Excuse me for bringing this up if it has been thoroughly dealt with before.

My memory isn't what it used to be...

BUT, I've been churning about how mad I am that I may never get my money back for services that were not only not rendered, but money for seminars that were built on false premises.

Now, I know many of you have most likely gone to the J&L site to demand their $$ returned..

But, the issue I want to bring up here is that if one attends a "success" seminar and lets say doesn't become more successful... then Jachass can say it was not guaranteed etc. cuz you didn't do it correctly etc.

thus making for a tedious court case or whatever.

BUT NOWWWWW, it seems that things have changed quite a bit!!!!!!!!!... as in the reality that we now know the tapes were purposefully spreading LIES,

**And we can prove that.***
ie: peny's micheal's deaths.

I for one have discarded all my books/ tapes,but did not ever recall getting any type of receipt - confirmation of my purchase when I bought tapes and attended seminars, that had any type of legal disclaimer.

SO....here's my point.....
How do diet companies protect themselves when they spread lies,,,, THEY ISSUE DISCLAIMERS...

well, out there amongst all of you,,,,is there anyone with legal literacy????

Can we get our $$ back IF we can prove in a court of small claims, -or for some I'm sorry to say most likely went beyond "small" claims...
If we can prove that they were consciously LYING when they were giving out "valuable advise, or valuable FACTS about the nature of life etc...

***CAN we sue for our money back, now that we are armed with the verifiable back-up that these tapes, and seminars were false AND built on false premises, AND without any disclaimer, wouldn't jach not have a leg to stand on???

I REALLY feel that I do not have COMPLETE closure on this, to this day...I feel that at least to try to get $$ back is the final act in this play, and would for me- feel like I'd truly taken BACK what I'd put out in the way of hard-earned ..energy output $$

We all know how important money is for us, and we all know how vitally important the almighty buck is to jach....

I'd really appreciate any and all feedback even if it is of they sort that tells me I am never gonna see on dime.

I believe you are on to something. I honestly can't remember either if anyone here has tried to recover lost money from the Orlando mafia. I have never seen a disclaimer, but I will check my tapes when I get home. That part might be the beginnings of a case.

I'm certainly not a legal expert. But I do think that the burden of proof would be on the consumer to prove harm. However, I'd venture to guess that if a fraud charge is ever pursued, and proved, it would make sense that we could sue and win in a civil case. Jach is scared and intimidated for a reason.

Good thoughts, Audrey.

Good luck, I hope you do get something.

The lies will help, but I'm not sure whether a court would see them as relevant to your claim. The cult aspect would be very hard to get across in court, which makes it more difficult.

Imagine you bought a diet book for example. It tells you what to eat, and also gives some information about the author's family as an aside. Let's say that the aside is untrue. If you don't lose weight, you aren't going to be able to use this lie to get your money back. On the other hand, if the book was advertised saying that the author had lost so much weight and that was untrue, the situation would be different.

I don't think the case is hopeless but I think you have substantial difficulties. I would recommend going through the material figuring out everything you were told that isn't true. Then look at each lie and see how it influenced your decisions to buy more material. If it did influence your decisions, ask yourself how you could explain that to a judge...

quote:

---

The lies will help, but I'm not sure whether a court would see them as relevant to your claim. The cult aspect would be very hard to get across in court, which makes it more difficult.

---

Audrey's main claim--that Jach is a fake channel--is unprovable. There is no technology or established legal procedure for determining psychic validity. Even in the lengthy introductory material at this site isn't definitive on this matter by any means--as far as I can tell, opinion here is divided about whether C:S's products are fraudulent or have merely been devalued (in the eyes of some people) by unpleasant community experiences.

Brad

I agree with Brad and Pete on the difficulty of proving fraud. I think our only hope would be if someone heard Jach say something where he admitted putting on an act. Such difficulty should not stop people from registering complaints with the Florida and Orlando authorities.

However, as Pete said, I think he is much more vulnerable in the health area. The other area of legal vulnerability IMO is in the financial area. Florida statutes prevent unreasonable mark ups of items (such as crystals). Any information in this area would be most welcome.

As far as disclaimers, I know there are disclaimers on the the ticket stubs (at least 5+ years ago when I attended my last seminar). I don't remember whether these were on evening stubs, or just the longer seminars. However, they certainly are not on the tapes.

I hope the CS staff can read the handwriting on the wall and starts to look for jobs. The CS lifers certainly have created a mess for themselves. No wonder they fight so hard -- there isn't much call for what they do.

While I would love to get some money back, I would settle for a cease and desist. If Jach announced his intent to stop channelling Jach within a reasonable amount of time, I would be much less motivated to continue. However, one more condition before I would give up would be Jach giving some $$$ to Michaell's daughter.

Thanks for all the important ideas!!

Pete, you are right about the diet analogy...

This HEALTH advise thing I have to hope someone else has KEPT it, cuz I no longer have anything..nor do I about the longevity

BUT, I can agree totally that without disclaimers they have really COOKED THEIR GOOSE with this stuff.....from what I recall Steve recalling some stuff they were promoting.!! anti- aerobic exercise etc

I wouldn't think that bringing up con:sin as a cult would make any difference to a court, definitely....and it would not be a reason to want ones $$ back....

think about the rajneesh rolls royces, I think that $$ went to the state of Oregon.!!

