Landmark Education litigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Landmark Education has become involved in legal actions over the years, only some of which have resulted in lawsuits. Landmark Education has also sent cease-and-desist letters to parties that it considers have engaged in copyright infringement, slander, or libel.

Other parties have also made use of legal action against Landmark Education.

Contents 1 Freedom of speech issues 1.1 Printed matter 1.1.1 Outrageous Betrayal 1.1.2 Cult Awareness Network material 1.1.3 Metroactive 1.2 Online 1.3 Statements of CEO 2 Labor laws 2.1 United States of America 2.1.1 Colorado investigation (1994-1996) 2.1.2 Texas investigation (2003-2006) 2.2 France 3 Legal classification of Landmark Education 3.1 Austria 3.2 Belgium 3.3 France 3.4 Germany 4 Lawsuits 4.1 In Europe 4.1.1 Martin Lell (Germany) 4.1.2 Panorama Magazine (The Netherlands) 4.1.3 FACTS Magazine (Switzerland) 4.2 In the United States of America 4.2.1 Landmark Education as a defendant 4.2.1.1 Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992) 4.2.1.2 Neff vs. Landmark Education (1997) 4.2.1.3 Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education Corporation (2002, 2006) 4.2.2 Landmark Education as complainant 4.2.2.1 Condé Nast Publications (1993) 4.2.2.2 The Cult Awareness Network / Cynthia Kisser (1994) 4.2.2.3 Dr. Margaret Singer (1996) 4.2.2.4 Elle Magazine - Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. (1998) 4.2.2.5 Landmark Education Corp. vs. Pressman (1998) 4.2.2.6 Rick Ross Institute (2004) 5 DMCA Subpoenas and video postings on the Internet (2006) 6 See also 6.1 Media 6.2 Individuals 6.3 Related organizations 7 References and footnotes 8 External links

[edit] Freedom of speech issues

[edit] Printed matter

[edit] Outrageous Betrayal

In a certified resolution of the Board of Directors of the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN), which resolution the Directors adopted at a meeting on October 26 1997, and which forms part of the agreement signed on 3 November 1997 between Landmark Education, the Board of Directors of the Cult Awareness Network, and the bankruptcy trustee of the Cult Awareness Network, the Directors agreed to limit distribution of published material critical of Landmark Education and of its origins:

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 interestst 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. ^[1]

[edit] Cult Awareness Network material

Landmark Education's agreement with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) contained a legal clause on the destruction of Cult Awareness Network materials concerning 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 frfee 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. ^[2]

[edit] Metroactive

When writing her article "The est of Friends" on Landmark Education, Tracy Hukill received a 10-page letter from Art Schreiber, who voiced "serious concern" that Hukill might "defame Landmark." Included in the package to Hukill were "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's courses. In addition, the letter contained statements persuant to settlement agreements from Margaret Singer and Cynthia Kisser, stating that the organization is not a cult. Hukill went on in the Metroactive article, voicing concern for those who wish to "speak freely in this country without fear of being sued into silence." ^[3].

[edit] Online

For details of Landmark Education's attempts to prevent the distribution of what it regards as 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 has stated, per its General Counsel Art Schreiber — quoted in an article which the publisher (Red Herring has 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". ^[4] However, statements 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."^[5]

[edit] Statements of CEO

Harry Rosenberg, CEO of Landmark Education and brother of Werner Erhard, spoke at a public meeting of Landmark Education to 1,300 volunteers, staff and graduates in New York in 1997. At the meeting, he commented on the "public conversation" regarding Landmark Education. Rosenberg stated: In the United States, we have altered the public conversation about our work and our enterprise. For example, it is no longer possible for informed people or publications in the United States to pin pejorative labels on us^[6]."

[edit] Labor laws

[edit] United States of America

Summaries of two investigations by the United States Department of Labor into Landmark Education's labor practices appear below.

The first investigation, which took place in Colorado in 1994, noted violations in respect of a lack of records kept on hours worked by employees. The "Compliance Action report" section of the case checked "No" for "Further Action on This Case". An analysis in the "Narrative report" examines arguments as to whether to classify the employees as "volunteers". The final "disposition" of the case and recommendations of the wage and hour investigator remain unknown, the authorities having redacted these details^{[citation needed]} from the public version of the narrative report.^[7]

The second investigation, which originated in Texas in 2003, found violations of minimum-wage regulations (due to volunteer assistants not receiving any wages for hours worked), overtime violations (due to the same issue), and again a record-keeping violation. The "disposition" of the Texas case resulted in a transfer of the case to the District Director of the corporate office. Again, the authorities redacted the final recommendation of the wage-and-hour investigator from the public version of the report.

