Landmark Education litigation

Since its adoption of approximately its current structure in 1991, Landmark Education LLC (LE) has become involved in a variety of legal proceedings, as a plaintiff, as a defendant, or as a subject "relevant" to other lawsuits. Many of these cases have taken place in jurisdictions within the United States [For a single case involving "blogging, see ] and in Europe.

This Wikipedia article references some instances where LE has initiated actions to defend itself against what it perceives as malicious or negligent defamatory comments. [ [http://technology.findlaw.com/resources/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=//articles/01118/010197.html Judge Edward Fadely] ]

This Wikipedia article also discusses cases brought against or have involved LE, sometimes indirectly as a "relevant" party. The company and its legal representatives have also sent cease-and-desist letters to parties that it considers have engaged in copyright infringement, slander, or libel. [ cite web
url= http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2004-06-24-Complaint.pdf
title= UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
accessdate= 2008-07-13
publisher= Citizen Media Law Project
pages = 26
quote = preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants, their agents, servants andemployees, against continued tortious conduct] [cite web
url= http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/landmark-education-llc-v-ross
title= Landmark Education LLC v. Ross
accessdate= 2008-04-26
accessdaymonth=
accessmonthday=
accessyear=
author=
last=
first=
authorlink=
coauthors=
date= 2008-04-18
publisher= Citizen Media Law Project
quote = In June 2004, Landmark sued Ross and the Ross Institute in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting claims of product disparagement, tortious interference with ongoing and propspective business relations, trademark disparagement under the Lanham Act, consumer fraud and unfair competition under New Jersey law, and "prima facie" tort.] [cite web
url= http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/
title= Landmark
accessdate= 2008-07-13
work=
publisher=
pages=
language= Dutch
quote= Concrete aanleiding [...] is de brief van advocatenkantoor Kennedy Van der Laan aan de organisatie SIMPOS van 19 augustus 1999. [...] De brief aan SIMPOS staat model voor talloze brieven die Landmark en/of haar advocaten sturen naar journalisten en media wanneer er kritiek wordt geleverd op de ronselpraktijken van Landmark. [TRANSLATION:] The specific occasion [...] is the letter of 19 August 1999 from the law-office Kennedy Van der Laan to the SIMPOS organisation. [...] The letter to SIMPOS stands as an example for numerous letters which Landmark and/or its lawyers send to journalists and the media whenever criticicism gets expressed concerning the practices of Landmark]

Cases in Europe

Martin Lell (Germany)

After attending the Landmark Forum in Germany, Martin Lell wrote a book titled "Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education" [The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education] , Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ISBN 3-423-36021-6. This book detailed Lell's attendance at the course and gave an account of mental collapse directly afterwards.

Landmark Education sued to have the word "Gehirnwäsche" (" of Landmark Education in 1999. [ [http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm Art Schreiber letter] , June 22, 1999
"As the record at the Hearing indicated, following completion of The Landmark Forum Mr. Lell did not see a doctor; was not hospitalized; did not seek or obtain medication; and was not diagnosed by a medical professional as being brainwashed or having any mental problem"] .)

The German court determined that "brainwashing" constituted a matter of opinion [ [http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm Art Schreiber letter] , June 22, 1999] rather than an assertion of fact. The court allowed the sub-title to remain.

infoSekta (Switzerland)

The Swiss subsidiary, Landmark Education AG, after making legal threats and conducting demanding consultative meetings, instituted formal legal proceedings against [http://www.infosekta.ch/ infoSekta] (Verein "Informations- und Beratungsstelle für Sekten- und Kultfragen infoSekta" — the infoSekta Association for Information and Advice on matters of Sects and Cults), a Swiss group, on 1995-11-23, demanding that infoSekta cease distributing information about the company. Further discussions followed, and the case concluded by negotiation on 1997-12-18with infoSekta agreeing not to call Landmark Education a cult but holding its ground in some matters. InfoSekta's summary of the result reads:

In the matter of content we can happily assert that the substantive points of infoSekta's work stand. As previously, we can claim that Landmark shows cultic traits, so long as we emphasize at the same time that we wish to avoid a facile labeling as a cult ("Sekte"). (Such a labeling we would wish to avoid on principle and in any case.) As before, we can continue to express doubts as to the professionalism and the seriousness of Landmark's course-offerings (the agreement expressly states this). And finally, when asked about the matter, we can advise against attending [Landmark] courses.
In the original German:
"Inhaltlich können wir zufrieden [... ] festhalten, dass die wesentlichen Punkte der Arbeit von infoSekta standgehalten haben. Wir dürfen nach wie vor behaupten, dass Landmark sektenhafte Züge aufweist, wenn wir gleichzeitig betonen, dass wir eine blosse Etikettierung als Sekte vermeiden möchten. (Letzteres möchten wir aus Prinzip und in jedem Falle vermeiden.) Wir dürfen im weiteren nach wie vor Zweifel an der Professionalität und Seriosität des Kursangebotes von Landmark äussern (dies ist im Vergleich ausdrücklich erwähnt). Und schliesslich dürfen wir, wenn wir danach gefragt werden, auch vom Kursbesuch abraten." [cite web
url= http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html
title= Landmark vs. infoSekta: Geschichte eines Prozesses [Landmark vs infoSekta: Account of a Trial]
accessdate= 2007-09-24
last= Sträuli
first= Dieter
year= 1997
work= infoSekta-Tätigkeitsbericht 1997 [infoSekta-Activity-report 1997]
publisher=
pages= 16-20
language= German

]

"FACTS" Magazine (Switzerland)

According to a 1999 letter, [ [http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm Letter] from Art Schreiber, June 22, 1999, to SIMPOS, p/a Koppenhinksteeg 2, 2312 HX, Leiden. The Netherlands] written by Art Schreiber, the Swiss magazine "FACTS" [ [http://www.facts.ch/dyn/magazin/index.html FACTS homepage] ] referred to Landmark Education as a "cult". The magazine later retracted this statement after Landmark Education took legal action. [de icon [http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html Landmark vs. infoSekta.] NB this reference does not relate directly to the FACTS case.]

"Panorama" Magazine (The Netherlands)

In 1999, a district judge in Haarlem, the Netherlands ruled that [http://www.panorama.nl/ "Panorama" magazine] acted wrongfully when it labeled Landmark Education as a "cult" in an article [cite web
url= http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/pano1.htm
title= Sekten in Nederland
wok= Panorama
accessdate= 2008-06-11
date= 13-20 januari 1999
publisher= VNU
language= Dutch
quote= ] on "Sekten in Nederland" (Cults in the Netherlands) — because Landmark Education did not meet any of the criteria of "Panorama"'s own characterization of cults. [Art Schreiber of Landmark Education wrote with reference to this case:

"The facts are clear that Landmark Education and The Landmark Forum are not a sect or cult (the term used for sect [sic] in the United States and other countries).
"To this end, I am enclosing the following materials which make clear that Landmark Education and The Landmark Forum are not a sect or cult:
1. The Decision by C.J.J. van Maanen, acting President of the District Court in Haarlem, issued on May 4, 1999 regarding an article published about Landmark Education in Panorama Magazine. Judge van Maanen stated in Sections 3,3,3.4 and 3.6: "It is unmistakable that in Panorama's publication Landmark is qualified as a cult, a word which, according to the first lines of the publication, 'in usage has obtained a very negative image'." "This qualification is unfounded because Panorama could not even subsequently quote a definition of the term 'cult' which is met by Landmark, and left it undisputed that Landmark in any event does not even meet any of the characteristics listed at the beginning of the article in the frame 'how to recognize a cult' . . [sic] Panorama simply called Landmark a cult, using a definition of 'cult' in its publication which is not met by Landmark. Thus, Panorama has acted wrongfully."

[http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm Art Schreiber letter] , June 22, 1999, SIMPOS, p/a Koppenhinksteeg 2, 2312 HX, Leiden. The Netherlands]

Cases in the United States of America

Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992)

In September 1989 Stephanie Ney attended a session of "The Forum", conducted by Werner Erhard (doing business as Werner Erhard & Associates (WE&A)). In 1992 Ney sued Landmark Education Corporation (LEC, seen as the successor-organization of WE&A) for $2,000,000, saying that three days after attending the Forum she "suffered a breakdown and was committed to a psychiatric institute in Montgomery County". [Stephanie Ney case, September 1989, [http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/robhow.htm psychiatric breakdown] ] The trial court dismissed Ney's suit on summary judgment. The appeals court affirmed, ruling that "although perhaps her participation in the Forum might have led in part to her psychotic reaction", Virginia law did not allow recovery for emotional injury unaccompanied by physical injury. [Legal document, Stephanie Ney case, [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark49.html#Appendix%20A:%20%20Text%20of%20Court%20Ruling%20in%20Ney%20Case Court Ruling] ]

