Predictably, Plan to License Soothsayers Stirs Debate

Larry Pines studied an oval astrology chart, scribbled down a few numbers and drew his conclusion: A law requiring city permits for astrologers, palm readers and fortunetellers is not in the stars.

“It’s going to be controversial. People are going to complain about it,” said Pines, who charges $80 an hour for readings at his Hollywood home. “Nothing is going to be accomplished.”

Pines could be right. After all, he claims that he predicted the 1987 stock market crash.

But then again, it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to foresee controversy over a law that would require astrologers, fortunetellers and the like to be fingerprinted, photographed and charged $450 for a police permit.

The proposal, approved by the Police Commission this week, now goes before the City Council, which is expected to take up the issue as early as next month.

The matter is already being debated in New Age crystal shops, astrology centers and palm reading rooms throughout the city.

Some complain that the proposed law is another attempt to restrict a misunderstood practice. Others support the effort, saying it will help crack down on scam artists who bilk people under the guise of fortunetelling.

“I feel it’s to my advantage because I am an established reader,” said a Los Angeles fortuneteller who goes by the name Mrs. Gray. “It will keep the fly-by-nighters out of town.”

The debate started Tuesday after the Police Commission unanimously approved a proposal to require police permits for all so-called clairvoyants, soothsayers, palm readers and anybody else who profits from divining the future.

After paying an initial $450 fee, each permit holder would be required to pay $100 per year. Fortunetellers are already required to have business licenses.

Police say the law is designed to crack down on scam artists who claim to relieve customers of curses, but instead relieve them of their money. By requiring a permit, police say they can keep tabs on the more than 150 fortunetellers in the city.

“They are hard to keep track of,” said Los Angeles Police Detective Hal Ring of the bunco-forgery division. “One day they are Madam Something and the next day they are Madam Something Else.”

One of the most common scams, Ring said, takes place when a bogus soothsayer tells a victim that he must hand over all his money because it is “tainted” and must be “cleansed.” The fortuneteller then leaves town with the money, he said.

“The people who are usually victimized are the ones that are least able to afford it,” he added.

Despite his prediction that the law will ultimately fail, Pines said he supports the proposal because it would protect the reputation of what he calls legitimate fortunetellers and astrologers.

“It’s going to get rid of the bums and it’s going to help me out,” said Pines, who has been reading astrology charts for about 25 years and appears on a weekly cable program.

Edward Helin, an astrologer from Canoga Park, supports the idea of issuing permits as a means of weeding out scam artists. But he said he opposes having to be fingerprinted, photographed and charged a $450 fee.

“I don’t see why we have to do it,” said Helin, president of the Insight Foundation and member of the Professional Assn. of Holistic Arts and Science. “It sounds like just another way for the city to raise money for its coffers.”

(Helin, by the way, claims to be the astrologer to President Bush. A White House spokesman, however, said: “The President does not have and has never had (an astrologer) while in the Administration.”)

Sister Rose, a 70-year-old Los Angeles fortuneteller who said she is just managing to make ends meet by reading palms for $5 and Tarot cards for $8, said she has a business license and feels she should not be required to pay for any additional permit.

“I know my business and I have always been clean,” she said.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union has entered the fray.

“How are the police going to be able to decide who is a genuine fortuneteller and who is not?” asked ACLU attorney Carol Sobel in a letter to Commission President Stanley K. Sheinbaum. “Do they have some sort of crystal ball or are they going to have a score card of correct predictions?”

Sheinbaum acknowledges that at first he was reluctant to support the proposal. “When I first saw the item I raised the question: Is this something else that the government has to stick its nose into?”

But he concluded that “if people are being ripped off then maybe we need to see how we can protect them.”