"Miss Donna" charged with bilking woman out of $445,000

The psychic and fortune teller told the woman by she was cursed and needed to pay up so she would be cleansed of evil. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Comments

[cheesuschrist]

They should arrest the victim for aggravated stupidity. Why do people give these kind of people money and then complain after the fact thousands of dollars later.

[Cherie]

Wouldn't an exorcism have been a lot cheaper?

Also...if this woman was stupid enough to allow "Miss Donna" to take her for almost 500K, then she deserves to loose the money! How can they press charges on Miss Donna? We're back to protecting the stupid from themselves again.

[Jack]

What is the difference between "Ms. Donna" and a preacher asking for 10% from the congregation each week?

[ms_nickie]

I see....an orange jump-suit in your future.

[Cherie]

Jack, do you have to be an active titheing member of the church in order for the Priest to come do an exorcism?

[BallstotheWall]

If the mark, er, client wasn't truely cursed before she surely is now.

[zombie00x]

What law was broken? False advertising? The only thing untrue was that spending the money would cleanse her (and you cannot prove that the "psychic" did not believe it would cleanse her). There is zero doubt that the woman is in fact cursed... with an IQ under 90. Ms. Donna should be applauded for finding a way to get rich without harming anyone. This moron harmed herself, she should be fined another $100k for being a dumbass. My only hope is that she has not yet reproduced and spread her brilliant genes.

[pnwgal]

If this woman was stupid enough to give over 400 large to a PHYSIC, she was cursed, alright-with a brain that obviously is only in her skull to keep it from collapsing.

[pnwgal]

psychic...GAWD.

Obviously the spelling part of my brain has totally disengaged itself.

[ol'dog]

What do a; Phychic, T.V. Evangelist and an Honest Politician have in common?
They are all fakes that steal your money, just different costumes.

Cherie. Again and again and again: it's "lose" not loose."

[Mook]

Didn't the psychic see that she was going to be arrested? Her otherworldly powers must have failed her! (Psychic = skanky crook, victim = gullible doofus.)

[SwarthyTroll]

Why can a psychic legally take $50 but not $500,000? Where is the line?

[KC]

Your spirit's condition's the worst
You could ever imagine -- you're cursed!
I can make you all nice
Once again in a trice,
But give me four hundred grand first.

[Cherie]

yeah yeah, I know it, but I seem to have a mental blockage where that word is concerned. Sorry....

[buddy]

Jack, the difference is that the psychic didn't molest the children of the person giving them cash.

If you are going to hand over money to someone the least they can do is put something in your kids butt.

But seriously, I don't understand what is illegal about what she did. It seems like catholics are infamous for taking money in the same way.

[NellAgain]

There are various state statutes that cover 'fortune telling" with penalties commeasurate with "theft by deception"

New York State law, S 165.35:
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.

Yawn

But North Carolina's is the funniest
"It shall be unlawful for any person to practice the arts of phrenology, palmistry, clairvoyance, fortune-telling and other crafts of a similar kind in the counties named herein. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a
Class 2 misdemeanor."
"This section shall not prohibit the amateur practice of phrenology, palmistry, fortune-telling or clairvoyance in connection with school or church socials, provided such socials are held in school or church buildings."

One of the reasons that the christian churchs get off is that the Bible specifically PROHIBITS it.

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 forbids the Israelites from engaging in eight fortune telling practices. (I guess any others are ok by the big guy)

"There shall not be found among you anyone that...useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer."

So there's plenty illegal about what Miss Donna did; mainly because she didn't do it in church.

[Me]

I'm to the point where I have absolutely no sympathy for the "victims" in cases such as these. I don't care if they sent their life savings to an evangelist, a psychic or some dude in Nigeria. You simply must have better critical thinking skills where your money is concerned. If you don't, too bad.

[Joe Mugg]

Don't be too quick to judge.
The psychic did cleanse the customer...well, at least her bank account.

[midwesterngirlonherown]

Cherie
I understand fully..I have the mental blockage with seen and saw

[thomas]

Judges presiding over divorce cases do this to many men every day, and sometimes in church.

[NellAgain]

Judges presiding over many types of civil cases do this to poor people everyday.

[thomas]

NellAgain, I would enjoy hearing your personal, statistics be damned theory of why this obvious imbalance is so prevalent in so many things judicial. My own take is recuseable and jaded, but I think 15 and I might find common ground on the subject, over a nice cup of raspberry tea.

[Amer Veteran]

"Cherie. Again and again and again: it's "lose" not loose."

Stop playing fast & loose with her posts or she'll feel like a loser.

TO: midwesternhottie:
"I understand fully..I have the mental blockage with seen and saw"

Isn't that past tense for teeter totter?

[jdotglenn]

"Why can a psychic legally take $50 but not $500,000? Where is the line?"

Extortion, my friend. I guess people can take money for any unregulated service, like a (cold) reading, for example; but she basically threatened the subject with a curse, unless they would pay up.

[NellAgain]

Dura lex, sed lex.

The law is harsh, but it is the law.

It works out this way. It is basically illegal to be poor in America. [It's also widely considered to be a moral failing on the level of incest or child molestation, but more about that later]

Dozens, if not hundreds of required fees, registrations, mandated insurances cannot be paid by the poor, so they are always doing *something* illegal. If you check your local city criminal code you will probably find an ordinance (usu vagrancy) that demands arrest for people on the street who don't have some non-trivial amount of money on their persons.

As to why judges tend to find against poor people in civil suits (and criminal ones) is that poor people cannot afford experienced lawyers.

No knock on Legal Aid who are great for landlord disputes etc. But the law is more than what is written in books. It also consists of Case Law, rulings set down by previous judges that were not modified or overturned by later appeals. This also includes the ah, preferences of certain judges to follow other judges rulings.

An experienced lawyer knows the case law, the habits and preferences of the judges, the various strategems that law allows for slowing things down or speeding things up. A really experienced one knows exactly where the Law Runs Out.

One study about pro bono lawyers supplied to indigent murder suspects found that NONE of the lawyers had tried a capital case before. I don't doubt their integrity or intentions; but it is like sending out a 12 year old and BB gun against Kodiak Bear. Oh yeah and need I mention that all those guys were convicted?

Another less investigated aspect of the american legal system is that Prosecutors like to become Judges and often do. Judges who are former prosectors have a MUCH higher conviction rate than other judges.

In civil cases, such as divorce, many judges are just pissed off that couple hasn't worked out all the arrangements before hand. Property division is these days rarely done by the judge; the lawyers are supposed to slug it out and present the judge with nicely typed decree for him or her to sign. And of course who is likely to get screwed on this? The one that can't afford to wait it out and can't afford an experienced divorce attorney. The poor. Male or Female they are the ones that get screwed.

Excuse me I have a fire to put out.

[thomas]

NellAgain,
Greatfull for the time you took to answer with a personal opinion. You must be a typist formidable. Feeling less jaded that our opinions aren't so divergent.
It's not a stretch to see law enforcement and the judiciary as a self perpetuating force. Removing the blindfold from lady justice in prosecuting both rich and poor would be economically unfeasable. Someone has to pay the fines and bills, and poor people don't have the wherewithall to get out of it.

It is smoky in here.

[thomas]

Isn't that past tense for teeter totter?

made me smile AmerVeteran. it has all the makings of a Will Short PBS sunday puzzler.