information or a sense of well-being from the service, can use law and economics to determine how to best craft their laws so as to dissuade criminal elements while still allowing some people to practice.

            In his 1974 essay Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, Gary S. Becker applied theories of rational markets to the criminal arena in creating a model to determine the optimal levels of crime.

            To understand Becker’s paper, one must begin by accepting the premise that committing a criminal act is like any other market transaction where one is expecting a certain benefit in exchange for a certain price, the only difference is that the price paid by the criminal is not only the cost of the tools needed to complete the offense but also the potential cost of being caught and punished. This premise is not incompatible with other theories of criminology that focus on moral reasoning or socialization, nor does it demand that the offender be logical or emotionless in order to be considered a rational actor. Becker was simply saying that someone decides to commit an offense because their perceived benefit is greater than their perceived cost, including the potential of punishment.

B>C+S(p)

B=benefit, c=cost S=saction p=probability

            To demonstrate this theory, imagine a city that charges $10 an hour for parking or issues a $5 fine for those who park without paying. If the town only issues one ticket per vehicle each day, then everyone should park illegally because they will be saving money by doing so. Put into the Beckerian equation the benefit gained is the value of the spot ($10 per hour at least), there is no immediate cost, your sanction is $5. Even if the probability of getting caught was 100%, it would still make sense to illegally park in this town because the benefit is at least $10 which is greater than the maximum cost of $5.

            Even in this system there may still be people who pay the fee instead of risking the fine, but it isn’t because they are not rational, but because their perception of the values of the equation are different. For example, the Mayor of the town might always pay the parking fee because they know that their potential sanction for not paying will be negative publicity or stigma related to the act. Or some who takes pride in their record of never breaking the law would experience a cost for parking illegally that the general case doesn’t. The people deciding not to park illegally are still making the same rational decision as everyone else, they just have personalized factors to take into account that change the balance of the equation. As Becker notes “Some persons become “criminals,” therefore, not because their basic motivation differs from that of other persons, but because their benefits and costs differ.”

            Under the Beckerian equation, policies looking to reduce crime need to either reither decrease the left side of the equation or increase the right. In our example, dropping the value of the parking spot from $10/per hour to $1/per hour would reduce the number of people parking without paying because the benefit of doing so is lessened. Similar reductions in offenses can be found by increasing the equation on the right side, either by increasing the cost, the perceived sanction, or the perceived probability of being sanctioned. Increasing the cost of a ticket for illegal parking from $5 to $150 will reduce the number of those who refuse to pay the fee. The amount that it will reduce it is based on the perceived probability of being sanctioned. Someone who sees a traffic warden writing tickets on the block is more likely to pay the parking fee than someone who knows that the area doesn’t have enforcement agents working. As the probability of sanction increases, the number of offenders decrease.

            Of course not all people will react identically to these changes in probability and sanction. Becker noted that risk neutral people would be equally impacted by a change in sanction or an equivalent change in probability, so twice the sanction would deter as many risk neutral people as a sanction that you are twice as likely to receive. However, some people are risk averse and are more likely to be deterred by a change in sanction than one in the probability of receiving the sanction. Consider these the pessimistic sort, the ones who assume that they will definitely get caught any time they violated the law. On the other hand, the risk seeking individual is one who assumes that they will not be caught and so they are not deterred by increased sanctions. After all, you will only be punished if you get caught! For that reason the risk seeking are more motivated by increased enforcement which leads to a greater probability of getting captured than a similar increase in sanctions.

            The offender model was only one part of Becker’s paper, which addressed optimum levels of crime. The idea that some non-zero level of crime would be optimal seems wrong at first glance. However, it if a concept that we understand and have used in our own lives, although likely subconsciously. Think about what security system you have at your home. A locked door offers more protection than an open one, but an alarm offers even more protection, and a 24-hour private guard offers even more protection. Yet, we don’t all have full time guards, or even alarm systems, because we have decided that the cost of these measures are not worth the increased protection. We accept that some level of burglary is an acceptable trade-off instead of paying for those protections.

            In the same way, there comes a point where the societal costs of crime are not worth the extra costs that would be necessary to prevent that crime. When looking at how various laws impact the offender model, we have to keep in mind what the cost are of crimes being prevented and how much it will cost for enforcement and punishment.

Section Three: Regulatory Regimes and the Offender Model

            Attempts to limit the negatives of fortune telling have focused either on total bans or licensing. In order to compare these options, we can compare two states: New York who has a ban on fortune telling and Massachusetts who uses a licensing regime.

            Under New York law

“A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement. Fortune telling is a class B misdemeanor.”

