Misplaced Pages

Landmark Education litigation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:35, 12 October 2014 editZambelo (talk | contribs)2,921 edits Undo - please discuss your vast and POV changes before you implement them.← Previous edit Revision as of 10:30, 12 October 2014 edit undoRandykitty (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators122,735 edits Undid revision 629274227 by Zambelo (talk) Violation of topic banNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{primary sources|date=October 2014}}
{{cleanup|reason=Reads like a newspaper article, not an entry in an encyclopedia|date=September 2014}} {{cleanup|reason=Reads like a newspaper article, not an entry in an encyclopedia|date=September 2014}}
Since its formation in 1991, ] LLC (LE) has been involved in about a dozen lawsuits in the ] and a few more in ]. Since its formation in 1991, ] LLC (LE) has been involved in about a dozen lawsuits in the ] and a few more in ].
Line 9: Line 10:


==Landmark actions for alleged defamation== ==Landmark actions for alleged defamation==

=== Cases in the United States of America ===

==== Condé Nast Publications / ''Self'' magazine (1993) ====

In 1993, Landmark Education Corporation sued ] (]) for defamation. The defamation claimed by Landmark involved the article published in February 1993. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. In a settlement-agreement, LE 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".

==== The Cult Awareness Network / Cynthia Kisser (1994) ====

In 1994 Landmark sued the original ] and Cynthia Kisser (its then ]) for (among other allegations) issuing leaflets about "]". The entry "The Forum/est/the Hunger Project" appeared in a "partial list of groups about which CAN has received complaints."

During a deposition Kisser admitted that CAN held no opinion with respect to classifying LE as a ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html |title=Deposition of Cynthia Kisser |author=Superior Court of the State of Illinois |date=15 May 1995 |accessdate=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101116034700/http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html |archive-date=16 November 2010}}</ref>

The agreement reached in November 1997 to conclude this case involved an undertaking by CAN not to distribute its leaflets mentioning Landmark, est or The Forum, or to sell Steven Pressman’s book entitled ''Outrageous Betrayal''.

==== Dr. Margaret Singer (1996) ====

In 1996 Landmark Education Corporation sued Dr. ], an adjunct ] professor of psychology, for defamation. Singer had mentioned LE in her co-authored book '']'' (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 made a 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."<ref>Landmark Education vs Singer, (1997) http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0549359052</ref>

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

In 1998, Landmark sued ], U.S. publishers of '']'', for an allegedly defamatory article published in ''Elle'' magazine (August 1998) written by ] and entitled: " Do you believe in miracles?"

The court dismissed the claim, stating that LE had not "pled special damages", and had failed "to adequately plead actual malice".

==== Landmark Education Corp. vs. Pressman (1998) ====

In 1998, Landmark attempted to compel ] to respond to deposition-questions aimed at obtaining the confidential sources he had used for research on his book '']'' (ISBN 0-312-09296-2).

LE brought the suit as a means of compelling discovery for use in the then-active ] litigation. The discovery commissioner who entered an interim order in the matter commented: "it does not appear that the information sought is directly relevant or goes to the heart of the action, or that alternative sources have been exhausted or are inadequate."

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

==== Rick Ross Institute (2004-2005) ====

In June 2004, Landmark Education filed a ]1,000,000 lawsuit against the ], claiming that the Institute's online archives did damage to LE’s ]. In April 2005, LE filed to dismiss its own lawsuit ] on the grounds that a material change in ] regarding statements made on the ] occurred in January 2005; see {{Dead link|date=August 2014}} 374 N.J. Super. 475 ( 2005), which held an operator of an ] not liable for defamatory statements posted by others on his bulletin board, unless he made a "material substantive contribution" to the defamatory material.
<ref>
''Tech Law Advisor'', caselaw, 2005,
</ref>
<ref>
, December 21, 2005, '''', ], ].
</ref>

In 2006, retired Justice ], of the ], commented on the ''Donato v. Moldow'' decision:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01118/010197.html |title=The Unchecked World of the Internet |author=Edward Fadeley |date=8 August 2006 |accessdate=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090403043257/http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01118/010197.html |archive-date=3 April 2009}}</ref><ref>
"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
</ref>
<blockquote>
'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.'
</blockquote>

==== Subpoena concerning electronic copies of the ''France 3'' television documentary material (2006) ====
In 2003, journalists surreptitiously filmed participants in a Landmark Forum in France, and selected excerpts were incorporated into a television documentary '']'' broadcast by France3 in 2004.