I know that I'd have to bring up all the data proving that they were KNOWINGLY lying. and / or promoting "facts" that were untrue - not valuable, and they were charging money for that.....that is WHY we PAID $$$$$ not just for someones THEORIES, or OPINIONS....that is not as valuable, and a premium I might add is the level con:sin charged...

ALL I'd imagine one would bring up is that, and that would not entail even proving that jachass is not a channel...in fact that would NOT enter into it at all I think.....

**this is where my response to Brad comes in,

Thank you for the input, but I disagree Brad, my main premise- IS NOT to show or prove or say that jachass is not a channel, nor even to say that he runs a cult...of course THAT is unprovable,... if it were that easy someone else woulda dun it already- KATIE?

ALL I want to say is that he used his ability to sell tapes and seminar to promote that he was telling people things that were TRUE. and had therefore had an intrinsic value.
ANDDDDD, he KNOWLINGLY- TOLD LIES.... HE KNEW that P. died in such-n-such manner, etc. etc.

He knew darn well, that MUCH of what he was saying when she was sick-n-dying the last 6 months b-4 the death -whatever the lie he said...that was a lie, and he knew it..

Then, when she died he lied again and again..

SO, I only go to court to say that I was sold a bill of fare, it did MORE than simply DE-VALUE due to recent unpleasantries, it has come to light recently that he knowingly LIES, and that has changed everything....

He was stating that the information being sold was true,(not dependent upon whether it was channeled or not, or if it came from a cult or not),we can prove that he COULD have known was not what he was promoting it to be....

This is where the reality of the FACTS of what WE KNOW about HIM that can now change the focus..

--I THINK---

Like I said b-4 if there is anyone with any legal acumen, or knows a lawyer we can speak with, I'm READY!!!!!!!!!
ANYONE --ELSE??????????

quote:

---

Audrey's main claim--that Jach is a fake channel--is unprovable. There is no technology or established legal procedure for determining psychic validity.

---

Jach's claim that he is a channel for a non physical entity is not provable either. He is the one who has created a megabusiness based on an unprovable claim.

quote:

---

Even in the lengthy introductory material at this site isn't definitive on this matter by any means--as far as I can tell, opinion here is divided about whether C:S's products are fraudulent or have merely been devalued (in the eyes of some people) by unpleasant community experiences.

---

"Unpleasant community experiences" hardly describes the impact of forum bashing. Please remember that due to "Lazaris's" lavish praise of Peny's unparalleled spirituality, people gave her a tremendous amount of power to devastate them as spiritual seekers, and as human beings.

Ted & Katie stated in the intro that they believe "Lazaris" to be a fraud, and at the very least, even if a nonphysical entity, he is not the all knowing, ever present (upon request), unconditionally loving being that he claims to be.

I, and others, have said that the worst thing is not the forum or C:S or Peny & the gang, but "Lazaris." Briefly put, an individual relinqishes his/her own critical thought processes, individuality, authority and autonomy due to the nature of the teachings and the ensuing spiritual, intellectual, emotional codependency. Thus "Take back your mind" is the prevailing message here to "Friends of Lazaris" and other cult followers.

Brad, I can appreciate that you had some type of friendship with Jach, and that the inordinate amount of flaming on their Compuserve section appeared to be a legitimate process to you.

The domination, abuse and fear that you saw on the forum, pervades the whole of of "Lazaris." Instead of the forum bludgeoning, it insidiously invades and takes over like a cancer.

Jade

You said: I, and others, have said that the worst thing is not the forum or C:S or Peny & the gang, but "Lazaris." Briefly put, an individual relinqishes his/her own critical thought processes, individuality, authority and autonomy due to the nature of the teachings and the ensuing spiritual, intellectual, emotional codependency. Thus "Take back your mind" is the prevailing message here to "Friends of Lazaris" and other cult followers.

Thanks for restating this. I think that as part of the codependency, people funnel their anger to everyone but "Lazaris". Amongst the hardcore, he will be unscathed at the expense of others.

quote:

---

BUT, I can agree totally that without disclaimers they have really COOKED THEIR GOOSE with this stuff.....from what I recall Steve recalling some stuff they were promoting.!! anti- aerobic exercise etc

---

You probably know better than I all the health advice delivered by C:S products. I've read here about the recommendation to limit aerobic exercise to 15-20 minutes a day. That is hardly actionable advice. I've read bodybuilding books that recommend going to the gym once every four weeks; I've read others that recommend four times each week. I've read diet books that recommend high-protein and lots of meat; I've read others that suggest nothing but raw veggies and fruit. What has C:S delivered that's egregiously, clearly (by any standard) unhealthy? Have they treated people in violation of licensing laws?

quote:

---

I wouldn't think that bringing up con:sin as a cult would make any difference to a court, definitely....and it would not be a reason to want ones $$ back....

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

think about the rajneesh rolls royces, I think that $$ went to the state of Oregon.!!

---

Not sure what your point is here.

quote:

---

**this is where my response to Brad comes in,

Thank you for the input, but I disagree Brad, my main premise- IS NOT to show or prove or say that jachass is not a channel, nor even to say that he runs a cult...of course THAT is unprovable,...