            The New York ban is broad enough to cover all types of fortune telling and mediumship, including astrology, which would be covered under the section on giving advice on personal matters. The previous version of the law, which only forbade fortune telling, was found not to apply to astrologers who the court said were giving character readings and advice.[26]

            The New York ban also focuses on those who claim to be able to tell fortunes, overcoming one of the problems with a similar ban in Illinois which made it illegal to “obtain money or property from another by fraudulent devices and practices in the name of… fortune telling“.[27] Courts found that the phrase “fraudulent device and practices” meant that there needed to be an intent to defraud, so those who legitimately believed in their abilities could not be prosecuted.[28]

            While the New York ban fills these gaps, it does leave open a fairy large exemption for fortunes given for entertainment purposes only. A note in the window or on a website would seem to satisfy this disclaimer, and that is indeed what is done by many practicing fortune tellers in New York.[29]

            Using this loophole, or simply ignoring the law, many fortune tellers operate throughout the Empire State. A search on Yelp found 374 psychics and astrologers in New York City, and an analysis of the psychic service industry found that 7.4% of the nation’s fortune tellers were located in New York State. To put that into perspective, New York has about 6.2% of the US population so the number of psychic services located there are slightly more than what you’d expect if they were equally distributed by population.[30]

            Clearly the ban has not resulted in an elimination of the industry. In part because the enforcement of the ban seems to be fairly rare. Only 10 people were charged with the misdemeanor crime of practicing fortune telling between January 2010 and August 2011, which is punishable by 90 days in jail or a $500 fine. In part this appears to be because law enforcement does not consider violations of the law to be pressing matters. This might be because they do not view the savings to society by preventing these crimes to be worth the cost of enforcement. In other words, illegally operating fortune tellers might be an optimum level of offence for the current law enforcement in New York, which explains why they are not arresting more people for violating the law. Even the larger criminal frauds involving fortune tellers may be overlooked by law enforcement, who may mistakenly believe the issue is one for a civil court.[31]

            While New York’s ban on fortune telling doesn’t seem to have impacted the availability of the service, it may signal a stigma on victims. After all, a community that bans the practice of fortune telling is seemingly coming down on the side of Houdini and other skeptics who do not believe that paranormal experiences exist. There is a potential area of research to see if communities with psychic bans treat potential victims of criminal psychics more harshly than other communities that may be more publically accepting of believers.

            We can compare New York’s ban to the licensing regime in Massachusetts which says

No person shall tell fortunes for money unless a license therefor has been issued by the local licensing authority. Said license shall be granted only to applicants who have resided continuously in the city or town in which the license is sought for at least twelve months immediately preceding the date of the application. No such license shall be transferred or assigned. Unless otherwise established in a town by town meeting action and in a city by city council action, and in a town with no town meeting by town council action, by adoption of appropriate by-laws and ordinances to set such fees, the fee for each license granted under this section shall be two dollars, but in no event shall any such fee be greater than fifty dollars. Whoever tells fortunes for money unless licensed under this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.

                Massachusetts’s fortune telling licenses are not expensive, a maximum of $50, which is low compared to other similar laws. Virginia allows local authorities to charge up to $1000 for a license[32]. An unreasonably high license fee may function as a de facto ban shifting fortune tellers to nearby places without the fees. North Carolina allows local governments to issue a “privlege license tax” on fortune tellers with no limitation.[33] As a result a fortune teller in Jacksonville, NC would need to pay $1000 each year to do business in that city, but no additional fees for the fortune teller operating outside the city limits in unincorporated Onslow County.

            Along with the lower fees, Massachusetts is also unusual because it does not require a background check to be issued a license. While the state law only requires a 12 month residency, the local licensing authorities have the authority to ask for more. Plymouth, Salem, and Boston all require criminal background checks for anyone wanting to get a fortune telling license. This is an important part of any licensing regime since it works to prevent the known criminal fortune tellers from working legally within the state.

            Massachusetts allows local licensing authorities the power to tailor the rules for fortune tellers to their specific circumstances. This is especially important in Salem, which is a popular tourist destination for believers in the Occult because of its association with the witch trials of Colonial times. In an effort to prevent the town from being overrun with psychic practioners. In 1998 the city set a quota allowing one psychic license per 10,000 residents. Along with a grandfathering rule, this allowed about a dozen psychics in town. However, the law did not require temporary fortune tellers, who would come to town as part of fairs during the Halloween tourist season, which upset residence who were unable to be licensed and made it hard to protect tourists.[34] In 2007 the town eliminated the quota, but began requiring temporary fortune tellers to contract with one of the licensed businesses in town. Complaints may also be made to a licensing board, who reserve the right to withdraw a license at any time, and has at least once.[35] Being able to go to a licensing board instead of law enforcement, especially of the board is made up of people sympathetic to the contention that psychics are real, may increase the number of complains made by victims who feel more comfortable talking to like-minded people. It also better aligns the cost of enforcement with the benefits to society since licensing hearings are less expensive than criminal proceedings. Those who are practicing without a license are commiting a strict liability crime, which also reduces the costs of enforcement since there is no element of mens rea needed to prove.