See below for more details.

[edit] Colorado investigation (1994-1996)

A United States Department of Labor investigation into Landmark Education's labor practices took place in Colorado, between January 1994 to 1996. The initial complaint arose out of an intent to classify volunteers as employees, subject to the Fair Labor Standards act.^[7].

In the official Compliance Action Report the wage and hourly investigator noted:

The strongest supporting argument for the volunteer position appears, as borne out by the interviews almost exclusively, that none of the assistants have been promised or expect compensation but work solely for their personal purpose works in activities carried on by Subject [Landmark Education] for both their pleasure or profit.^[7]

The investigator continued to state that:

On the other hand, the strongest supporting argument for finding that the assistants are employees was ironically cited by outside counsel in Marshall v. Baptist Hospital which found that, if the assistants can be considered trainees, they displace regular employees that they would otherwise have to hire. Subject weakly counters that this, in fact, is not the case since the assistants are under direction by staff. Perhaps more importantly, the assistant activities is a common industry practice. In so stating, it should be noted that Subject is a for profit, and not a non-profit, enterprise.^[7]

The investigator's conclusion noted that "No records are kept of any hours worked by any employees."

A 1998 article in Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper entitled: "The est of Friends" reported on labor investigations into Landmark Education's volunteers. At that time, the Department of Labor designated Landmark Education's volunteers as employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.^{[citation needed]} According to the Metroactive article the Department of Labor later "dropped the issue" after Landmark Education cited its "volunteers' choice in the matter".^[8].

[edit] Texas investigation (2003-2006)

The United States Federal Department of Labor investigated Landmark Education's labor practices in Texas, from February 1, 2003 to June 26, 2006. In the investigation, the Department of Labor found a "minimum wage violation" with regard to "Volunteer (assistants)" and noted that "Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm".^[9] The Department commented:

The assistants displace regular employees that would have to be hired. The employer could not operate with the 2-3 full-time employees per site... Interviews reveal that the employees [sic] are taking payments, registering clients, billing, training, recruiting, setting up locations, cleaning, and other duties that would have to be performed by staff if the assistants did not perform them.^[9]

(Landmark Education regards such assistants as volunteers, not as employees: "The firm denies that the assistants/volunteers are employees."^[9] )

In both the Colorado and the Texas cases, as the sources cited above reveal, the Department of Labor ruled "No violations" with regard to certain sections of the law but not with regard to others. As the sources cited above also reveal, in the Colorado case the Department cited Landmark Education for not keeping records for any hours worked by employees. In the Texas investigation, the Department cited violations:

• "Minimum wage violation found. Volunteers (Assistants) are not paid any wages for hours worked while performing the major duties of the firm."^[9]
• "An overtime violation resulting from the firm not paying the additional half time to non-exempt salaried employees."^[9]
• "A record keeping violation resulted from the firm not keeping a record of hours worked for non-exempt salaried employees, and for assistants that are actually employees."^[9]

[edit] France

In 1994, the French Department of Labor investigated Landmark Education's labor practices.^[10]

The matter received mention in a May 24, 2004 broadcast of the investigative report ("Voyage to the land of the new gurus") on France 3 television network's show Pièces à conviction; which highlighted (amongst other issues) the matter of volunteer labor.

In June 2004, the French labor agency (L’Inspection du Travail) investigated labor practices regarding "volunteer workers". Shortly thereafter, Landmark Education officially ended its operations in France.^[11] It remains unclear what role the investigation played in the official ending of Landmark Education operations in France.^[12]

[edit] Legal classification of Landmark Education

Some governments in Europe have included Landmark Education in lists of or reports on cults and similar groups. Austrian, French and German authorities have at different times called the nature, methods or operations of Landmark Education into question.

[edit] Austria

In the case of Austria, note the brochure published by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Social Security and the Generations (Bundesministerium für soziale Sicherheit und Generationen): "Sekten - Wissen schützt" [Cults: knowledge can protect]. This documents briefly discusses Landmark Education under the rubric of Psychogruppen (Psycho-groups). ^[13]

[edit] Belgium

A Parliamentary Inquiry of the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives listed and discussed Landmark Education in an official report of 28 April 1997. ^[14]

[edit] France

After the French National Assembly set up a Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France in July 1995, the Commission published its report in December 1995 and included Landmark Education's then subsidiary in France in its listings of cults. Despite severe criticism of the Commission, the French Prime Minister in 2005, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, still cited the Report, suggesting only that because of the changing methodology of cultic groups, the listing of cults in the report of the 1995 Parliamentary Commission 1995 had become less pertinent:

Cette vigilance doit s'exercer en tenant compte de l'évolution du phénomène sectaire, qui rend la liste de mouvements annexée au rapport parlementaire de 1995 de moins en moins pertinente. On constate en effet la formation de petites structures, diffuses, mouvantes et moins aisément identifiables, qui tirent en particulier parti des possibilités de diffusion offertes par l'internet. [Translation: We must exercise this vigilance in taking account of the evolution of the cult-phenomenon, which makes the list of movements attached to the Parliamentary Report of 1995 less and less pertinent. Indeed, one can observe the formation of small groups, scattered, mobile and less-easily identifiable, and which make use in particular of the possibilities of spreading offered by the Internet.] ^[15]

Furthermore, M. Raffarin suggested that in certain cases his civil servants should avoid depending on generic lists of groups:

[U]n certain nombre d'instructions ministérielles données par vos prédécesseurs doivent être actualisées en fonction des orientations définies par la présente circulaire. Je vous demande de procéder à cet examen en lien avec la MIVILUDES. En tout état de cause, les références aux organismes comme l'Observatoire des sectes ou la Mission interministérielle de lutte contre les sectes (MILS) devront être remplacées par des références au décret instituant la MIVILUDES, et le recours à des listes de groupements sera évité au profit de l'utilisation de faisceaux de critères. Je vous demande de procéder à cette mise à jour au plus tard pour le 31 décembre 2005. [Translation: A certain number of ministerial instructions issued by your predecessors should be brought up-to-date in the light of the approaches defined in the current circulaire. I ask you to carry out this scrutiny in consultation with MIVILUDES. In each case of justification, references to bodies such as the Cult Monitor or to the Interministerial Commission for Struggle against Cults (MILS) should be replaced with references to the decree setting up MIVILUDES, and falling back on lists of groups should be avoided in favor of using bands of criteria. I ask that you perform this update by 31 December 2005 at the latest.] ^[16]

However, the French government has advised not to use the Commission's classifications as a basis for deciding an organization is a cult^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Germany

In 1994, a report of the Senate Committee of the State of Berlin in Germany placed Landmark Education on a list entitled "entities espousing a world view and new religions".

Landmark Education sued for correction and, on May 14, 1997, the Berlin court (Volksgericht 27A) endorsed a new classification scheme within the Senate report on cults and new religious movements: "provider of life guidance" (Anbieter von Lebenshilfe. The December 1997 issue of the Berlin Senate Report on "Cults - Risks and Side-effects: Information on selected new religious movements, secular movements and psycho-offerings" accordingly puts Landmark Education in this context ("provider of life guidance") — along with Scientology.

A translation of part of the Table of Contents ^[17] shows the classification as:

7 Selected Providers

...

7.4 Providers of Life-Help

Commercial:

7.4.1 The Circle of Friends of Bruno Gröning

7.4.2 Context Seminar Limited

7.4.3 Landmark Education (LE)

7.4.4 Art Reade

7.4.5 Scientology

7.4.6 The Natale Institute (TNI)

Non-commercial:

7.4.7 Union for the Promotion of the Psychological Knowledge of Mankind

[edit] Lawsuits

Since its formation in 1991, Landmark Education has become involved in litigation in several jurisdictions, notably within the United States and in Europe.

[edit] In Europe

[edit] Martin Lell (Germany)

After suffering a breakdown immediately after taking 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 has gone out-of-print, and the publisher's web-site no longer notes Lell as one of its current authors.)^{[citation needed]}

Landmark Education sued to have the word "brainwashing" removed from the sub-title of Lell's book. (See book cover: The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education) According to a letter written by Art Schreiber, Lell did not obtain medical care after completion of the Landmark Forum. ^[18]

The German court decided that "brainwashing" constituted a matter of opinion ^[19] rather than an assertion of fact; and it allowed the sub-title to remain.

[edit] Panorama Magazine (The Netherlands)

In 1999, a district judge in Haarlem, the Netherlands ruled that Panorama magazine acted wrongfully when it labelled Landmark Education as a "cult" in an article on the topic, because Landmark did not meet any of the criteria of Panorama's own characterization of cults. ^[20]

[edit] FACTS Magazine (Switzerland)

According to a 1999 letter ^[21] written by Art Schreiber, the Swiss magazine FACTS ^[22] referred to Landmark Education as a "cult". The magazine later retracted this statement after Landmark Education took legal action. ^[23]

[edit] In the United States of America

[edit] Landmark Education as a defendant

[edit] Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992)

In September 1989 Stephanie Ney attended "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". ^[24] The trial court dismissed her 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. ^[25]

[edit] Neff vs. Landmark Education (1997)

Tracy Neff sued Landmark Education in 1997, alleging negligence. ^[26] 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: see 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. On December 16, 1998, the parties reached a settlement agreement^[27]. No charges were filed against the alleged perpetrator.