---

Oh, sorry to misunderstand you, and I'm glad to hear you say this.

quote:

---

ALL I want to say is that he used his ability to sell tapes and seminar to promote that he was telling people things that were TRUE. and had therefore had an intrinsic value.

---

This is unclear to me. You may think I'm splitting hairs, but I don't recall ever seeing or hearing a claim from C:S that the contents of tapes and seminars is TRUE ... only that Lazaris is a real discarnate being. Lazaris is consistently marketed as a friend, not an infallible conveyer of truth. Obviously, his devotees regard his content as true. But I don't know what you could take to a judge that would convince a court that C:S warranted the truth from Lazaris. The only thing guaranteed in a tape or seminar is that Lazaris would BE THERE. In theory, nobody could predict what he'd say.

quote:

---

ANDDDDD, he KNOWLINGLY- TOLD LIES.... HE KNEW that P. died in such-n-such manner, etc. etc. ... He knew darn well, that MUCH of what he was saying when she was sick-n-dying the last 6 months b-4 the death -whatever the lie he said...that was a lie, and he knew it..

---

This is extremely glib. It sounds like you're a little unclear, yourself, about what lies might have been spoken. What Jach told his customers regarding a personal family illness is not a litigious matter, as far as I can see. As to Lazaris's comments on the "Healing Broken Alliances" tape (which I haven't listened to), the discrepancies are not nearly as damning to an outsider as you might believe. Certainly, I can't imagine any judge in this country extrapolating fraud from public statements about a private matter. That tape presents Lazaris's interpretation of Peny's death, and anyone who disagrees with it has made a disappointing purchase. That's a far cry from fraud, don't you think?

quote:

---

Then, when she died he lied again and again..

---

Are you talking about Jach or Lazaris? From a courtroom persective, if it's Jach, who cares? Jach is under no obligation to describe private matters to strangers. And if it's Lazaris, well, he was either wrong or has a deeper understanding than the medical officials.

quote:

---

SO, I only go to court to say that I was sold a bill of fare, it did MORE than simply DE-VALUE due to recent unpleasantries, it has come to light recently that he knowingly LIES, and that has changed everything....

---

If you're talking about Jach's channeling, that's far from obvious. In the introductory portion of this site, there is nothing besides speculation about Jach's legitimacy. If you're talking about Jach's statements about Peny, no judge would be interested. If you're talking about Lazaris, it's impossible for a court to determine the integrity of a non-physical entity. At any rate, even if Lazaris is lying outright (assuming he exists), C:S is just the publisher, not the author.

quote:

---

He was stating that the information being sold was true,

---

Where does C:S state such a thing? There are gaps in my knowledge, so I'm genuinely asking. I've read innumerable C:S flyers promoting tapes and seminars. I don't recall every seeing a warranty that customers are buying truth. As far as I know, they are buying access to a discarnate entity, nothing more.

quote:

---

This is where the reality of the FACTS of what WE KNOW about HIM that can now change the focus..

---

Persuasiveness is not the sasme as proof. You are persuaded, but I don't think what you say would persuade a court.

Just my opinion...

quote:

---

Jach's claim that he is a channel for a non physical entity is not provable either. He is the one who has created a megabusiness based on an unprovable claim.

---

All right, but I'm not sure what your point is. Jach offers a product, and people buy it. When you buy into something unprovable you're taking a risk.

quote:

---

"Unpleasant community experiences" hardly describes the impact of forum bashing. Please remember that due to "Lazaris's" lavish praise of Peny's unparalleled spirituality, people gave her a tremendous amount of power to devastate them as spiritual seekers, and as human beings.

---

In the context of this discussion, the only question is that of liability. Where does it lie? A channeled entity, whose existence cannot be established in court, praised a human. Many other humans might have given away too much self-determination. Who is liable for the painful relationships that followed? What would the charges be, and what statutes or laws have been broken?

quote:

---

Ted & Katie stated in the intro that they believe "Lazaris" to be a fraud, and at the very least, even if a nonphysical entity, he is not the all knowing, ever present (upon request), unconditionally loving being that he claims to be.

---

I appreciate their opinion. Somebody else (Craig?) also contributes a portion of the introduction, and opines that Jach probably manifests some degree of legitimate channeling skill.

quote:

---

I, and others, have said that the worst thing is not the forum or C:S or Peny & the gang, but "Lazaris." Briefly put, an individual relinqishes his/her own critical thought processes, individuality, authority and autonomy due to the nature of the teachings and the ensuing spiritual, intellectual, emotional codependency. Thus "Take back your mind" is the prevailing message here to "Friends of Lazaris" and other cult followers.

---

I understand. In the context of this discussion, "Take back your mind" is quite a different prescription than "Get back your money." And the way you've phrased the situation makes me think that liability ultimately lies with the individuals who relinquish their critical thinking. I don't think you'd get very far taking a case of "spiritual, intellectual, emotional codependency" into a courtroom.

I heard Lazaris say on a tape, "We never lie. We have a penchant for telling the truth."
He did lie about Peny's death.

I can't remember what tape it is on but I know he said it. I am going through tapes to find that and some other things and when I find it I will tell you if you want. If anyone knows offhand let me know.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

I think Brad's point is that even if Lazaris told lie after lie, CS might not be liable since they are only the publishers of the information. If, however, CS itself promotes that Lazaris never lies, then maybe it is a different situation.