            To compare how these different regimes impact the criminal offender, we need to go back to the Becker formula:

B>C+S(p)

B=benefit, c=cost S=saction p=probability

            When we compare a neutral regime (one with no additional regulation of fortune telling other than existing laws) to the regimes that ban fortune telling and those that license it, there are some factors that are common in all of them. All three regimes still have laws against fraud and theft which are a concern for criminal fortune tellers. They also share similar costs in setting up the fortune telling business. Since these factors exist in all three regimes we can remove these costs and sanctions from the comparison.

            One thing that is potentially different is the probability of being sanctioned for fraud or theft. We have to consider if a victim of fraud or theft is more likely to 1) know they are a victim 2) contact law enforcement and 3) have law enforcement pursue a case. In all three regimes the first factor is probably the same, but a licensing regime may foster people to come forward because they are not afraid of the stigma of believing in the paranormal. This is speculative however, and further study would be needed to determine if banning fortune telling impacted the likelihood of victims to come forward, and the likelihood of cases to be pursued.

            In the banned regime there is an additional sanction to be considered, that of the crime of fortune telling. However, the number of fortune tellers still operating in New York in spite of the ban seems to show that this is not a serious limitation on entry. What is interesting is to consider if the people who are likely to become a fortune teller in spite of the ban are more likely to flout other laws. In other words, are the people who become fortune tellers in spite of the laws against it more likely to commit other crimes, such as the frauds that concern us most? That certainly seems possible. A risk averse person, the type who is more likely to focus on the existence of the sanction than the probability of receiving it, will likely be dissuaded by the ban on fortune telling since they will assume that they will be one of the few people caught and punished under the law. It would follow that risk seeking and risk neutral people would continue to practice even when fortune telling is banned. The lack of enforcement in New York, our example of a state with a ban on fortune telling, seems to increase the chances of interaction with one of the criminal fortune tellers than there would be in the neutral or licensing regime.

            If a ban may scare off the risk averse fortune tellers, the largest concern with a licensing regime is that it confers legitimacy onto psychics that they do not deserve. The fear is that people who are currently on the fence about seeing a fortune teller will be more likely to visit one when they can show they are licensed. The license may reduce the natural skepticism in a client which will make them more compliant if they are told to bring in money or property.

            On the other hand, the licensing regime has the benefit of adding to the potential sanctions and the probability of enforcement. The sanctions are increased since having a clean criminal record is necessary to have a license, and so along with the sanctions for fraud there is an additional sanction of the loss of the license and the ability to practice in the future. The fact that the license is in the real name of the fortune teller means that attempts to evade detection by false names will be more difficult. The 12 month residency requirement limits the ability of fortune tellers to go from town to town fleecing victims and evading the police. By increasing both the sanction and the probability of sanction, the licensing regime impacts all risk levels instead of just the risk averse.

            One of the most intriguing options was the Salem quota regime. The benefit of this system is that the people in the community who want one of the licenses, but were not able to get one, can act as an enforcement mechanism. People in the fortune telling community are the ones who are most likely to hear about problems with other fortune tellers and should be incentivized to come forward. An opportunity to free up one of the limited licenses would be that type of incentive. Even though the city no longer uses the quota, it remains an interesting policy option since it increases community enforcement and overcomes the problem of getting victims to talk to law enforcement.

Conclusion

            Licensing of fortune tellers may be mocked by libertarians, and frowned upon by skeptics and believers alike, however by looking at it through the Beckerian model it seems to work on reducing criminal behavior by increasing the sanctions and probability of detection over other regulatory options. By requiring a clean background check the licensing regime creates additional sanctions for anyone who is convicted of criminal fraud. Fingerprinting and licensing under a real name increases the probability of detection by making it easier for police to catch a criminal fortune teller. A licensing regime may also help increase enforcement by allowing victims to go through the less stressful administrative complaint procedure instead of dealing with law enforcement. By impacting both the sanctions and the probability of enforcement the licensing regime will influence the behavior of all risk levels, as opposed to bans which will work to deter the risk neutral and risk averse. Licensing regimes may be even more effective by limiting the number of licenses to incentivize those wanting to enter the market to detect bad actors. Licensing can be a legitimate option for policy makers trying to prevent criminal activity, although the lack of public support for these regimes shows that the public does not understand the mechanism by which it works.

