Maybe she's now doing palm reading ? :o)


>Well, I guess I just don't have a lot of sympathy for people who make their living scamming the gullible. I'm sure she landed on her feet and has some other sort of scam going now.
>
>>She sued because she told her doctor in advance she was allergic to the dye. He went ahead with the procedure anyway. She had an allergic reaction to the dye during the procedure and then could no longer work afterwards. The fact that she was a psychic made good headlines and humor. That's the understanding I got anyway. She lost in the end. Wonder what her work is now? :o)
>>
>>
>>>I think it was the one alluded to in the second site. It may or may not be the same case as the first one. What amazed me was the fact that the first court found in her favour, and I couldn't stop imagining how she went about convincing the court that she had, in fact, lost her 'powers'. Seriously, how would one go about proving that, even assuming she could convince the court that she had them in the first place?
>>>
>>>>Was this the case?
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Richardson_Haimes
>>>>
>>>>It is mentioned here as well:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2006/09/book_review_a_tort_protectors.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=597195&p=2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If she wants to sue, she's got an open-and-shut case.
>>>>>
>>>>>Reminds me of the time a woman (I think in Chicago) sued a hospital because a cat-scan destroyed her psychic powers. Can you imagine the court scene? She's on the stand, her lawyer walks up to her with his hand behind his back, and says, "How many fingers am I holding up behind my back?" She says, "I don't know." The judge says, "Good enough for me. Find for the plaintiff."
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually I don't know how it turned out, but I get a chuckle out of just imagining the courtroom.