In any case, tracking down lies, etc. is VERY valuable in the taking back your mind department.

quote:

---

I heard Lazaris say on a tape, "We never lie. We have a penchant for telling the truth." He did lie about Peny's death.

---

I have heard the same. "We will never lie to you," in various forms through the years. Plus various tapes on honesty and integrity, character, trust.

There has been a double standard for these qualities. One for "Lazaris," Peny and Michaell -- another for paying customers.

quote:

---

I think Brad's point is that even if Lazaris told lie after lie, CS might not be liable since they are only the publishers of the information.

---

But Jach is involved on both sides. A court would consider Jach and "Lazaris" as one in the same. One mouth, one body.

You said: As to Lazaris's comments on the "Healing Broken Alliances" tape (which I haven't listened to), the discrepancies are not nearly as damning to an outsider as you might believe. Certainly, I can't imagine any judge in this country extrapolating fraud from public statements about a private matter.

I have to emphasize how often and clear the message from Lazaris was about telling the truth. Time after time he told us he would never lie. He also told us that Jach was an objective channel, not subject to distorting his message. This is in vast contrast to channels such as Jane Roberts. Having lived so long under the false impressions, it is a huge betrayal to find out that Lazaris lied. That said, I agree with the difficulty in using such information for legal actions.

I disagree with what you say about the matter being a private matter. CS made it a public matter by publishing information about it. There is close to ten minutes of the tape devoted to discussing the matter.

You said: but an outsider's objective voice can be valuable at times

While your experience is different than ours, I would certainly not consider someone who had a close friendship with all of the parties involved an objective voice.

You said: I appreciate their opinion. Somebody else (Craig?) also contributes a portion of the introduction, and opines that Jach probably manifests some degree of legitimate channeling skill.

FYI, that introduction was written before this new information had been released. My opinion since then has become more firm, although I do indeed still recognize that there may be some other skill involved (other than conscious fraud). I believe in my introduction I estimated the chance of Lazaris being as described (an objective channel) at 5%. I now estimate that chance to be minuscule, if not 0.

quote:

---

But Jach is involved on both sides. A court would consider Jach and "Lazaris" as one in the same. One mouth, one body.

---

That's an interesting thought. If you're right, and a court discarded the entire notion of channeling as a legitimate product offering, then Jach and every other channel would be in hot water no matter how pure, legitimate, and truthful the process. But I can't really imagine a court would discredit channeling out of hand, thereby dooming every psychic from Jon Edwards to Miss Cleo, can you?

And I know this much: *Every* piece of C:S literature on the subject states that Jach's mind and personality are completely uninvolved in the channeled content. The clearest separation has always been maintained between the two in all marketing materials. Customers who buy Lazaris get Lazaris and only Lazaris, and cannot then take Jach to court for lying, or being disagreeable, or whatever.

I've done tons of research to determine if Jach's profitable scam is litigatable.

The jury is out on that one.

There is a community of people, therapists, attorneys, civil libertarians, cult-awareness experts, and other concerned parties who provide a very thoroughly researched argument that these "lies" that people like Jach tell, combined with the systematic use of unauthorized hypnosis and classic mind control tactics are very clear violations of our First Amendment rights.

If I held a gun to your head and forced you to do something against your will, even something innocuous like getting out of your car, or walking across the street, but against your will, my action is a clear criminal act. It is called coercion.

It is arguable that someone who employs established mind control tactics is guilty of psychological coercion.

This is not an easy case to take to court, but in light of the recent awareness of the power of cult leaders to coerce followers into committing unthinkable acts, up to and including suicide, this might just be a good moment to revisit the judicial system on this one.

France recently passed ground breaking anti-cult legislation, and that success has refueled many in the U.S. who have found themselves hitting the brick wall of Scientology funded legal defenses. http://www.lisatrust.net/global/france/gaurdian6-1-2001.html

Cults will not be allowed to function without question or accountablility forever, it is only a matter of time until there is a successful prosecution of a cult leader, and the legal precedent set for further successes.

It wouldn't bother me in the least for that prosecution to be against Jach.

Something good is coming out of this new terrorist awareness, and that is cult awareness. I can assure you that as times moves on, that fact will not serve Jach well.

Jach is a cult leader, he heads a destructive mind control organization, no doubt about it, and a nasty one at that.

In her book Cults in our Midst Margaret Thaler Singer (with Janja Lalich) notes:

The tactics of a thought-reform program are organized to:

Destabilize a person's sense of self,
Get the person to drastically reinterpret his or her life's history and radically alter his or her worldview and accept a new version of reality and causality,
Develop in the person a dependence on the organization, and thereby turn the person into a deployable agent of the organization.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst2.html

The FactNet organization also provides a lengthy definition of psychological coercion and summarizes:

quote:

---

Any organization using coercive persuasion on its members as a CENTRAL practice that also claims to be a religion is turning the SANCTUARY of the First Amendment into a fortress for psychological assault. It is a contradiction of terms and should be "disestablished." Coercive persuasion is a subtle, compelling psychological force which attacks an even more fundamental and important freedom than our "freedom of religion." ITS REPREHENSIBILITY AND DANGER IS THAT IT ATTACKS OUR SELF-DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL, OUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS.

