Julian Lee
Locational Astrologer
JulianLee.com



























































































































































































Below: This screenshot shows about half of my "stumped cases" since January 2014, or the past 5 months. On these I refunded the bulk of their fees rather than easily naming some location or other as most do. The following half-list represents at least $7,000 voluntarily sent back:


 Julian Lee's response to an alleged client complaint on the internet April, 2010

A statement posted by an alleged client of mine (Mr. No Name) has been appearing at a site called  for four years. Because the post had no name and hardly seemed credible it has been up there for four years with no comment from me. I didn't expect the funky, no-accountability site to even last this long. Now the grousing post is coming up high in search engine returns. Someone recently made me aware that it may be affecting impressions people get on searches for me and asked about it, so I looked into it. The post at the cynical and insultingly named website goes like this:


It sounds like a male, so I will refer to it as a male.

First, there is no evidence that the person who made the post is actually a client of mine. There is no name, and no email, so I have no way of knowing. When I first saw it, it was so vague and out-of-left field I my first thought was it might have been placed for purely political reasons by somebody who doesn't like my political views and just wants to hassle me. Is it possible? It might even be an astrologer (he talks a lot about technical things) who is jealous of me. It could be an Astro*Carto*Graphy trademark holder or friend-of-an-ACG type who is offended by my criticism of Astrocartography maps. It could be anybody. I may have never even talked to this person.

Second, the way that he/she talks implies that it is NOT a client. The reference to "any number of house systems" doesn't accurately depict my work, which relies primarily on one house system.

Third, if it actually IS a client, there is no indication that they actually took my advice or moved anywhere.

Fourth, it provides no statements about any facts, positive or negative, concerning results or what happened with this person. There is no clue about whether it moved anywhere, or where it moved.

And number five: The comment criticizes me solely on the basis of astrological theories, and gives no evidence of any actual results (positive or negative) or life problems. Just astrological theory. In any case, until I know more I will cover further angles on this page, including my thoughts about what it's like to work for people who are trying to be their own astrologers, and who have pet theories that are different from the ways that I work.

I am considering suspending all locational readings until I have at least ten clients -- relocated clients -- posting rebuttals at that site...

But first:

I am the only astrologer who offers a money-back satisfaction guarantee on locational recommendations, or has ever done so. I have given 10,000+ readings and recommendations over 24 years. Nobody can please everybody. Meanwhile the internet, it seems, provides a powerful way for people to anonymously smear reputations, often without a way of verifying who they are or what the facts are.

Until I have further information about the poster, it is hard to respond to it. But I would like to state a few things. If it's true that this is just a hit piece by an enemy:

-- It's really easy to write things and post them on the internet without any name or consequences to yourself, and that website doesn't require any bona fides or traceability for posters. It is this site that is unethical; not myself.

Now let's assume for a moment it might be an actual client of mine. I have to make the following observations:

-- He gives no specifics about his life or what went wrong for him (or others).

-- He doesn't even tell us whether he actually moved anywhere. (The use of the term "inappropriate" is  vague. Inappropriate because he thought the location was illogical? Or because he differed on technical astrology ideas?)

-- He complains about me from the point of view of astrological theory, as a competing astrologer might criticize another's technique, not my results.

-- The poster's reference to "any number of questionable systems of astrological house division" implies that he has not actually worked with me. I do not use "any number." My primary system is the Placidius system, which I have tested extensively and compared to others. I have occasionally included two earth-based "geodetic" houses for a finer fit or when in doubt -- this based on experience with them. So he is misrepresenting my work here. He could have picked up reference to the geodetic houses from this website, without ever having a reading with me. His comment implies that he is a house theorist and partisan of "Equal house," which has come into vogue lately, and which I find does not work in practical terms. He says "Questionable" as if there exists some astrological gospel or One True Astrology. ALL aspects of astrology or astrological technique can be questioned. However, I have tested my techniques regularly for 25 years. It is unlikely he/she can say that.

-- His statement that I "ruin peoples' lives" expands his statement to encompass multiple unknown people, implying that some multiple of people had their lives identically ruined by me. Yet he gives no examples or says who these others are. If it were a complaint from a real client, wouldn't he/she refer to his own story alone rather than expanding it to a vague multiple? This further implies it's simply a hit piece by an enemy.

-- I make it clear on my site that I am paid for my opinion. If I give the opinion, the client cannot claim to be cheated, because they got what they paid for. Now I need to make a long detour to talk about do-it-yourself astrologers and what it's like to work for them:

Note about Self-Astrologers:
 
The hardest clients to work for are those who want to be their own astrologers or who, because they have read a few technical ideas, think they are now their own best astrologers.

They raise all kind of objections based on alternative ideas they have read about -- "city/state natal charts," "critical degrees," "asteroids," "midpoints," "azimuth lines," etc. I am typically working with a set of ideas I consider more fundamental than those, and ideas they usually have not considered.

Every astrologer is, in reality, working within his own "system" or rules that he/she believes in.These self-astrologers are just as avid for my opinion as anybody else, in fact often more so. They are usually in distress after they see how difficult it is to decide; how many dualistic choices have to be made. Most of these astrologers come to me completely locked up in their head, swimming in confusing ideas. The more they study the topic of locational astrology, the more they are seeing bugaboos and contradictions, and having a hard time making up their mind where to move to. The novice do-it-yourself locational  astrologer soon can't see through his own self-created astrological-rules forest, and hire me wanting some direction. They want to see what I think of their ideas plus get mine. They turn to me needing an alternative view to get them unstuck, and because of my reputation for results with clients. In every case they hear new ideas or new technical viewpoints from me, and this is what they dearly desired thus they were willing to pay my fee. Normally if not already Cosmic Know-it-Alls like our poster above, they learn important things from their reading with me.

