 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Varia zu Law and Astrology http://www.education.nic.in/circulars/astrologycurriculum.htm List of Institutions in India where Astrology is Being Taught as Part of Sanskrit or Other Branch
Übersicht über die CpD 1 -Inhalte: 1 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/1.html
2 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/2.html
NICK NEFEDRO Appellant,v.MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al.,
3 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/3.html City and County of San Francisco
4 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/4.html Riverside Municipal Code Riverside, California
5 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/5.html The Purpose of Astrology, Applications and Implementation
6 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/6.html
The Largest Astrology School in the World
7 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/7.html Booming Interest in Astrology and Other Psychic Arts May Be Related to a Need for Comfort and Security in Uncertain Times
8 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/8.html Lunch with Heinrich Himmler
9 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/9.html Stargazing America Copyright, 1988. The Associated Press
10 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/10.html Santa Monica, California
11 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/11.html Religious Rights in Australia HREOC Submission on Paganism
12 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/12.html UNITED STATES v. BALLARD, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) 322 U.S. 78
13 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/13.html Turmoil Boosts Thailand Astrologers
14 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/14.html Chinese Fortune Telling
15 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/15.html FORTUNE TELLING AND THE LAW
16 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/16.html Fortune Telling
17 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/17.html Fortune-telling in Britain
18 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/18.html Eugene Volokh November 30, 2008
19 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/19.html Indian court supports astrology as a university science subject
20 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/20.html UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GRYPHON‟S NEST GIFTS, PARISH OF LIVINGSTON
21 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/21.html 'Fortunetelling for profit is a violation of Maryland law
22 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/22.html Michael Argello v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
23 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/23.html 6 Cities End Ban on Fortune-Tellers
24 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/24.html Harford County woman sues city of Aberdeen over fortune-telling ban
25 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/25.html May a Municipality Ban Fortune Telling?
26 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/26.html CARTOMANCY:
27 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/27.html ACLU to challenge county's fortunetelling ban
28 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/28.html Livingston Parish Council repeals soothsaying prohibition ordinance
29 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/29.html S.F. may soon see psychics regulated
30 http://www.aktuell.saehannover.de/html/30.html Is fortunetelling a matter of the First Amendment?
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/468/468.F2d.266.72-1158.html
468 F.2d 266 Alexandra MARK, Petitioner, No. 72-1158. United States Court of Appeals, Heard Sept. 8, 1972. Michael S. Field, with whom Edward Rudnitsky, and Field, Rudnitsky & Mullane, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for petitioner. Charles A. Zielinski, Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom John W. Pettit, Gen. Counsel, John A. Marino, Associate Gen. Counsel, Thomas E. Kauper, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Howard E. Shapiro, Atty., Washington, D. C., were on brief, for respondents. Floyd Abrams, with whom Eugene R. Scheiman, Cahill, Gordon, Sonnett, Reindel & Ohl, and Corydon B. Dunham, New York City, were on brief for National Broadcasting Co., Inc., intervenor. Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE, Circuit Judge, and HAMLEY*, Senior Circuit Judge. COFFIN, Chief Judge. 1 This petition to review a final decision of the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission), under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2342(1), challenges the Commission's refusal to order intervenor, the National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC), a television station licensee, to abandon its policy of excluding from nonnews programs material presented for the purpose of fostering belief in astrology. Since NBC's policy in this particular is to adhere to the Television Code (the Code) of the National Association of Broadcasters (the NAB), petitioner also seeks review of the Commission's refusal to issue a declaratory ruling that Television Code Section IV-211 and identical provision in the Radio Code may not be adopted by licensees as their own policy.2 2 Petitioner's involvement with NBC and the Commission stemmed from her efforts to gain publicity for her book, "Astrology For The Aquarian Age", published by Simon & Schuster, in July, 1970. Her theme is that "Astrology is the science of time . . . the synchronization of astronomical time with biological time",3 or "the study of Nature's clock-a clock of such gigantic proportions that few people have the imagination to comprehend its scope." The thesis is that if one carefully constructs a "natal chart" taking account of the time, date, and month of birth as well as the other elements of astrological lore-the sun, moon, planets, divisions of the Zodiac, etc.