Condé Nast Publications / "Self" magazine (1993)

In 1993, Landmark Education Corporation sued "Self" Magazine (Condé Nast Publications) for defamation. The defamation claimed by Landmark Education Corporation involved the article [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark23.html "White collar cults, they want your mind ..." ] , published in February 1993. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. In a settlement-agreement, Landmark Education released Condé Nast Publications from any and all claims relating to the article, and "Self" Magazine issued a one-sentence editor's note stating that the magazine had no "first-hand" evidence that the "Landmark Forum is a cult". [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark156.pdf Settlement Agreement] , Landmark Education Corporation & Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., 1993
"Editor's Note: The article in question was based on sources Self believed to be reliable, but Self has no first-hand knowledge or evidence that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult."]

The Cult Awareness Network / Cynthia Kisser (1994)

In 1994 Landmark Education Corporation sued the original Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser (its then Executive Director) for (among other allegations) issuing leaflets about "Destructive Cults". The entry "The Forum/est/the Hunger Project" appeared in a "partial list of groups about which CAN has received complaints." [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark213.pdf Landmark Education v. Cult Awareness Network] , Cook County, Illinois, Martin N. Leaf, Esq., 1991]

During a deposition Kisser stated that CAN held no opinion with respect to classifying Landmark Education as a destructive cult. She went on to say that personally, under several categories of cults, she thought Landmark Education could be a destructive cult in the commercial category, but that she was "inconclusive". She stated (in the course of listing several allegedly cultic and/or cult-like elements of Landmark Education) [ [http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html Deposition of Cynthia Kisser] , Superior Court of the State of Illinois, May 15, 1995, "passim".] that she did not regard the Landmark Forum (the program — as opposed to the Landmark Education organization), in her opinion, as a cult. [ [http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html Deposition of Cynthia Kisser] , Superior Court of the State of Illinois, May 15, 1995. Section 888.]

Dr. Margaret Singer (1996)

In 1996 Landmark Education Corporation sued Dr. Margaret Singer, an adjunct UC Berkeley professor of psychology, for defamation. Singer had mentioned Landmark Education in her co-authored book "Cults in Our Midst" (1995, ISBN 0-7879-0051-6); the text did not make it entirely clear whether she labeled the organization as a cult or not. The second edition of the book, released before the conclusion of the court case, omitted mentioning Landmark Education by name. Subsequent to the court case, Singer signed a terse statement on 7 May 1997 which read: "I do not believe that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult or sect, or meets the criteria of a cult or sect." [Dr. Margaret Singer, statement, [http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/msing.pdf Landmark Education, website, files] ; retrieved 2008-05-29] Singer stated at deposition{ [fact that she had "no personal, firsthand knowledge of Landmark or its programs."

However, in her 2000 article [http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2000-10-19/news/feature_print.html "Drive-thru Deliverance"] , Amanda Scioscia reported that Singer stated: "I do not endorse them — never have", and that Singer was afraid to say what she truly thought about Landmark Education because "I'm not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book." She stated that she would not recommend the course to anyone. [
Amanda Scioscia: [http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-10-19/news/drive-thru-deliverance/full "Drive-thru Deliverance: It's not called est anymore, but you can still be ridiculed into self-awareness in just one expensive weekend"] in "Phoenix New Times", 19 October 2000, retrieved : 2007-11-21:

'Singer said she never called it a cult in her book, but simply mentioned it as a controversial New Age training course. In resolution of the suit, Singer gave a sworn statement that the organization is not a cult or sect. She said this doesn't mean she supports Landmark.
'"I do not endorse them -- never have," she said. Singer, who was in her 70s at the time, said she can't comment on whether Landmark uses coercive persuasion because "the SOBs have already sued me once."
'"I'm afraid to tell you what I really think about them because I'm not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book."
'Singer said, however, that she would not recommend the group to anyone.'

