Hook Logo
Search

NEWS- Renier slapped: Judge sides with psychic's foe


Published November 23, 2006 in issue 0547 of the Hook
Bookmark and Share

After more than two decades of bickering, Free Union psychic Noreen Renier and Seattle skeptic John Merrell are about to either resolve their differences-- or start squabbling anew with an unprecedented level of vigor.

The subject of the Hook's November 9 cover story, Renier successfully sued Merrell in the 1980s for libel, the only known instance of a psychic successfully beating a detractor in court. But on November 16, federal judge James L. Robart handed down a summary judgment supporting Merrell's allegations that Renier had violated the 1992 settlement agreement, an official ceasefire which had temporarily tamed the tempest.

The settlement had included a $25,000 jury verdict against Merrell, and both parties agreed not to further disparage each other in the media. However, Merrell took offense at Renier's memoir, A Mind For Murder, published in 2005, in which she repeatedly calls him a liar and paints a generally unflattering picture of him.

Noting that the judge tossed out Renier's counter-claims and ruled that she had indeed violated the terms of the truce, Merrell is claiming victory.

"Ms. Renier must be somewhat taken back," says Merrell. "Then again, perhaps her psychic abilities only work when the moon is full and broomsticks are at 70 degrees and heading into the wind."

However, it doesn't appear that buckets of money will soon be coming Merrell's way. In his 23-page opinion filed November 16, the judge dismissed Merrell's attempts to pocket the profits from the book on the grounds that the passages in question weren't long enough to be of much consequence, denied Merrell's attempts to snare Renier in a flesh-and-blood deposition, and revealed that he would entertain only a "nominal" damage award to Merrell.

Devoting two chapters of the book to the dust-up with Merrell in defiance of the ban on further disparagement didn't endear Renier to the judge, who quoted these lines in his ruling: "Merrell was trying to destroy my career and psychic reputation– my life– with his lies." And: "It was hell to sit there and listen to Merrell lie about me to a judge and 

jury." 

Since the judge believed these statements violated the terms of the 1992 truce, Merrell says Renier bears responsibility for the legal fees of both parties, a point he intends to press during the court-ordered mediation session that kicks off on November 21-- just as the Hook goes to press.

Renier's attorney, Shelly M. Hall, concedes that there was a legal fees provision to that effect in the settlement, but she's not ready to suggest that Renier write a check. "The case is far from over," says Hall, looking toward the February 6 trial date.

The judge did dismiss Merrell's filing to depose Renier as a "comedy of errors," but Merrell says he's looking forward to trial and indicates his intention to collect the $25,000 he had to pay as part of the earlier agreement.

"The beautiful thing is we roll forward," says a jubilant Merrell, "if it's necessary, with no counterclaims from Noreen Renier."

When the Hook inquired of her about a month ago, Renier did not seem particularly worried about the lawsuit. "After I win," she said, "I'll be happy to talk to you, but at this point I have no comment."

This time, she directed inquiries to Hall.


Noreen Renier
FILE PHOTO

Comments

                     
Sandra Sanders11/24/2006 1:03:04 PM

Obviously Noreen had just violated a truce, however, this has nothing at all to do with her abilities. As a matter of fact, I recently hired Ms. Renier to assist investigators in finding my missing brother, Randy Bratschi, who is a victim of homicide. I, too, was skeptical, but after listening in on her consultation with investigators, and personally witnessing her fidings, I am convinced that she is able to do what she claims. It is, of course, Mr. Merrell's right to his opinion. I just hope that he never gets to the place in his life that he may be desparate enough to pass by his prejudices and seek help wherever he can find it.

John Merrell11/26/2006 2:26:14 AM

On the contrary, you pass judgment before reviewing the case extensively outlined to the public at www.amindformurder.com And in a court filing prepared for the federal court on Thursday (November 23) my attorney states the damages against Renier including legal fees will be less than $75,000 --- though this figure would still be three times more than earlier awarded to Noreen Renier. The bigger question you leave unanswered is why Renier claimed before millions of television viewers to have found an crashed plane with people alive, when in actuality the plane was found independently by others --- and no one was alive. While you may be convinced she is able to do what she claims, the actual witnesses who found the plane and four dead passengers indicate Renier lied. That's not my statement, it's a statement made by the people who actually found the plane. You imply I am prejudiced. And you indicate given such prejudices I should seek help wherever I can find it. Ms. Sanders, you are quite wrong on the prejudice statement, but quite correct on the second. I did seek help --- before the U.S. legal system --- and on November 16, 2006 a U.S. federal judge eliminated all of Ms. Renier's legal counterclaims and awarded me a summary judgment against her for breaching a legal Florida state contractual agreement. Damages will be awarded in the coming weeks. Is this federal court outcome prejudiced? No, not unless you can offer some proof that the court improperly favored my facts, and ignored those of Ms. Renier --- which clearly was not the case as the court outlines in a 23-page ruling posted on my website. No I think there are simply folks quite out of touch with real facts and unable to swallow evidence to the contrary. Frankly for some folks it seems my win is simply a case of sour grapes. And claiming prejudice only shows just how sour that taste must be.