---

The rest of the article is well worth reading. http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm

"To commit violent and unjust acts, it is not enough for a government to have the will or even the power; the habits, ideas, and passions of the time must lend themselves to their committal."

Katie

quote:

---

But I can't really imagine a court would discredit channeling out of hand, thereby dooming every psychic from Jon Edwards to Miss Cleo, can you?

---

Well, Miss Cleo is facing something like 30 state charges in at least one state, Mississippi, right now for fraudulent business practices.

A court wouldn't have to discredit "channeling" itself. As I posted, a court would not make a distinction between Jach and "Lazaris." Legally, Jach is just as accountable for what comes out of his mouth as Edgar Bergan was for Charlie McCarthy's words. Also Jach is an owner, now sole owner of the publishing company. He is involved in every aspect of this enterprise.

quote:

---

And I know this much: *Every* piece of C:S literature on the subject states that Jach's mind and personality are completely uninvolved in the channeled content. The clearest separation has always been maintained between the two in all marketing materials.

---

So what C:S literature (advertizing) says is inexorable truth? I'm sure you don't believe all claims made in advertizing elsewhere. Just because C:S says something certainly doesn't make "marketing material" any more than that -- "marketing material."

quote:

---

Customers who buy Lazaris get Lazaris and only Lazaris, and cannot then take Jach to court for lying, or being disagreeable, or whatever.

---

"Lying and being disagreeable." Fraud and unpleasantness are apples and oranges here.

Customers were persuaded that they were getting "Lazaris." Customers believed that they were getting "Lazaris." But what has become obvious to more and more former "friends" is that "Lazaris" is a scam.

I am befuddled as to how you can be so sure that customers "only get 'Lazaris'" or that you know so much about "them" considering your very limited exposure to the material.

Jade

quote:

---

But I can't really imagine a court would discredit channeling out of hand, thereby dooming every psychic from Jon Edwards to Miss Cleo, can you?

---

I couldn't pass this one by either.

It would be just fine and dandy with me if they did. Wouldn't it be fun to see how many psychics and channels there ended up being if it became illegal to charge money for such services?

If God, or The Divine wants us to know something, why the hell would they pass the message through someone with their hand out for cash? This concept just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to me that religions were kinder and gentler before the tithing began.

It beats the hell out of my why anyone believes they need help communicating with their own source.

The Swiss Canton of Geneva has proposed anti-cult legislation which would provide for prison terms for group leaders who engage in defined activities including:

"controlling forms of communication (imposing the use of a coded language, excluding certain subject matters from discussion,...);

- excessive social control within the movement, exposure of the member to an intense humiliation should he or she deviate from the tenets of the group"

Maybe we should invite Jach on a world tour, or come to think of it, I wonder if he could be prosecuted on the basis of having committed these acts on French or Swiss citizens at seminars and in the Forum?

Imagine Jach in court fighting the extradition of Lazaris for trial. Or would it be Lazaris fighting to keep Jach from being extradited?

Nighty night, I think I'll be dreaming of a toothless Jach in a French prison shower room.

Katie

I have a few questions, which I post somewhat hesitantly because it seems like I should know your answers by reading the site. But despite spending quite some time rummaging around here I still can't get my head around a few things raised in your post.

1) How are people coerced by C:S, and what are they forced to do? You can't mean that C:S forces people to get acquainted with Lazaris and buy tapes. In CompuServe, C:S seemed decidedly uninterested in new recruits. They were a reclusive group, and seemed happiest when strangers left them alone. Their online presence doesn't seem to be about growing the ranks.

2) How does C:S implement mind control, and how does it differ from any other group that promotes a belief structure? For examp0le, is the Catholic Church a mind-control cult?

3) The impression I get is that most of the complaints here focus on the psychological force brought to bear by groups of people on C:S message boards. If I may presume that you believe coercion is manifested primarily on C:S message boards, was Jach/Lazaris a mind-control cult before the online community developed? Are the tapes and seminars, by themselves, mind-controlling and coercive?

Thanks for your tolerance,

Brad

[This message has been edited by bradbwh (edited 10-26-2001).]

quote:

---

And the way you've phrased the situation makes me think that liability ultimately lies with the individuals who relinquish their critical thinking.

---

quote:

---

I don't think you'd get very far taking a case of "spiritual, intellectual, emotional codependency" into a courtroom.

---

quote:

---

Jach offers a product, and people buy it.

---

quote:

---

When you buy into something unprovable you're taking a risk.

---

Jade

quote:

---

Well, Miss Cleo is facing something like 30 state charges in at least one state, Mississippi, right now for fraudulent business practices.

---

This is utterly beside the point we're discussing, which is the legal validity of channeling as a product type.

quote:

---

A court wouldn't have to discredit "channeling" itself. As I posted, a court would not make a distinction between Jach and "Lazaris."

---

C:S distinguishes categorically between Jach and Lazaris. If the court threw out that distinction, it would be discrediting channeling itself.

quote:

---

"Lying and being disagreeable." Fraud and unpleasantness are apples and oranges here.