]

Neff vs. Landmark Education (1997)

Tracy Neff sued Landmark Education Corporation in 1997, alleging negligence. [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark8.html Neff vs. Landmark Education] , September 18, 1997, DISTRICT COURT Dallas County, Texas, 162nd Judicial District, CAUSE NO.97-00933-I] Neff alleged in her complaint in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas that the Dallas Landmark Education Center executive director, against whom "numerous complaints ... both from students and Landmark officials had been previously filed relating to sexual and/or behavioral misconduct", had sexually assaulted her. [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark8.html "Neff vs. Landmark Education"] ] (Landmark Education did not have a sexual harassment policy at the time of the alleged offense. It introduced comprehensive anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies following this suit, as well as detailed complaint-procedures.Fact|date=October 2007) On December 16, 1998, the parties reached a settlement agreement. [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark174.pdf Agreed Final Judgement and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice] , December 16, 1998] No party filed charges against the alleged perpetrator.

The Cult Awareness Network (1997) and Stephen Pressman

Landmark Education's agreement with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), signed on 3 November 1997, contained sections related to the non-distribution and destruction of printed Cult Awareness Network materials and of a published book, each treating of est and of Landmark Education:

6. Handling and destruction of CAN packets about Landmark or "est/FORUM."
(a) When and to the extent that CAN reacquires control and possession of its files and records, it will not deliver to any individual or other entity or resume sale or distribution to the public of any of its past or present packets on Landmark and/or "est/FORUM".
(b) CAN and/or the Trustee will use their best efforts (if, to the extent and when they are legally free to do so) either before or after dismissal of the bankruptcy, to cause all known copies of such packets on Landmark or "est/FORUM" to be destroyed. They will cooperate, to the best of their ability, to carry out such destruction promptly at minimal or no cost to the estate. [Page 4 of "Landmark Settlement Agreement" with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), revised 30 October 1997, signed 3 November 1997. [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark132.pdf Image of document available online as part of the "Landmark Education Litigation Archive"] -- Retrieved 2007-01-30.]

(h) CAN also understands that Landmark would prefer that CAN not sell at all copies of a biography of Werner Hans Erhard by Steven Pressman entitled "Outrageous Betrayal" (St Martin's Press 1993) (the "Pressman Book"). CAN has not previously considered whether, after its emergence from bankruptcy, CAN would consider it appropriate to sell copies of the Pressman Book at all, for any purpose. In the interests of settling a dispute and in deference to Landmark's preference, however, CAN now agrees not to sell the Pressman Book for at least five years after CAN emerges from bankruptcy. [Page 10 of "Landmark Settlement Agreement" with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), revised 30 October 1997, signed 3 November 1997. [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark132.pdf Image of document available online as part of the "Landmark Education Litigation Archive"] -- Retrieved 2007-01-30.]

"Metroactive" (1998)

When writing her article " [http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html The est of Friends] " on Landmark Education, Traci Hukill received a 10-page letter from Art Schreiber, who voiced "serious concern" that Hukill might "defame Landmark". The package sent to Hukill included, as she described:

"six pages explaining why Landmark is not a cult, a page of why Landmark cannot be said to brainwash its enrollees, a page and a half of why I must not defame Werner Erhard or est, and a tedious summary explaining that should I 'leave Landmark and its programs depicted in a false light ... Landmark is fully prepared to take the appropriate legal action.'" [cite journal
last = Hukill
first = Traci
date = July 9-15, 1998
title = The est of Friends
journal = Metroactive
url = http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html
accessdate = 2008-06-01
quote = ... six pages explaining why Landmark is not a cult, a page of why Landmark cannot be said to brainwash its enrollees, a page and a half of why I must not defame Werner Erhard or est, and a tedious summary explaining that should I 'leave Landmark and its programs depicted in a false light ... Landmark is fully prepared to take the appropriate legal action.' ] .

The letter also contained 23 letters of recommendation from satisfied "graduates" of Landmark Education's courses. In addition, the letter contained statements pursuant to settlement agreements from Margaret Singer and Cynthia Kisser, stating that the organization is not a cult. Hukill went on in the "Metroactive" article to voice concern for those who wish to "speak freely in this country without fear of being sued into silence." [ [http://www.metroactive.com/landmark/landmark1-9827.html The est of Friends] ", "Metroactive", Traci Hukill, July 1998.] .