LE took the view that the program as a whole was biased, inaccurate and misleading, and that “France 3 has violated the personal rights of individuals unwittingly filmed using hidden cameras.” One of the women shown in the program stated publicly that she felt that it was an intrusion of her privacy and that the extract was taken out of context and that she had benefited from her participation in the Landmark Forum.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20050125202638/http://216.93.162.58/menu.jsp?top=20447&siteObjectID=21551 |title=accueil |publisher=Web.archive.org |date=2005-01-25 |accessdate=2013-04-23}}</ref>

Subsequently, an anonymous individual posted this footage on the Internet. Landmark appealed to copyright law and served a subpoena on ] to have it removed and to reveal the identity of the poster.<ref>https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/landmark/archive_landmark_request.pdf</ref>

The ] declined, considering that Landmark was misusing copyright law<ref>https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/landmark/eff_letter.pdf</ref> to take down criticisms, referring to what it called Landmark's “Internet censorship campaign”.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/11/landmark-forums-internet-censorship-campaign-goes-down-under |title= Landmark Forum's Internet Censorship Campaign Goes Down Under |author= Kurt Opsahl |date=November 17, 2006 |publisher=] |accessdate=February 23, 2012}}</ref> Landmark withdrew its application.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2006/11/30 |title=Self-Help Group Backs Off Attack on Internet Critic &#124; Electronic Frontier Foundation |publisher=Eff.org |date=2006-11-30 |accessdate=2013-04-23}}</ref>


=== Cases in Europe === === Cases in Europe ===
==== Jean-Pierre Brard==== ==== Jean-Pierre Brard====
The deputy mayor of Montreuil, who served as the vice-president of the ] (Commission parlementaire sur les sectes en France), was sued in 2004 by Landmark after appearing on the documentary ].<ref name="palmer">{{cite book|last=Palmer|first=Susan|authorlink=Susan J. Palmer|title=The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored ''War on Sects''|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pY5pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27|date=2011-09-23|publisher=Oxford UP|isbn=9780199875993|pages=27, 186}}</ref> The deputy mayor of Montreuil, who served as the vice-president of the ] (Commission parlementaire sur les sectes en France), was sued in 2004 by Landmark after appearing on the documentary ].<ref name="palmer">{{cite book|last=Palmer|first=Susan|authorlink=Susan J. Palmer|title=The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored ''War on Sects''|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pY5pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27|date=2011-09-23|publisher=Oxford UP|isbn=9780199875993|pages=27, 186}}</ref>
==== 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'' , Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ISBN 3-423-36021-6. This book detailed Lell's attendance at the course, and claimed that he had suffered a mental collapse directly afterwards. However, the record at the Hearing indicated that 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.<ref name="stelling">, June 22, 1999
</ref>)

LE sued to have the word ''Gehirnwäsche'' ("]") removed from the sub-title of Lell's book, but the German court determined that "brainwashing" constituted a matter of ]
<ref name="stelling" />
rather than an assertion of fact, and allowed the sub-title to remain.

==== infoSekta (Switzerland) ====

The Swiss subsidiary, Landmark Education AG, sued (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 1997-12-18 with infoSekta agreeing not to call Landmark Education a cult.
<ref>
{{cite web
|url= http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html
|title= Landmark vs. infoSekta: Geschichte eines Prozesses
|accessdate= 2007-09-24
|last= Sträuli
|first= Dieter
|year= 1997
|work= infoSekta-Tätigkeitsbericht 1997
|publisher=
|pages= 16–20
|language= German
|archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070928024849/http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-09-28}}

</ref>
</blockquote>

==== ''FACTS'' Magazine (Switzerland) ====

According to a 1999 letter,
<ref>
from ], June 22, 1999, to SIMPOS, p/a Koppenhinksteeg 2, 2312 HX, Leiden. The Netherlands
</ref>
written by ], the Swiss magazine ''FACTS''
<ref>{{dead link|date=April 2013}}</ref>
referred to Landmark Education as a "]". The magazine later retracted this statement after Landmark Education took legal action.
<ref>
{{de icon}} NB this reference does not relate directly to the FACTS case.
</ref>

==== ''Panorama'' Magazine (The Netherlands) ====

In 1999, a district judge in ], ] ruled that ''Panorama'' magazine acted wrongfully when it labeled Landmark Education as a "cult" in an article<ref>
{{cite web
|url= http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/pano1.htm
|title= Sekten in Nederland
|work= Panorama
|accessdate= 2008-06-11
|date= 13-20 januari 1999
|publisher= ]
|language= Dutch
|quote=
}}
</ref>
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.

==Cases alleging adverse effects of Landmark programs== ==Cases alleging adverse effects of Landmark programs==

=== Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992) ===

In September 1989 ] attended a session of "]", conducted by ] (doing business as ] (WE&A)). In 1992 Ney sued Landmark Education Corporation (LEC, seen as the successor-organization of WE&A) for $2,000,000, claiming that three days after attending the Forum she "suffered a breakdown and was committed to a psychiatric institute in Montgomery County".
<ref>
Stephanie Ney case, September 1989, {{Dead link|date=August 2014}}
</ref>
The trial court dismissed Ney's suit on summary judgment, and the appeals court upheld the decision.