I make it clear (at my site) that I am not there to give them "their system" or to work within their "rules." Otherwise what point would there be in consulting with me? I'm going to show them something different -- and that's in fact what they are hoping for. If the the person above was actually one of my clients, he is certainly one of these self-astrologer types. Again, I don't know if he tried my advice. His comment may be based on his dislike of my recommendation on a theoretical basis alone; that it simply contradicts his own amateur ideas about location. I have seen this before. "Ineffective" could simply be his opinion about my system, and not based on any actual experience.

I note that he makes a complaint that my system is "antiquated" -- as if there is some kind of "old" locational astrology. As if the desirability of an astrological technique is a matter of trend or fashion. Locational astrology is very new in the modern context, arising only in the 1970's with Jim Lewis' linemap product. I am using Full Relocated Natal analysis (and other ideas), which I pioneered well AFTER Jim Lewis' linemap became popular. So my techniques are more recent than the mainstream approach. 

He refers to "houses" in scare quotes as if houses no longer exist. I teach that the abandonment of houses is one of the basic mistakes of the Jim Lewis/linemap approach, and that Lewis is actually dealing with 4 houses in his IC/MH/DSC and ASC "lines." He says that the system of "house division" and rulerships (that I use) is antiquated. This reveals that he is a merely partisan of some particular sort of house division, such as "Equal House Division."

Yes, among the do-it-yourself astrologers I do get partisans who are sold and convinced -- possibly for purely abstract reasons because they attracted to an "elegant theory," or because they read an article by another mere theorist -- that their locational ideas are better than mine. This can be based on zero personal experience, or just a bit of experience as they have begun to analyze their own chart factors relative to their locational experience. They may be at the very beginning of their own studies. I know that with myself, watching my own charts and making moves, it took me years plus a number of mistakes before I began to clamp down on some really reliable ideas. This was even after reading the existing literature avidly and using the existing mainstream techniques!

In sum: If a self-astrologer hires me to try to clarify his mind which is roiling with many contradictory and confusing ideas (because that's the way astrology is) -- he also has been well-served when I give him my opinion (plus explanations!) Because my opinion is what he paid for.

In a real way I feel these type of clients should pay me MORE -- because I view them as little astrologer-robbers who are out to pick my brain and learn my techniques so that they may use them! Finally to make a few more points about this mysterious internet complaint:

-- I have done over 10,000 readings and recommendations over 24 years.* (See below for how I get this conservative estimate.)

-- I have easily over a thousand moves by clients based on my recommendations.

-- My reading has not been tested until a client moves and spends at least three months. There is no indication in the post that this person ever did that.

-- I tell all my clients that they should only move based on their own natural reasons and attractions, preferably following one or more investigative trips.

-- My client satisfaction rate is, I can say confidently, higher than what most people get with the average stockbroker, lawyer, and many kinds of doctors. That is, for the people who actually try my advice and don't simply get bent out of shape over their astrological theories clashing with mine.

-- My work stands on a set of ideas that I classify as "fundamental," and astrological houses definitely exist and never went away. Meanwhile house rulerships -- disparaged by our mystery theorist above -- are definitely a fundamental and they have huge consequences. I know this from hard experience and experience with over 7 thousand people over 25 years. Nobody touches my experience in this field.

-- No other astrologer offers a satisfaction guarantee and refund should a move be disappointing.

-- No other astrologer turns down cases (declining to give a recommendation) to some clients based on an inadequacy of available positive locational changes (at the given time) -- and refunds them. I do this on a weekly basis. Even in these "stumped" cases I give the client information that they usually consider to be helpful in their situation, and my $50 "stumped fee" is only a token for the work I do on these cases. In fact, I get many referrals from my declined/refunded cases. If I did not decline and refund a great many cases I would have a MUCH higher income than I have. The 38 cases at left represent a minimum of $7,200.00 that I voluntarily returned to the client  rather than make a recommendation that I thought would harm the client or be pointless. No other astrologers do this. They always take your money.

See Left: About half my "stumped" cases for the past three months. These clients, if paying $195, got $145 back. If the fee was $300, they got $250 back. Each of them still received an audio with some kind of helpful information about their situation. I lose thousands per month being honest and refusing to give new locations to people if I don't feel they will benefit adequately at that time.

If I ever get any proof that this is a real client -- plus where he went and when, what his goals were, and what I actually predicted -- I will respond further here as appropriate.

Julian Lee
Locational Astrologer
www.JulianLee.com

Note: How I conservatively calculate the number of my readings:
It would be tedious to go through and manually count up my files and charts/notebooks. But here is how I conservatively estimate the number of my locational readings:
1) I first began relying on astrology as my sole income at age 33, which is 24 years ago. Within a year I was doing a reading a day. This is 23 years ago. Within another year I was often doing 2 locational readings each typical day, Monday-thru-Saturday or 6 days a week. So this was 22 years ago. During some periods I sometimes did 3 or even 4 readings in a day day.
2) My work days were thus 52 x 6, or 312 work days per year.
3) If we take a  conservative daily number of readings, allowing only one-and-a-half per six-day-week, or 9 per week, 312 x 1.5 equals 468 readings per year.
4) 22 years x 468 = 10,296.
Thus even with dropping the readings from my first two startup years, plus underestimating my daily readings, I get a figure of around 10 thousand.
I would further note that I have consistently received about 10 new callers per week for many years, and most of them hire me, so this also supports these numbers.