Psychologist11/29/2006 12:47:15 AM

Believing in something mystic out of desperation is like finding religion in a foxhole. It's not the higher part of the brain that's at work; it's a retreat to immature ways.

Today, tomorrow, the day after, Madam Renier could end all the speculation and all the doubts about her abilities. She need only travel to Durham, North Carolina, where parapsycologists at Duke University would test her powers. These folks at Duke would dearly love to prove she has the gifts she claims to. She knows that; she won't go. Th immature will believe her excuses for not going.

Lonnie11/29/2006 11:40:59 AM

True, people can come to the mystical or the spiritual out of desperation. Also true, psychic claims of predicting the future or having some kind of special knowledge cant withstand close scientific examination.

All this said, one must judge a method based on its claims. I have met intuitive consultants who make no supernatural claims about their abilities. They claim merely to help people examine problems and questions from a more intuitive perspective. On that basis, there is quite a bit of evidence that suggest that sometimes intuition can work where logic fails. Using intuition we can pull together many subtle details that can be lost using more reductionist logical methods. I can't say whether this applies to Noreen or not, but it does appear some overly broad statements have been applied here to all spirituality and mysticism.

While I respect secular humanists, their claims against a meaningful mystical universe are as unscientific as those who claim science supports one. Its like using mathematics to evaluate artwork, you may come up with some interesting conclusions, but ultimately the success of art is all about how it makes us feel. From that perspective, Secular humanism has failed to deliver a compelling alternative to religion and mystical belief systems. It has nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with arrogance... for it to become a succesful movement it must take a page from its advasaries and learn some humility.

Sandra12/2/2006 11:56:24 AM

Well said, Lonnie. At last...an understanding!

Mr. Merrill: I do apologize if I offended you. I had no way of knowing that you were sensitive and/or defensive. I merely stated you are entitled to your opinion. However, so are other people. I also stated that I hope you never have an instance in your life that you muct resort to desperate measures. Take it however you want to. Truly, it was not meant to offend.

Everyone has prejudices. To say you do not is not true. Lonnie made some very good points. One in particular---arrogance.

John Merrell12/10/2006 4:14:04 AM

First you play the bigot card, and now crawl back to a description of arrogance claims I use "desperate measures." That taste of sour grapes I mentioned must be far more bitter than I imagined. What kind of person are you? Anyone seeking the truth about how four people died in a plane crash need not be attacked for prejudices. The case is quite clear and outlined at www.amindformurder.com Noreen Renier's claims about locating a crashed aircraft and describing people alive at the scene is a fantasy. And how secular humanism in anyway is related to this case or me is beyond my imagination.

Sandra1/2/2007 1:26:11 PM

You do indeed have a talent for misinterpretation... as well as rudeness. I wish you all the best, Mr. Merrill. I have no further comments.

Unbeliever1/16/2007 3:39:59 PM

Sandra,

I would be more inclined to believe Renier if you have substantiated personal proof of her success?

You said "I, too, was skeptical, but after listening in on her consultation with investigators, and personally witnessing her findings, I am convinced that she is able to do what she claims."

What were her findings? Was she able to support her claims based on facts? If so, did the Florence County Sheriff locate your brother with her assistance. If not, I wouldn't put much creedance in her claims.

Sandra3/22/2007 10:50:28 AM

Dear Unbeliever,

I am sorry to say that I cannot comment on your questions at this point secondary to the investigation. I would like to say, however, that she was, indeed, very helpful. Thank you for your interest.

amindformurder11/20/2007 3:58:27 AM

Amazingly Jessica Herbert actually testified to almost the identical comment --- that Noreen Renier was very helpful. Yet my investigation shows entire events that Jessica Herbert swore under oath were descriptions of events at the crash site described to her by Renier actually were nothing more than simple fantasy visions that never occurred. Yet Herbert testified that Renier was very helpful. How naive can people be?

Cletus11/20/2007 8:40:55 AM

QUICK! Somebody call Dionne Warwick! She has the answer. Call now.


Your Name:
Your Email (optional):
Comment:
Word Count:
0
500 word limit
Image Verification:
Please type the letters above:
*  People say the darndest things, but if they use language stronger than "darn," if they use ethnically or racially disparaging language, or start comparing people to Hitler, they may find that we've deleted the comment. Ditto for most unverified information, potentially libelous statements, and anything off the topic.



© 2002-2008 Better Publications LLC - The Hook - 100 Second Street NW - Charlottesville, VA 22902 - 434-295-8700 (fax: 434-295-8097) :Login: