Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#71

Post by sb8244 »

hackernewds wrote: post #67
evandale wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can read the article and read the prosecution's argument and still disagree with it. I do. In the end you're buying something that doesn't exist. If you want to believe it exists that's fine. Complaining that you bought magic and someone sold you fake magic though? C'mon now. The fake predictions were just as real as the real ones would be.

How does this compare to someone selling you a car that doesn't exist? It's criminal, and very similar if you distance your beliefs around magic from it.

A car can exist, though. That's the big difference.

You can't say "Well I thought I was getting REAL magic", because that doesn't exist. You can absolutely say "Well I thought I was getting a REAL car", because it's expected to buy a car, and cars exist.

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#72

Post by Narkov »

steve_taylor wrote: post #46
recursivecaveat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of Robert Tilton, who was exposed for depositing/trashing prayer requests/donations without actually praying over them. Sadly it seems like he largely escaped intact. I suspect being a grifter is a very strong risk factor for being too lazy to grift 'correctly', no matter how easy it would be.

[flagged]

> If you’re that stupid, you deserve to be swindled.

Absolutely not. Laws should protect the vulnerable...no matter how stupid they are.

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#73

Post by another-dave »

sb8244 wrote: post #71
hackernewds wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this compare to someone selling you a car that doesn't exist? It's criminal, and very similar if you distance your beliefs around magic from it.

A car can exist, though. That's the big difference. You can't say "Well I thought I was getting REAL magic", because that doesn't exist. You can absolutely say "Well I thought I was getting a REAL car", because it's expected to buy a car, and cars exist.

> You can't say "Well I thought I was getting REAL magic", because that doesn't exist. You can absolutely say "Well I thought I was getting a REAL car", because it's expected to buy a car, and cars exist.

And Maria Duval exists, so it's possible that a bespoke letter from her to you could exist, even if you don't believe the contents.

Feels more like saying — if you went to Disneyland & bought a ticket for "Get your photo taken with Mickey Mouse: $20", would you accept a photo with any random person instead because "of course you can't get a photo with Mickey Mouse, he doesn't exist"?

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#74

Post by sb8244 »

another-dave wrote: post #73
sb8244 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car can exist, though. That's the big difference. You can't say "Well I thought I was getting REAL magic", because that doesn't exist. You can absolutely say "Well I thought I was getting a REAL car", because it's expected to buy a car, and cars exist.

> You can't say "Well I thought I was getting REAL magic", because that doesn't exist. You can absolutely say "Well I thought I was getting a REAL car", because it's expected to buy a car, and cars exist. And Maria Duval exists, so it's possible that a bespoke letter from her to you could exist, even if you don't believe the contents. Feels more like saying — if you went to Disneyland & bought a ticket for "Get your…

Got it. Reading the thread it's more about the idea of "buying magic", which is nonsense.

"Buying magic from Maria Duval" changes it to fraud assuming that Maria Duval was not involved. Where things become slightly more tricky is that Maria Duval sold the rights to her name to the scam operators before they did the scam.

So now the analogy is maybe "you paid for an autograph from Mickey Mouse, but Joe Schmo signed it instead (you didn't find out until later). Disney sold the rights for Joe Schmo to use the name Mickey Mouse in autographs."

Mickey Mouse as a character does exist btw, as a point that doesn't matter much.

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#75

Post by causality0 »

WheatMillington wrote: post #7

Is this really a swindle if your "victims" are willing participants? Every purported psychic is "pretending" even if they don't realise. My sister in law makes good money giving readings over zoom. She genuinely believes in this nonsense, as do her customers. Is there a practical difference though, whether she believes it or not?

That's literally the definition of "fraud". If they were unwilling it would be plain robbery.

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#76

Post by loktarogar »

coldtea wrote: post #65
loktarogar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How he procured it should be of no consequence The procurement was part of the agreed-upon conditions of the sale, so it is.

Where were those conditions "agreed upon"? Who signed that contract?

If you advertise personal readings for me by Barack Obama, and I buy a personal reading from Barack Obama, and I get a reading from someone who is not Barack Obama, the product delivered was not the product purchased.

It doesn't matter that Barack is a certified reader, or that psychic readings are real or fake, or anything else - you didn't give me what I purchased.

Sidenote, something doesn't have to be a formally-drafted lawyer contract to be a contract, either. It's just an agreement. Like one where I buy something you offer and I expect that to be the thing that you offered me

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#77

Post by Palmik »

ceejayoz wrote: post #8
WheatMillington wrote: post #7

Is this really a swindle if your "victims" are willing participants? Every purported psychic is "pretending" even if they don't realise. My sister in law makes good money giving readings over zoom. She genuinely believes in this nonsense, as do her customers. Is there a practical difference though, whether she believes it or not?

The victims paid for personal readings from a specific person, and got mass-produced ones from someone else instead. Psychics are bullshit, but that's an extra level of fraud on top, and far more actionable by law enforcement.

I wonder if or how it's different from e.g. OnlyFans models delegating their chats to cheap labor in third world countries.

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#78

Post by bentcorner »

sb8244 wrote: post #74
another-dave wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't say "Well I thought I was getting REAL magic", because that doesn't exist. You can absolutely say "Well I thought I was getting a REAL car", because it's expected to buy a car, and cars exist. And Maria Duval exists, so it's possible that a bespoke letter from her to you could exist, even if you don't believe the contents. Feels more like saying — if you went to Disneyland & bought a ticket for "Get your…

Got it. Reading the thread it's more about the idea of "buying magic", which is nonsense. "Buying magic from Maria Duval" changes it to fraud assuming that Maria Duval was not involved. Where things become slightly more tricky is that Maria Duval sold the rights to her name to the scam operators before they did the scam. So now the analogy is maybe "you paid for an autograph from Mickey Mouse, but Joe Schmo signed it…

Authenticity is an interesting thing to think about. When we went to Disney, there's a thing where you can get signatures from the cast members. The actress playing Cinderella would sign my kids' little book in the way you might think Cinderella would, Tinkerbell would sign the book in the way you might think Tinkerbell would, etc.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you could get into legal trouble selling autograph books that you signed yourself, presenting them as being collector's items from Disney.

But really, the thing you'd be making is functionally identical to what you'd get at the park - it's a fictional character's signature, drawn by a person trained in making that signature.

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#79

Post by 1024core »

evandale wrote: post #60
Aurornis wrote: post #39

A lot of these comments are jumping to victim-blaming, but the headline doesn't really describe the fraud. The article says the fraud they were prosecuted for wasn't even for the "psychic" services. The fraudster took a famous psychic's likeness and purported to be selling interactions with her, when in fact the letters were being destroyed and the responses were mass produced copy. Obviously "psychics" aren't real,…

One can read the article and read the prosecution's argument and still disagree with it. I do. In the end you're buying something that doesn't exist. If you want to believe it exists that's fine. Complaining that you bought magic and someone sold you fake magic though? C'mon now. The fake predictions were just as real as the real ones would be.

I disagree.

Let's say I believe in unicorns. Is it legal to then glue a horn on a horse and sell it to me as a "unicorn"?

Re: A copywriter swindled victims out of $200M by pretending to be a psychic

#80

Post by f137 »

1024core wrote: post #79
evandale wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can read the article and read the prosecution's argument and still disagree with it. I do. In the end you're buying something that doesn't exist. If you want to believe it exists that's fine. Complaining that you bought magic and someone sold you fake magic though? C'mon now. The fake predictions were just as real as the real ones would be.

I disagree. Let's say I believe in unicorns. Is it legal to then glue a horn on a horse and sell it to me as a "unicorn"?

If you look at it and pay for it, sure it's legal, no?
Post reply on HN