"Elle" Magazine - Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. (1998)

In 1998, Landmark Education Corporation sued Hachette Filipacchi Media, U.S. publishers of "Elle Magazine", for an allegedly defamatory article published in "Elle" magazine (August 1998) written by Rosemary Mahoney and entitled: " Do you believe in miracles?" [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark2.html Do you believe in Miracles? : For a few hundred dollars, the Landmark Forum says (and says, and says) it can transform your life in three days. Sound too good to be true? Rosemary Mahoney gave it a shot] , Rosemary Mahoney, "Elle Magazine", August 1998] Landmark Education attempted to seek damages in the amount of USD$10,000,000. [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark13.html "Landmark Education Corp. Sues Elle Magazine for Libel"] , Landmark Education Press Release, August 31, 1998 "Business Wire", San Francisco, California] .

The court dismissed the claim, stating that Landmark Education had not "pled special damages", and had failed "to adequately plead actual malice". [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark137.pdf Opinion Granting Motion to Dismiss] , Supreme Court of the State of New York, April 1998, Landmark Education v. Hachette Filipacchi.

"The plaintiff has not pled special damages in the complaint. This failure mandates dismissal of the complaint to the extent the complaint can be read to plead product disparagement. A reading of the complaint leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is in fact for disparagement of plaintiff's product, to wit; the subject course. Additionally, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to adequately plead actual malice. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of such malice, but no facts are pled indicating that the defendants entertained any serious doubts as to the veracity of their article. Finally, the court finds that the statements are not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, and are constitutionally protected expressions of opinion."

]

Landmark Education did not appeal.

Landmark Education Corp. vs. Pressman (1998)

In 1998, Landmark Education Corporation over a period of months attempted to compel Steven Pressman to respond to deposition-questions aimed at obtaining the confidential sources he had used for research on his book "" (ISBN 0-312-09296-2). [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html "Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive"] , Peter L. Skolnik & Michael A. Norwick, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland NJ/February 2006] Landmark Education Corporation brought the suit as a means of compelling discovery for use in the then-active Cult Awareness Network litigation. The discovery commissioner who entered an interim order in the matter commented that the information sought from Mr. Pressman did not appear relevant to the CAN action, stating: "it does not appear that the information sought [from Mr. Pressman] is directly relevant or goes to the heart of the [CAN] action, or that alternative sources have been exhausted or are inadequate."

Landmark Education Corporation dropped the action against Pressman after the settlement of its litigation against the Cult Awareness Network. (See above)

Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education Corporation (2002, 2006)

In 2002 the Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant came before a court. Jason Weed experienced a psychotic episode shortly after taking the "Landmark Advanced Course", and shot and killed a letter-carrier, Robert Jenkins, on December 12, 2001 [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark172.doc Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Landmark Motion Interlocutory Appeal] ] . The US government had jurisdiction because the case involved the killing of a government employee. The court found Jason Weed not guilty by reason of insanity.

Both the family of the deceased Robert Jenkins and the attorneys for Jason Weed contended that the Landmark Education seminar had driven Weed insane: ["The Tulsa World", April 4, 2004, "Suit targets firm in postal killing", by Nicole Marshall
The lawsuit claims that Jason Weed was driven insane by his treatment during a motivational seminar. Attorneys for Jason Weed and the family of the Tulsa postman he killed agree on one thing — that a motivational seminar he attended days before the shooting drove him insane, according to a pending civil suit. ]

However, at the sanity hearing, a witness for the US Government, Dr. Harrison Pope, a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who also helped draft the DSM-III and DSM-IV stated that he could rule out "steroid use and participation in an exhaustive self-awareness program" as causes of Weed's psychotic break. [
Jeanne Been versus Jason Weed with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/035100.html 2002 file from Caselaw]
"Weed's previous steroid use and participation in an exhaustive self-awareness program [the Landmark Advanced Course] the week prior to the shooting could be ruled out as causes of the psychotic break, leaving only 'very rare possibilities' as the triggering factors."]

In June 2006, the plaintiff [http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2006-5200&db=Oklahoma&submitted=true refiled the case] , as allowed under Oklahoma law. The District Court of Tulsa County found "that although another defendant is named herein ... the Court directs the preparation and filing of a judgment in favor of Landmark [Education] " [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
]

Rick Ross Institute (2004-2005)

In June 2004, Landmark Education filed a USD1,000,000 lawsuit against the Rick A. Ross Institute, claiming that the Institute's online archives did damage to Landmark Education's product. In April 2005, Landmark Education filed to dismiss its own lawsuit with prejudice on the grounds that a material change in case-law regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005; see [http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a5942-02.opn.html Donato v. Moldow] , 374 N.J. Super. 475 ( [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/appdiv/index.htm N.J. App. Div.] 2005), which held an operator of an online bulletin board not liable for defamatory statements posted by others on his bulletin board, unless he made a "material substantive contribution" to the defamatory material. ["Tech Law Advisor", caselaw, 2005, [http://techlawadvisor.com/caselaw/2005/02/communications-decency-act-nj.html RE: Communications Decency Act, New Jersey] ] [ [http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13089 "Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic"] , December 21, 2005, " [http://www.prnewswire.com/ PRNewswire] ", United Business Media, San Francisco.]

In 2006, retired Justice Edward Fadeley, of the Oregon Supreme Court, commented on the case in a press-release, "The Unchecked World of the Internet", which "The Oregonian" reprinted. He commented on the "Donato v. Moldow" decision, which Landmark Education cited as the reason it dropped its case against Ross: "Court decisions like that make it even more difficult for companies to protect themselves against misinformation and false accusations" [ [http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01118/010197.html Findlaw opinion of Oregon Supreme Court Justice] , press-release, 2006] ["The Wild, Wild Web - We Need Laws Against Blog Defamation", "The Portland Oregonian", June 18, 2006, page C01, Commentary by retired Oregon Supreme Court Justice Edward Fadeley

'The courts aren't helping matters. For example, Landmark Education, an international training and development company that presents The Landmark Forum, dropped its lawsuit in New Jersey against Rick Ross [...] . Landmark Education terminated its lawsuit when, in an unrelated case, a New Jersey court significantly limited the kind of Internet behavior it would consider damages for. Court decisions like that make it even more difficult for companies to protect themselves against misinformation and false accusations.'

] .

In the [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html "Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive"] by attorneys [http://www.lowenstein.com/pskolnik/ Peter L. Skolnik] and [http://www.lowenstein.com/mnorwick/ Michael A. Norwick] , (Rick Ross's counsel), Skolnick and Norwick commented on how this litigation could have affected free speech, stating: "If Landmark had succeeded and word had spread that anyone posting a negative message about Landmark on this website might subsequently be served with a subpoena, the vigorous free speech engaged in here would have been effectively halted — and Landmark’s litigation goals would have been largely achieved". They also stated that this freedom-of-speech issue explained why the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, sought to participate in the case as "amicus curiae". [ [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive] , [http://www.lowenstein.com/pskolnik/ Peter L. Skolnik] , [http://www.lowenstein.com/mnorwick/ Michael A. Norwick] , [http://www.lowenstein.com/Home.aspx Lowenstein Sandler PC] , Roseland, New Jersey, February 2006.

"On January 7, 2005, Landmark wrote a letter to the Federal Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, the [http://www.njicle.com/cgi-bin/njicle.exe?SessionID=28&doc=/Seminars/Antitrust_11-16-06.html Hon. Mark Falk] , U.S.M.J., to seek permission to file a motion to uncover the identities of the users who wrote the allegedly disparaging comments about Landmark. In response to this serious threat to the free speech and privacy rights of the anonymous users of this website, the Internet civil liberties group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the support of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, sought to participate in the case as "amicus curiae", in order to argue against such intrusive discovery tactics. See [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark94.pdf Letter] . Following the exchange of letters, the Court made clear that it was not likely to grant Landmark's motion to unmask the identities of the anonymous users of this website, and Landmark subsequently backed down on pressing its motion. If Landmark had succeeded and word had spread that anyone posting a negative message about Landmark on this website might subsequently be served with a subpoena, the vigorous free speech engaged in here would have been effectively halted – and Landmark’s litigation goals would have been largely achieved."

]

In summarizing cases brought by Landmark Education in the introduction to their archive of such cases, Skolnik and Norwick write:

Landmark [Education] generally ended up settling [such] cases without any financial recovery, but instead by extracting some ... statement by the defendants that they do not believe or have no knowledge that Landmark [Education] is a "cult." Even those statements never reach ... whether Landmark [Education] 's programs are, in fact, dangerous and abusive. ... Landmark [Education] invariably declined to pursue its multi-million dollar suits to judgment ... to recover the ... "damages" it claimed to have suffered. [cite web
url= http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html
title= Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive
accessdate= 2008-04-26
last= Skolnik
first= Peter L.
coauthors= Norwick, Michael A.
year= 2006
month= February]

According to statements from Art Schreiber, General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education, Landmark Education had chosen to sue Ross "as a matter of principle on behalf of the over hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in and received value from Landmark Education programs." [ [http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13089 "Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic"] , December 21, 2005, [http://www.prnewswire.com/ "PRNewswire"] , United Business Media, San Francisco.

"We had chosen to sue Rick Ross as a matter of principle on behalf of the over hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in and received value from Landmark Education programs. Mr. Ross, a vocal critic of Landmark Education although he has no firsthand experience and has never taken any of Landmark’s courses, repeatedly maligned Landmark Education with statements and innuendo that we are cult-like."

] Schreiber went on to contest the notion that lawsuit dealt with the stifling of freedom-of-speech. He stated that "The lawsuit was not about stifling freedom of speech; we stand for people’s self-expression" and went on to characterize the purpose of the lawsuit as to hold Ross "accountable" for making statements available on his website, which Schreiber alleged to be false. Schreiber also portrayed Ross as motivated by "his own financial gain". [ [http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13089 "Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic"] , December 21, 2005, [http://www.prnewswire.com/ PRNewswire] , United Business Media, San Francisco.]

In December 2005, Landmark Education withdrew the lawsuit with prejudice, on the grounds that a material change in case law regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005. Rick Ross' attorneys had allegedly attempted to obtain legal discovery of Landmark Education "training materials" [Charles Toutant: [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1136838328818 "Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech: Self-styled 'deprogrammer' says litigation is the price he pays for using the Internet to expose cult practices"] at www.law.com, 10 January 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-27.] (which Landmark Education regards as trade secretsFact|date=February 2007) [Compare: "... all concepts, information and materials on this Site (including without limitation trademarks, logos, graphics and images) (the “Materials”) are the proprietary property of Landmark and are protected by copyright, trade secret, and other applicable laws." — [http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=31 "Landmark Education Web site terms and conditions of use"] , retrieved 2007-11-21.] prior to the case's withdrawal. The Rick Ross Institute [http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000830.html responded] to a press-release from Landmark on the issue, stating: "The real reason Landmark dropped its lawsuit apparently was to avoid facing further discovery." [
Rick Ross, [http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000830.html "Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court"] , December 22, 2005, in [http://www.cultnews.com "Cult News"] :

"Lowenstein Sandler's attorneys led by Peter Skolnik uncovered a great deal of information about Landmark through its successful defense and CultNews will make that information available to the public.
"The real reason Landmark dropped its lawsuit apparently was to avoid facing further discovery.
"Landmark was thwarted in its effort to keep information revealed through discovery 'confidential.' This meant that whatever information and material was disclosed or found through the lawsuit would be open to public scrutiny."

]

Subpoena concerning electronic copies of the "France 3" television documentary material (2006)

For further details of Landmark Education's attempts to prevent the electronic distribution of what it regards as portions of its copyrighted material over the Internet, see for example the article on the television documentary "Journey to the country of the new gurus".

Landmark Education stated, per its General Counsel Art Schreiber — quoted in an article which the publisher of "Red Herring" graced with the heading "Landmark Fires Back at EFF: Organization says its subpoena of Google and YouTube is self-protection, not free speech muzzle" — that "freedom of speech ... is essential". [ [http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19552&hed=Landmark+Fires+Back+at+EFF&sector=Industries&subsector=EntertainmentAndMedia "Landmark Fires Back at EFF: Organization says its subpoena of Google and YouTube is self-protection, not free speech muzzle"] at redherring.com, November 3 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-20] However, a statement from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit legal organization dedicated to preserving free-speech rights, urged Schreiber and Landmark to "get out of the censorship racket." [Kurt Opsahl: [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005013.php "Landmark Forum's Internet Censorship Campaign Goes Down Under"] , Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 17, 2006; retrieved 2007-11-21]

21st Century Democrats (2007)

In November 2007, Kenneth Goldman, erstwhile communications director of 21st Century Democrats, sued his former employers in a United States federal court.cite news | last =McElhatton | first =Jim | coauthors =
title =Democratic PAC faces lawsuit for employee 'religious events'
work =The Washington Times
pages =Nation/Politics | publisher =The Washington Times, LLC.
date =November 27, 2007 | url =http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/NATION/111270023/1002
accessdate = 2007-11-27] The lawsuit documentation stated that the organization fired three workers in 2006 for refusing to attend "religious events" (referring to the Landmark Forum). The filing in a Washington, D.C. court stated that Landmark Education had "religious characteristics and theological implications." The lawsuit also stated that Landmark Education's influence carried significant weight in 21st Century Democrats' "mission, business structure ... and communications."