-one may be able to "predict, with precision, those planetary correlations that act upon you at any moment of time." It offers help in making basic decisions in life. For example, "Astrology can match people more successfully than the computer; moreover, it can teach two people how to avoid the inevitable pitfalls that often lead to divorce." The book, however, is critical of prophesies, precise predictions, and magazine horoscopes. The petitioner writes, "I don't know whether or not I 'believe' in [astrology]-I use it and I have learned to use it successfully." She laments the fact that astrology today "is considered by most people to be either an occult amusement or an exercise in character analysis", feels that it "should no longer have to live in the shadows of superstition, witchcraft, magic and fortunetelling", and calls for employing statistical methods on a control group of persons with exact natal charts to see what is indicated by the charts and what actually has happened to demonstrate any significant correlation. 3 Petitioner alleged that her agent's request that petitioner be invited to appear on NBC's Tonight Show was refused. A subsequent request for clarification of policy was answered by NBC which stated that program material on astrology was "unacceptable when presented for the purpose of fostering belief in the subject". Subsequent unsuccessful efforts by petitioner culminated in the filing of the Complaint and Request for Declaratory Ruling. The complaint charged that a flat ban on the advocacy of astrology violated both the First Amendment and the "public interest" standard of the Communications Act, relying principally on Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace v. F. C. C., 146 U.S.App. D.C. 181, 450 F.2d 642 (1971), cert. granted, 405 U.S. 953, 92 S.Ct. 1174, 31 L.Ed.2d 230 (1972) as "an extension" of the reasoning in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F. C. C., 395 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969). 4 The Commission's response, echoed by the licensee, was that the record did not indicate that NBC acted unreasonably in refusing to invite petitioner to be a guest on any of its talk shows, and that the Commission lacked authority to require changes in the Code, or to affect a licensee's membership in a private association. The Commission noted that in any event there was no evidence that membership in the NAB had resulted in a violation of the First Amendment, the Communications Act, or any Commission rule or policy. NBC contended that its acts did not amount to "state action" which would subject it to compliance with the First Amendment. 5 Considering the lack of information before the Commission, it is difficult to understand its apparent certainty of belief that it is powerless to protect against possible abuses resulting from broadcaster involvement with the NAB. However, even if we should find in addition that the actions of the licensee are clothed with "state action", or for other reasons that the First Amendment applies to a broadcaster, nevertheless it cannot be seriously contended, in light of the limited number of broadcast frequencies available, that general guidelines reflecting programming priorities may not reasonably be adopted. The Communications Act's requirement that stations operate in the "public interest" furnishes the framework within which the First Amendment would apply, such that activities or policies of a broadcaster, if valid under the Act, would normally also meet the constitutional standard. National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 227, 63 S.Ct. 997, 87 L.Ed. 1344 (1943). We therefore view petitioner's allegations within the context of the Communications Act. 6 The claim that NBC's flat ban on programs which "are presented for the purpose of fostering belief" in astrology is essentially one of overbreadth in a non-criminal context. Thus some sort of showing should be made that a refusal to consider programming which falls within the ban would contravene the "public interest". Petitioner has failed to present even a prima facie case that the ban extends to such programming. Self-serving and undocumented statements, though both sincere and motivated by the party's concept of the public interest, cannot serve as valid indicia of the public interest, "[the] great public concern . . . [or] representative [ness of] community views, Red Lion, supra, 395 U.S. at 394, 89 S.Ct. at 1808, which allegedly inheres in the relevant subject matter at issue. While it may be good policy, and perhaps even required under the Communications Act, that a broadcaster articulate some rationale for its general policies, see Environmental Defense Fund v. Ruckelshaus, 142 U.S. App.D.C. 74, 439 F.2d 584, 597-598 (1971), even more so when there may be a question as to whether the licensee has exercised independent judgment in adopting restrictive policies in concert with others, we do not reach that question here since there is insufficient evidence to conclude that NBC's flat ban illegally precludes programming which falls within the "public interest, convenience and necessity." 7 On the record before us, we affirm. Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation The relevant code section of "IV. General Program Standards" reads: "21. Program material pertaining to fortune-telling, occultism, astrology, phrenology, palm-reading, numerology, mind-reading, or character-reading, is unacceptable when presented for the purpose of fostering belief in these subjects." Other issues initially sought to be raised are not before us. A challenge to NBC's policy against accepting paid advertisements to foster belief in astrology has not been pressed, since no attempt was made to secure such advertising. Nor has petitioner sought review of the Commission's refusal to find that a radio station illegally deleted some of her pre-recorded remarks from a talk show. Petitioner does not now contend that the refusal of NBC's Today Show to invite her on the program supports her claim, conceding that the producer could reasonably have deemed her appearance not newsworthy This and other quotations in the opinion are taken from petitioner's book which was made available to the Commission and the court ∅CC | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