---

Your calling it fraud doesn't make it so. My calling it *not* fraud doesn't make it innocent. What we're discussing here is what's actionable and what isn't.

quote:

---

I am befuddled as to how you can be so sure that customers "only get 'Lazaris'" or that you know so much about "them" considering your very limited exposure to the material.

---

I know how the product is presented, which seems the most salient point when discussing getting a refund, which is the topic of this thread.

But actually I'm wrong about getting "only Lazaris." Since the online communities started, customers also get the personalities of the publishers and the other customers. That's where most of the complaint seems to be. If it weren't for the message boards, many Cosmic Fool posters might still be happy Lazaris devotees. So can you go into a courtroom, stand up and say "The publishers and other customers were mean to me, and coerced me, and controlled my mind"? Maybe so, what do I know. The tape and seminar product is pure Lazaris, near as I can tell. The formal marketing of Lazaris makes it clear what customers can expect. It's the informal mixing in of non-product personalities that seems to have caused trouble.

Brad

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be fun to see how many psychics and channels there ended up being if it became illegal to charge money for such services?

---

No. I'd miss the many channeled books I've enjoyed over the years, as well as the personal sessions I've gladly paid for.

quote:

---

If God, or The Divine wants us to know something, why the hell would they pass the message through someone with their hand out for cash? This concept just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to me that religions were kinder and gentler before the tithing began.

---

When has religion ever been gentle? when did it ever not tithe in some form? Is channeling religion? Anyway, charging for channeling or any other talent makes perfect sense to me. I'm in the information business, and I sure as hell charge for what I put out. Why shouldn't any other information provider get paid? And frankly, while we're on the subject, I never thought Lazaris events were very expensively priced. I pay three to four times as much to attend a weekend trade show about some small aspect of the Internet.

quote:

---

It beats the hell out of my why anyone believes they need help communicating with their own source.

---

You were one such person, if I understand correctly. Now you can't remember what it feels like to reach for an expression of source that doesn't come from yourself? It's sad enough if one bad experience has alienated you from all channeling. The real shame is if you feel detached from the human condition.

I'm off to bed in a minute, but wanted to answer this one.

quote:

---

The impression I get is that most of the complaints here focus on the psychological force brought to bear by groups of people on C:S message boards. If I may presume that you believe coercion is manifested primarily on C:S message boards, was Jach/Lazaris a mind-control cult before the online community developed? Are the tapes and seminars, by themselves, mind-controlling and coercive?

---

Absolutely so. There are many excellent posts here which go into great detail on that topic, but let me think of a few quick ones. First of all, they are neverending. Each tape promises to provide the ultimate information but it never does. Hence instead of just Ending Shame for example, we were still ending it three tapes later.

We are taught that we are compartmentalized beings. There is a tape for each compartment. Negative ego, martyr, victim, self sabateur, dark shadow, light shadow, blah blah blah blah. The negative ego teachings are particularly horrendous in that we are taught to loathe and fear this vile, destructive part of ourselves, and most assuredly, that part of others.

Lazaris promotes adoration of Peny, that adoration in return allowed Peny to run rampant all over people, dispense questionable medical advice, dictate the states of consciousness of others, etc. Peny got that power from Lazaris, she misused it, and Lazaris said nothing.

I'm running out of steam here, I'll be able to do better in the morning, but I'll bet there will be a few posts by others inbetween.

A clearheaded evaluation of the Lazaris materials will yield countless sources for shame, self-loathing, frustration, negative self-judgement, negative judgements of others, co-dependency, dishonesty, inconsistancy, frustration, unfulfilled promises and guarantees, frightening images, guilt trips, you name it, it's there.

But, it's all spiced up with a million Love Bombs, so it really does sound great.

From another post:

quote:

---

You were one such person, if I understand correctly. Now you can't remember what it feels like to reach for an expression of source that doesn't come from yourself? It's sad enough if one bad experience has alienated you from all channeling. The real shame is if you feel detached from the human condition.

---

Hmmm...I must admit, this is insulting.

Yes, I remember what it feels like, it feels helpless and dependent. It feels alienating and desperate. It feels like denial of my own connection to the wisdom and love of the universe.

I had more than one bad experience with channeling, I had twelve years of bad experiences with Lazaris and his henchmen, not to mention countless other frauds from hell who I've met along the way.

I also have the very clear advice and guidance of my personal guides who inform me that all channeling such as Jach claims to do, in which a particular helpful and loving entity chooses a specific individual through whom to provide wisdom to others is bogus. I wrote about that on the Friend or Fraud site over a year ago now, and nothing has changed since then.

As to being detached from the human condition, I have no idea what that means.
Are you saying that I have given up on my humanity because I don't choose to invest in dubious channeling that even you admit cannot be proved or disproved?

This comment reminds me of Peny telling me in the Forum that I had just thrown my spirituality out the window because of my disagreement with her. What a nerve!

I don't know Brad, if you can find a connection to humanity in Jach Pursel, I'm sure you can find it anywhere, even in cynical old me. Sorry, though, no Love Bombs from this babe.

Katie

Jade wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Miss Cleo is facing something like 30 state charges in at least one state, Mississippi, right now for fraudulent business practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wrote:

"This is utterly beside the point we're discussing, which is the legal validity of channeling as a product type."