           

---

[1] http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/overview/witchcraft/

[2] The act is clear in its focus on fraud, saying that the purpose of the act was“for the more effectual preventing and punishing of any pretences to such Arts or Powers as are before mentioned, whereby ignorant Persons are frequently deluded and defrauded.”  A copy of the Act is available at https://scholar.vt.edu/access/content/user/tmcasey/Portfolio%20Resources/Witchcraft%20Act%201736.pdf

[3] Cathy Gutierrez, Spiritualism: Communion with the Dead. Religion Compass, Vol 4, Issue 12, pages 737-745, Dec 2010.

[4] Gary Laderman and Luis D. León, Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions, Volume 1

  page 390

[5] Fortune Telling Hearings before the subcommittee on judiciary of the committee on the district of Columbia of representatives sixty-ninth congress first session on HR 8989, Page 15.

[6] Id, Page 78.

[7] Ramesh Ponnuru, Is Your Fortune Teller Licensed, Bloomberg, March 28, 2014. Available at https://www.aei.org/publication/is-your-fortune-teller-licensed/

[8] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tlc-renews-90-day-fiance-692908

[9] (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/

[10] Britanny Carter, Ibis World Industry Report September 2014, Psychic Services.

[11] Jon Methven, Dude, Where’s My Horoscope. The Atlantic. July 11, 2014. Available at http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/dude-wheres-my-horoscope/374258/

[12] Britanny Carter, Ibis World Industry Report September 2014, Psychic Services.

[13] Greenaway KH, Louis WR, Hornsey MJ (2013) Loss of Control Increases Belief in Precognition and Belief in Precognition Increases Control. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71327. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071327

[14] Lindeman, Marjaana. Aarnio, Kia. European Journal of Personality20.7 (Nov 2006): 585-602.

[15] Hergovich, Andrea. The effect of pseudo-psychic demonstrations as dependent on belief in paranormal phenomena and suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences36.2 (Jan 2004): 365-380.

[16] http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/research.html

[17] Glenn McDonald. Whatever Happened to Parapsychology. Discovery News, June 24 2013. Available at http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/whatever-happened-to-parasychology-1306241.htm.

[18] Chris French. Scientists Put Psychic’s Paranormal Claims to the Test. The Guardian, May 12, 2006. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal.

[19] Hollie McKay. Celebrity psychic Sylvia Browne hit for telling mom of Amanda Berry she was dead. Fox News, May 9, 2013. Available at http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/05/09/celebrity-psychic-sylvia-browne-under-fire-for-telling-amanda-berrys-mom-was/

[20] For more on the Barnum effect see Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118-123. An online personality profile based on the Barnum Effect is available at http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/LittleBig5B.htm.

[21] Leon Jaroff, Talking to the Dead. Time Magazine, Feb. 25, 2001.

[22] Fortune Telling Hearings Page 141

[23] Common Citizen Scams. Illinois State Police. Available at http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/citizenscam.cfm

[24] Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah. Losing a Fortune to Psychics. The Chicago Tribune, January 15, 2000. Available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-01-15/news/0001150199_1_psychic-con-artists-israeli-woman

[25] Of course, the legitimate psychic with criminal designs is likely unstoppable. Any attempts to capture this person would be impossible since they would be able to avoid detection perfectly.

[26] See Pellman v Valentine (1945) 185 Misc 873, 57 NYS2d 617

[27] Section 1988 of the Chicago Code of 1911

[28] See Chicago v Payne (1911) 160 Ill App 641 and Chicago v Westergren (1912) 173 Ill App 562.

[29] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/nyregion/in-new-york-fortunes-told-and-too-often-taken.html?_r=0

[30] IBIS Report.

[31] The article When Is Fortune Telling a Crime from the November 2014 issue of The Atlantic (available at http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/when-is-fortunetelling-a-crime/382738/?single_page=true) details the problems that one victim had in trying to get New York City law enforcement interested in prosecuting a case against the psychic who took over $55,000 in order to remove a curse.

[32] VA Code Ann. § 58.1-3726

[33] [N.C. Gen. Stat.

§§ 153A-152, 160A-211, and 105-58]

[34] http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654386,00.html

[35] http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/unpopular-science/regulating-fantasy-psychics-salem