Mark Lotwis, the executive director for 21st Century Democrats stated that he believed the lawsuit had no merits, and called it "frivolous". Deborah Beroset, speaking for Landmark Education, stated that the San Francisco, California based company "is in no way religious in nature and any claim to the contrary is simply absurd". Goldman stated that two other employees of 21st Century Democrats regularly discussed their unease with him over Landmark Education's influence over the political group, and that former executive director Kelly Young treated the Landmark Forum seminars like a "religion". The case cites neither Landmark Education nor the two other ex-employees as parties to the lawsuit between Goldman and 21st Century Democrats.

Growing Generations (2008)

Parties involved in an employment suit against "Growing Generations" (a surrogacy and sperm-bank company) have spoken of Landmark Education programs and practices in relation to a dispute brought in Manhattan federal court. [Citation
last = Rayman
first = Graham
author-link =
title = Suit Against Sperm-Bank Firm Claims Sexual Harassment and Cult-Like Behavior
newspaper = The Village Voice
date = May 20, 2008
url = http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0821,sperm-bank-lawsuit,446671,2.html] Graham Rayman reports in "The Village Voice":

"Scott Glasgow, 40, the company's former marketing director, claims he was fired in June 2007 after he refused to attend Landmark 'personal-growth' seminars..." ... Glasgow is suing under sexual-harassment and religious-discrimination statutes ... 'I was shocked when I was fired,' says Glasgow, ... 'I want them to stop imposing Landmark on the employees... It went opposite of my Christian beliefs.'. 'The Landmark philosophy is deeply ingrained in the culture of the company,' says Brent Pelton, one of Glasgow's lawyers."

A press release emanating from Landmark Education titled: "International Training and Development Company, Landmark Education, Mischaracterized as Religion" [cite news
author = Landmark Education
title = International Training and Development Company, Landmark Education, Mischaracterized as Religion
url = http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/international-training-and-development-company-landmark-education-mischaracterized-as-religion,407572.shtml
work = The Earth Times
publisher = PR Newswire
date = 2008-05-24
accessdate = 2008-07-24
quote = (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/) is not a party to a lawsuit that wasrecently filed with the U.S. District Court ] acknowledges that the case exists and that it references Landmark Education.

Legal archive and summary

For an alternative account and convenient legal summary of some of Landmark Education's history of invol;vement in litigation, including some events outside the US, see the summary written by Peter L. Skolnik and Michael A. Norwick of Lowenstein Sandler P.C. ( [http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html Skolnik and Norwick, 2006] ). (Skolnik and Norwick defended Rick Ross "pro bono" in litigation brought by Landmark Education, as described elsewhere in the current article.) Note that Skolnik and Norwick not only summarize their opinions as attorneys, but also provides extensive links to archived images of original documents detailing the involvement of Landmark Education in legal processes.

See also

* Landmark Education and the law
* Landmark Education

References

External links

* cite web
url= http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark193.html
title= Landmark Education litigation archive
accessdate= 2008-04-26
last= Skolnik
first= Peter L.
coauthors= Norwick, Michael A.
year= 2006
month= February: facsimiles of legal documents; legal commentary
* [http://www.landmarkeducation.com Landmark Education's website]
* [http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/ "Landmark and the Internet Archive"] , Electronic Frontier Foundation commentary and links. Retrieved 2008-05-27
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111001790.html Google faces legal challenges over video service] , "The Washington Post", November 10, 2006
* [http://presszoom.com/story_120492.html Landmark Forum Violates Constitution and Federal Law by Trying to Chill Speech] , PressZoom, November 1, 2006
* [http://www.redherring.com/Home/19552 Landmark Education Fires Back At EFF] , Redherring.com
* [http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html Deposition of Cynthia Kisser] , State of Illinois, Cook County, Cynthia Kisser, from "Landmark Education Corporation vs. Cult Awareness Network"
* [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1136838328818 Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech] , Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal, January 10, 2006, includes Landmark Education's response at bottom, from General Counsel Art Schreiber
* [http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=200305810074 Landmark Education registration] as a Limited Liability Company