http://www.lvrj.com/news/7139716.html
Apr. 22, 2007
Debbie Marks can see your future by consulting the stars or her stack of gold-embossed Tarot cards. At least she says she can. Whether you believe she can truly foretell your fate depends on whether you're among the majority of Americans who believe in psychics. Some 60 percent do, according to a 2001 survey by the National Science Foundation. But even Marks is having trouble divining what will become of her nine-month battle with Clark County to acquire a license to do business as a fortuneteller. "I usually get this energy from the back of my neck, and then a flash, and I know," Marks, 38, said last week. "But I'm not getting anything on this. It's still cloudy." The Las Vegan's quest since August to open up Goddess Salon and Psychic Readings in a Desert Inn Road strip mall has done far more than give her a headache and cost her thousands in attorneys' fees and lost revenue. It has brought to light an apparently unconstitutional law on the county books and exposed a behind-the-scenes rift between police and county bureaucrats. It also has left some county leaders asking why they didn't know more about this unusual case before it became the subject of a heated 30-minute public hearing at last week's County Commission meeting. The hearing ended with commissioners postponing a decision on Marks' license application. "This has certainly signaled that there's some problems with some of our procedures," said Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, who represents the district where Marks is trying to open Goddess. While some see psychics as frauds preying on the gullible, Southern Nevada municipalities issue business licenses to those wishing to set up shop as soothsayers. Forty-three people hold Clark County government-issued licenses to do business as an astrologer, spiritualist, seer or other form of psychic. Because psychics are in a position to potentially exploit citizens, government officials vet potential licensees as carefully as they do entrepreneurs seeking licenses to operate nursing homes and child care centers. Applicants must submit to fingerprinting and a police background check that includes inquiries into credit histories and relatives. But police contend Marks stymied their efforts to investigate her, refusing to schedule an interview with a detective and delaying being fingerprinted. "The applicant was not forthcoming and cooperative for the investigation," Detective Stacy Rodd told commissioners at a hearing Tuesday. Marks counters that she repeatedly tried to contact Toni Weeks, the police detective assigned to the case, to arrange fingerprinting, and referred Weeks' phone inquiries about her application to her attorney. Police proceeded with their investigation without the interview, uncovering 10 "areas of concern," according to a confidential police report obtained by the Review-Journal. Among the most serious concerns is a police assertion that Marks had used multiple Social Security numbers in applying for her license, utilities and the lease for Goddess. Marks said she wasn't falsifying records and uses only her true Social Security number. She noted that the multiple numbers police found after running a credit check are similar. In one case, two numbers were transposed. Weeks stated in her report that Marks also falsified her license application by stating she has never gone by any other names. "I have found that she has used the surname of Evans," Weeks wrote, adding that she found the information through "comprehensive law enforcement records checks." Marks said although her husband's name is Bobby Evans, she has never adopted his surname. She believes police have confused her with her sister-in law. "In Texas, we lived with my husband's sister. Her name is Debbie Evans, so police would find a Debbie Evans who once had the same address as me." Marks believes police have gone out of their way to find reasons for her application to be denied. "I am glad police do these checks. I believe they protect people, and that anyone who can jeopardize a person physically, emotionally or spiritually should have them," she said. "But there was no reason to not give me a license, no criminal background, no fraud. And police were chalking me up as a bad apple." Marks, a Romani, or Gypsy, felt she was being discriminated against. She hired a second attorney to represent her, prominent Los Angeles civil rights attorney Barry Fisher. "There were some persons from the Police Department on a fishing expedition against my client," Fisher said. "Police just kept coming up with more and more abject curiosity-driven or prejudice-driven questions." Rather than continue what had deteriorated into hostile dealings with police, Fisher began talks with the lawyers who provide counsel to the county's Business Licensing Department. "Our position is that these issues they were raising were irrelevant and unconstitutional," Fisher said. Clark County code gives county commissioners great discretion in denying someone a psychic's license. But fortunetelling has been recognized in numerous court decisions as a First Amendment-protected form of speech. That distinction limits elected officials' discretion in determining who gets licensed. "When there's First Amendment protection, it has to be objectively determinable criteria, not the subjective call of a politician based on police concerns," Fisher said. Representing another psychic last year, Fisher persuaded the Las Vegas city attorney's office that their fortunetelling licensing code, which nearly mirrored the county's current law, was unconstitutional. Deputy City Attorney Larry Bettis wrote in a March 2006 letter to Fisher's firm that Las Vegas would amend its code regarding psychic licensing "in recognition of their free speech rights protected under the Constitution of the State of Nevada and the First Amendment." City spokesman Jace Radke said Thursday that the city is still in the process of rewriting the psychic licensing law to make it constitutional. Eventually, county attorneys realized Fisher was right and that county law also needed to be updated to be constitutional. Still, Fisher worked with county attorneys over several months to address the concerns raised by police. "We could've taken a hard line, but instead we painstakingly dealt with everything they threw at us," Fisher said. Earlier this month, after consulting with county attorneys, Business Licensing Director Jacqueline Holloway moved Marks' application forward to county commissioners with a recommendation for approval. However, Holloway left commissioners in the dark about police objections to Marks' application. Holloway also set the application up to breeze through the approval process without scrutiny. She had the Marks application placed on Tuesday's consent agenda, which consists of dozens of items considered routine that commissioners vote to approve with a single motion and without discussion. Although department directors are tasked with briefing commissioners on items they place on agendas, Holloway did not tell commissioners about police concerns or provide them a copy of Weeks' report. Giunchigliani had the item pulled off Tuesday's consent agenda for a full-hearing after learning police were calling for Marks' application to be denied. "In my mind, it's very important what they (police) have to say. ... I would have liked to have been briefed," Giunchigliani said. "I didn't even have the background information, so I have some concerns about our procedures." Weeks and Rodd then explained their concerns to commissioners, raising several of the same issues in the Marks police report. They also disagreed with the assertion that fortunetelling is constitutionally protected. "This is not a First Amendment issue," Rodd said, adding that police consulted with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in drawing that conclusion. Afterward, Giunchigliani said from the dais that she was "bothered" that business licensing was recommending approval of Marks' license without airing the concerns raised by law enforcement. Holloway told commissioners her department worked closely with police, but disagreed with their conclusion. "We determined that the issues they raised did not rise to the level of a denial," she said. "We communicated our position to Metro on a number of occasions." Rodd confirmed police were in contact with Holloway's office, but told commissioners talks ended when police found out Holloway had arranged for Marks' application to be approved without discussion. Commissioners eventually voted to delay their decision on Marks' application until a future meeting, with Commission Chairman Rory Reid encouraging police and business licensing to work together on a joint recommendation. "I don't know if we've ever been in a situation where Metro is recommending one thing and business licensing another," Reid said. "I don't think that's a position we want to be in." County Manager Virginia Valentine said she was not aware of police concerns before Tuesday's hearing. Asked if it was appropriate for Holloway to have placed the disputed matter on a consent agenda, Valentine answered no. "It's something I'll be talking to her about," Valentine said.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Audrey wrote on April 22, 2007 07:46 PM: Poor, poor Debbie Marks. I hope she gets her license. We spend way too much time on things that are not that important and not enough on the things that really are important! Joe C wrote on April 22, 2007 01:44 PM: Rachel, I don’t think anyone wanted an intelligent debate on the world of magic, because it’s all phooey, but OK. The point being with so many real issues this should not take up space in a newspaper or needed time of law enforcement, and absolutely some kind of punishment for yelling discrimination, when it’s her perpetrating a possible fraud. Rachel gutowski wrote on April 22, 2007 12:57 PM: Im sorry but it is conidered black magic for someone to charge a person for a reading and I'm guessing that's the CROWLEY DECK from what I can see in this picture,and thats black magic (a magic which induces bad karma for the querant and the reader which is all bad. Oh and one more thing, Never in any way has a reader of the future been automatically upgraded to a gifted psychic just so we get this part straight this woman is an occultist and if she is trying to open a psychic shop lets hope all she is chargeing for is book sales because this is why the one chic was a fraud because in order to practice magic without induceing bad karma is to do it out of one's own free will not to make a career out of it.. D.B. wrote on April 22, 2007 10:51 AM: Are you kiding me? This is the most newsworthy story you can come up with? I'm not sure what is the bigger joke. This Marks woman,or the fact that you would even write about her! Wm Cloud wrote on April 22, 2007 09:24 AM: I know how she can make $1000,000.00 to help cover her expenses. James Randi will pay a million dollars to any one who can demonstrate psychic powers in a controled enviroment. The website is: www.randi.org Joe C wrote on April 22, 2007 07:41 AM: Jib Jab was so right on the money with the sad state of journalism, and the RJ just proved it featuring this bull on their web page.
|
|
|
|
[SAE Aktuell] [Projekte] [Literaturliste] [Gründungsbeirat] [Präsidium] [Erkenntnis] [Links] [Rechtstheorie] [Kongress] [Geleitworte] [FHS BA] [Wissenschaft] [Schoener] [Studiengänge] [Stiftungen] [Impressum] [Geschichte] [History] [Klasssiker] [Esoterik] [Anthroposophie] [Theosophie] [Alchemie] [Mantik] [Okkultismus] [Zürich 2008] [Niehenke Reclam] [Niehenke Diss.] [Wissenschaftsbetrug] [Apokryphen] [Literatur Wissen] [Astrologie] [Astrologie] [Sternwelten] [Röpkes] [Warburg] [DAV - A...] [DAV - F...] [Arcana] [DAV - P...] [Law and Astrology] [Azusa] [CpD 1] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [CpD 2] [CpD 3] [CpD 4] [CpD 5] [PR] [CpD Extra] |