If Miss Cleo's business practices can be found fraudulent, so can Jach's (and the endorsement by Lazaris of a past MLM scheme might be a good place to start.)

Facts used in any lawsuit aside, a successful campaign could be mounted against Con Sin if the complaining parties had very deep pockets, a good press agent and the wherewithal to keep legally and publicly biting Jach/ass until Con Sin either settled out of court or packed up their bags and slunk off into the night.

And I'm not a lawyer, but I do think you're legally off base, Brad, with your assertion that the courts would have to definitively rule on the status of channeling in an action against Con Sin.

Just as all healing by prayer is not discredited by the courts when states prosecute parents for reckless endangerment of a child's health, the courts would similarly not need to rule on the legal status of *all* channeling in order to find Jach legally at fault in his particular channeling-related claims.

Attempting to heal your child via prayer is not illegal, it only becomes illegal if the child is harmed in the process--a similar standard could be applied to channelers.

Since Lazaris has claimed the mantle of spirituality, that puts him in the same category as other spiritual/religious leaders advising their flock on how to heal health problems--Lazaris merely suggests a different kind of "prayer".

More specifically, neither Lazaris nor Jach as channel of Lazaris are beyond the reach of the law as to the actual medical treatments they suggested their clients pursue. Access to those private consultations in which the deeply ill were given medical advice would be a goldmine for a lawsuit--the problem would lie, I think, in people being willing to come forward and admit that they were conned by their guru into damaging their health.

And of course the dead who followed that advice--Peny, Gerald, and who knows how many others--cannot testify in court.

flo

Your own destructive cult allegiance 'slip' is showing.

You appear to belong to the cult of: "As long as they charge money for it and are highly successful -- why question?"

IMO the legal point here is: Jach uses and has used *known -- scientifically documented* cult mind control tactics to trick people -- not just out of their money ONE TIME, Brad -- but to put them on a wallet-sucking gravy train that -- for some here: has gone on for *twenty seven* agonizing, life force crushing, socially castrating years.

Legal precidents are -- as has been pointed out above -- now set and in the process of being set -- both internationally and in America that make Jach's IMO VERY CLEARLY financially *evil* activities -- patently illegal.

quote:

---

Katie,

You were one such person, if I understand correctly. Now you can't remember what it feels like to reach for an expression of source that doesn't come from yourself? It's sad enough if one bad experience has alienated you from all channeling. The real shame is if you feel detached from the human condition.

---

What a socially blind load of crap.

Obviously -- both Katie and Ted feel quite an empathic, deeply compassionate connection to the human condition.

Ask yourself how a person might feel in creating and sustaining a spiritual cancer exposing web site such as this -- with no monitary profit motivation *what so ever*.

It is clear to me that both she and Ted do it primarily, for the very reason I participate in the Cosmicfool -- it is a HUGE source of genuine, healthy self-esteem to contribute to the ongoing freeing of imprisioned lives, finances, hearts, and minds Brad.

Money making is essential -- but more essential is HOW we make ....and maintain our income streams.

Without financial integrity, the "successful" die gradually in disconnected social poverty.

Steve

I think you’re moving this discussion to a particular “micro” view (that of product indemnity/liability) when the “macro” view is about betrayal of trust.

If Jach, Concept:Synergy et al were only about products, then consumer protection laws would apply to the deliverables (e.g.; tapes, books, etc.) and that would be the end of it. Sure, these former followers of Lazaris could probably exercise a thirty-day right of return of their money for an audiotape that they felt was misrepresented. They might even be able to report C:S to the Better Business Bureau. But that isn’t the issue because the deliverables are just a means to an end. That end is the promulgation of Lazaris’ teachings.

Jach/Lazaris never said, “this is my opinion” or, “what I am saying may not work for everybody”, as he would be required to do by law if it was just a personal opinion or assertion related directly to the marketing of a particular product. Instead, he has continually made statements that could lead a reasonable person to believe that Lazaris possesses knowledge uniformly applicable to all who participate.

This puts what Jach does firmly within the co-mingled realms of counseling, religion, and advocacy (not just product delivery). Just look at some of the more common statements, things like “we will love you always”, and “we would never lie to you”. Statements like these are not passive declarations of some innate goodness. They are statements designed to engender trust. Especially when they are repeated a dozen times in the course of a fifteen-minute exposition.

If this were about “products”, or even “services”, Jach would have landed in court a long time ago. Our society has pretty strict rules about who is allowed to dispense medical advice, is allowed to counsel families in distress, and is allowed to recommend minerals and compounds. Doctors and counselors carry tons of malpractice insurance, and pharmacies have reams of teen-tiny disclaimers packaged with every drug they dispense. For a good reason – they can’t possibly know the precise physiology of every person who may follow their advice.

Jach/Lazaris has not simply said “St. John’s Wart may help alleviate stress in some of you”, he’s made unconditional statements about specific courses of action that may be harmful to some people. And the fact that Peny died of overdoses in an apparent course of “treatment” is material.

The fact that there IS NO disclaimer is the telling point. A disclaimer would imply uncertainty and Lazaris cannot be omniscient and perpetually right with a disclaimer hanging over his head.

By not using a disclaimer, Lazaris is advocating trust.

Our whole society is based on trust; that is why betrayal of trust is taken so seriously. Why would we spend months examining every nuance of a politician’s dalliance with an intern, or rage against a priest who abuses altar boys, or castigate the parents of a child who suffered because Christian Science asserted the parents right to withhold medical treatment for the boy? It’s all about betrayal of trust.

Maybe Jach started out with good intentions, and it somehow got out of hand. Who knows? Whatever the case may be, Jach chose to engender trust, he made no disclaimer, and he continually rebuffed questions that might undermine his position of trust.

Jach is the one who rebuffed the questions – not Lazaris. Therefore, Jach is culpable. If he truly were not responsible for what Lazaris says, then he would have no personal motivation to perpetually defend Lazaris’ teachings. If Jach is what he claims (a “clear” channel), then he would not really know the details relating to people’s questions. He would just say “I don’t know, ask Lazaris”. His marketing organization may keep him separate, but he himself has failed to do so in personal and public conversations.

Sure, his followers are also responsible. You can’t have a victimizer without victims. The difference is that he knew the methodologies that he would employ and their intended impact. He advocated trust. Those that listened to him were never aware of any contrary intent. Therefore, they feel betrayed.

Our society holds betrayers of a public trust accountable (one way or another). No matter how you slice it, you can't reduce this discussion to "Jach sells channeling as a product". Jach and Peny got way too personally involved for that to be true.

Regards,

You said: They might even be able to report C:S to the Better Business Bureau.

Thanks for the reminder. I plan to file a complaint. I'll post the contents when I do so. I feel that every and all efforts should be employed. If one type of effort alone will not be effective, then perhaps the "synergy" of the efforts will.

Filing a complaint:
BBB Complaints

No info yet on CS:
Concept Synergy BBB
(Then enter Concept in the company name field)

I enjoyed and agree with your last post.

Cheers, Craig

I think that this is a legally sufficient, now -- well timed move who's time has -- indeed come.

If you are one who "Would really like to fight back!" but would rather not "make a big fuss..". Grow a damn backbone.

This is about enforcing hard consumer justice people. And we have to fight hard -- if we want money *so ruthlessly* tricked away from us given back.

This is a hard world -- and we have to get some intense, white hot *whole village* determination up.

IMO the first, affirmative, powerful step for us now -- is to find a good lawyer to take our case on class action spec. Many reading along here in demand of personal consumer financial justice -- have been taken by Jach Purcel for *substantially more than* the $5000 limit placed on small claims court judgements by many state and local governments.

Being shamelessly "never lied to" about the "absolute specialness" of Peny's ebay purchased crystals -- and therby HORRIBLY overcharging for the plentiful mineral: quartz crystal -- in The State Of Florida may prove *highly* lucrative for those so financially injured. Finding a lawyer to take that case on a seperate spec basis in Florida, would appear the most powerful course of action -- there.

Personally -- I want to file at least one mind control cult based financial damage class action law suit in the San Francisco Bay Area -- as so many of Jach's *chronologically longest* 'marks' are highly concentrated in this metro region.

Steve

And apparently the BBB *doesn't* have a handle on Con Syn if they think it's just a "seminar and lecture" business; in addition to tapes, books, private consultations and seminars, Con Syn is also selling merchandise.

flo

About the disclaimer on the ticket stubs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Craig:
As far as disclaimers, I know there are disclaimers on the the ticket stubs (at least 5+ years ago when I attended my last seminar). I don't remember whether these were on evening stubs, or just the longer seminars.

---

I remember an area on the stub that asked us to sign a statement about not being on medication, and not being treated for mental disorders. Do you remember how the disclaimer was worded, and where it was located? Just curious, really. But, there may be some clues. I haven't been able to find any of my old stubs or else I'd check.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Craig:
I hope the CS staff can read the handwriting on the wall and starts to look for jobs.

---

I hope so. Those folks must have been very contrained in all of this mess. The thought control they must have experienced is sickening. I wonder how they could get out of such a job without being hammered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Craig:
While I would love to get some money back, I would settle for a cease and desist. If Jach announced his intent to stop channelling Jach within a reasonable amount of time, I would be much less motivated to continue.

---

I would love to be satisfied with that. But I can't. I'd prefer to see him do some time, and have to return his fortune to those he lifted it from. Why would deserve less redress than anyone else who committed fraud?

You said: Do you remember how the disclaimer was worded,

Nope, wish I did.

You said: I'd prefer to see him do some time, and have to return his fortune to those he lifted it from. Why would deserve less redress than anyone else who committed fraud?

I wouldn't object to him doing time, though I would "settle" for what I stated. I think all areas should be pursued.

Thanks. I'm going to ask around and see if I can come up with the disclaimer.

We could all be speculating at this point as far as what actually demonstrates fraud. My belief is that if we are able to demonstrate a lie when we were told there never would be one, that is evidence of fraud. That is part of the case, but not the soul of the case.

Also, since we are posting these thoughts, I'd be willing to wager that the future stubs will be legally and hermetically sealed with a new disclaimer. I wouldn't put it past them to alter their end of past stubs, signed by us, to say something completely and utterly different than what we originally signed. If we can all come up with some old stubs, the sheer numbers would definitely make a difference. Their defense would be able to discredit a few people, and hold their motives highly suspect, but a large number would not.