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


In 2002 the Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed came before a court, with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant. Jason Weed had experienced a psychotic episode shortly after taking the "Landmark Advanced Course", and shot and killed a letter-carrier, Robert Jenkins, on December 12, 2001. The court found Jason Weed not guilty by reason of insanity. In 2002 the Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed came before a court, with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant. Jason Weed had experienced a psychotic episode shortly after taking the "Landmark Advanced Course", and shot and killed a letter-carrier, Robert Jenkins, on December 12, 2001. 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,<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Tulsa World|date=April 4, 2004|title=Suit targets firm in postal killing|first=Nicole|last=Marshall|quote=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.}}</ref>

Both the family of the deceased Robert Jenkins and the attorneys for Jason Weed contended that the Landmark Education seminar had driven Weed insane,<ref>''The Tulsa World'', April 4, 2004, "Suit targets firm in postal killing", by Nicole Marshall
<br>
“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.”</ref> however at the sanity hearing a witness for the US Government, Dr. ] - a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who also helped draft the DSM-III and ] - testified that he could rule out "steroid use and participation in an exhaustive ] program" as causes of Weed's psychotic break.<ref>
] versus ] with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant,
<br>
"Weed's previous steroid use and participation in an exhaustive self-awareness program 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."
</ref>

In June 2006, the plaintiff , as allowed under ] law, and the case against LE was dismissed again. 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 "<ref>{{cite web|url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Landmark_FJ.pdf |title=File:Landmark FJ.pdf - Wikimedia Commons |publisher=Commons.wikimedia.org |accessdate=2013-04-23}}</ref>


== References == == References ==
Line 158: Line 25:


== External links == == External links ==

{{wikisource}}
{{commons}}
{{wikisource|Landmark Education Labor Violations Investigations}}
{{commons|Landmark Education Labor Violations Investigations}}

* {{cite web
|url= http://www.culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html
|title= Landmark Education litigation archive
|accessdate= 2014-08-01
|last= Skolnik
|first= Peter L.
|author2=Norwick, Michael A.
|date=February 2006
}}: facsimiles of legal documents; legal commentary
* , ] commentary and links. Retrieved 2008-05-27
* , ] and '']'', November 10, 2006
* , PressZoom, November 1, 2006
* , ]{{Dead link|date=August 2014}}
* , ], ], January 10, 2006, includes Landmark Education's response at bottom, from General Counsel ] * , ], ], January 10, 2006, includes Landmark Education's response at bottom, from General Counsel ]
* as a Limited Liability Company{{Dead link|date=August 2014}}


{{landmarkForum}} {{landmarkForum}}

Revision as of 10:30, 12 October 2014

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Landmark Education litigation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. The specific problem is: Reads like a newspaper article, not an entry in an encyclopedia. Please help improve this article if you can. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Since its formation in 1991, Landmark Education LLC (LE) has been involved in about a dozen lawsuits in the United States and a few more in Europe.

In about a dozen instances LE has initiated actions to defend itself against what it perceives as malicious or negligent defamatory comments. Critics of Landmark have portrayed these actions as an assault on Free Speech or an attempt to suppress legitimate comment, whereas LE has insisted that it only seeks to have inaccurate statements corrected and to protect its products from unfair disparagement.

There have been two cases where actions have been brought against LE alleging harmful results from Landmark’s training programs; and one alleging assault by a member of the company’s staff, but none of these resulted in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Landmark Education was also mentioned in two cases where actions had been brought against employers who, it was claimed, had forced their staff to participate in Landmark training programs. In neither case was the accusation upheld by the court.

Landmark actions for alleged defamation

Cases in Europe

Jean-Pierre Brard

The deputy mayor of Montreuil, who served as the vice-president of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (Commission parlementaire sur les sectes en France), was sued in 2004 by Landmark after appearing on the documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous.

Cases alleging adverse effects of Landmark programs

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

In 2002 the Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed came before a court, with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant. Jason Weed had experienced a psychotic episode shortly after taking the "Landmark Advanced Course", and shot and killed a letter-carrier, Robert Jenkins, on December 12, 2001. 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,

References

  1. "File:2004 Landmark v Ross complaint.pdf - Wikimedia Commons". Commons.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
  2. "File:2004 Landmark v Ross answer.pdf - Wikimedia Commons". Commons.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
  3. Palmer, Susan (2011-09-23). The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored War on Sects. Oxford UP. pp. 27, 186. ISBN 9780199875993.
  4. Marshall, Nicole (April 4, 2004). "Suit targets firm in postal killing". The Tulsa World. 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.

External links

Template:LandmarkForum

Categories: