The thing about Peny giving out medical advice is that it's illegal.

I'm no fan of the allopathic medical community, and certainly a big believer and supporter of alternative therapies. I worked in the natural products industry for years and as a personal assistant to a fairly prominent herbalist/author for several years, and was involved during that time with the construction of the legislative controls over vitamins, supplements and herbs and the claims that can be made for them. I was part of a lobby to the Senate and House, and worked with the herbalist's attorney who had been a legislative aide to Orrin Hatch, a big champion of what we called the Freedom of Information Act, who spoke on behalf of the supplement industry before congress.

So, I've seen all sides of this information issue, and I'm a big supporter of the laws which prohibit every zealot and self-proclaimed expert from offering up medical advice.

We have amongst us one of the most knowledgable and astute people on supplements and alternative medicines I have ever known in our ever popular and hysterically verbose Audrey. I've known Aud for a long time, and although she is a fountain of information, I've never known her to diagnose or prescribe. That is what is illegal, and that is what Peny was doing in the Forum.

You mention that Peny evidently used her little bit of stolen information to make herself seem important and brilliant. Well, isn't that pretty close to the Lazaris mythology as well? This was Peny's game, and she was good enough at it to make herself very wealthy.

It seems that the Forum management has gotten more and more out of control when it comes to deleting posts. What the hell are they afraid of? Ted and I have a rule against unauthorized advertising on this site too, but it stretches sanity to interpret the mention of a professional person, or informative website is interpreted as an abuse of that policy.

I once provided a link to a page with a picture and description of an unusual stone we were discussing, and my post was deleted too, but I got a very curt email from one of the Gangsters about it. Why the attitude?

They seem to be getting more and more obsessed with control as time goes on. It's a clear sign of deterioration as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for sharing, I'll be back later.

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

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 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,