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

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

In 2002, Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant. 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^[28]. 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 Weed was driven insane by the Landmark Education seminar: ^[29]

At the sanity hearing, the 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 "steroid use and participation in an exhaustive self-awareness program" could be ruled out as causes of Weed's psychotic break.^[30]

However, according to the third amended petition court document in the Been v. Weed and Landmark Education case: "Weed was free of abnormal psychological manifestations(s) and/or disorder(s) prior to his attending the Defendant Landmark’s classes."^[31]

The document "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Landmark Motion Interlocutory Appeal" lays out the chronological chain of events of the civil case: from the initial April 21, 2003 petition by Plaintiff Jeanne Been, to a February 17, 2004 probate filing of Jeanne Been as Robert Jenkins' personal representative.

In June 2006, the plaintiff refiled the case, as allowed under Oklahoma law.

In August 2006, Jeanne Been, mother of the deceased Robert Jenkins, commented on a recent Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruling regarding an insanity defense in another murder case, stating that "If they've committed a crime, we need to have the problem taken care of," Been said. "But they need to take responsibility." ^[32]

On January 4, 2007, the court heard a motion to transfer by "Landmark Education Corporation". ^[33] The case was transferred from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, Oklahoma, and refiled in Tulsa with a new judge, on February 6, 2007. ^[34] According to public court filings from December 2006, the plaintiff seeks damages: "in excess of $40,000,000.00 together with attorney fees, interest and cost of this action." ^[35]

The newly re-filed court case, and subsequent transfer to Oklahoma City received coverage in the Tulsa World, ^[36] on KSWO News, ^[37] in the Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise, ^[38] as well as on KFDA News in Amarillo, Texas ^[39] and on KTEN News in Ada, Oklahoma ^[40].

[edit] Landmark Education as complainant

Since its founding in 1991 Landmark Education has filed various lawsuits in the United states of America, alleging defamation) and demanding depositions against Steven Pressman as noted below.

For an alternative count and legal summary of Landmark Education litigation history, including events outside the US, see the summary written by Peter L. Skolnik and Michael A. Norwick of Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland NJ (Skolnik and Norwick, 2006). (Skolnik and Norwick defended Rick Ross in litigation from Landmark Education, as described below.) Note that this document, though not an encyclopedia-entry nor entirely free of bias, not only summarizes the opinions of the above attorneys, but also provides extensive links to archived images of original documents detailing the involvement of Landmark Education in legal processes.

Some cases appear here discussed in chronological order as listed in the declaration of Art Schreiber (the Schreiber Declaration), filed May 5, 2005, at the US District Court of New Jersey, civil action 04-3022 (JCL).

[edit] Condé Nast Publications (1993)

In 1993, Landmark Education sued Self Magazine (Condé Nast Publications) for defamation. The alleged defamation claimed by Landmark Education involved the article: 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 evidence that the "Landmark Forum is a cult". ^[41] The magazine issued no retraction.

[edit] The Cult Awareness Network / Cynthia Kisser (1994)

In 1994 Landmark Education sued the original Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser (its 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." ^[42]

During a deposition Kisser stated that CAN held no opinion with respect to classifying Landmark as a destructive cult. She went on to say that personally, under several categories of cults, she thought Landmark could be a cult, but that she was inconclusive. She stated that the Forum (the program), in her opinion, was not a cult. ^[43]

[edit] Dr. Margaret Singer (1996)

In 1996 Landmark Education sued Dr. Margaret Singer, an adjunct UC Berkeley professor and author of Cults in Our Midst (1995, ISBN 0-7879-0051-6) for defamation. Singer had mentioned Landmark Education in her book; the text did not make it entirely clear whether she labeled Landmark Education as a cult or not. Singer issued a statement that she did not intend to call Landmark a cult, nor did she consider it a cult. ^[44] Singer removed the references to Landmark Education from subsequent editions of the book. She also stated at deposition that she had "no personal, firsthand knowledge of Landmark or its programs."

However, in her 2000 article 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. ^[45]

[edit] Elle Magazine - Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. (1998)

In 1998, Landmark Education 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?" ^[46] Landmark Education had attempted to seek damages in the amount of USD$10,000,000 ^[47].

The court dismissed the claim, stating that Landmark Education had not "pled special damages", nor "adequately plead actual malice", ^[48] and Landmark Education did not appeal.

[edit] Landmark Education Corp. vs. Pressman (1998)

In 1998, Landmark Education 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 Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile (ISBN 0-312-09296-2). ^[49] Landmark Education 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 was not relevant to the CAN action^[50].

Landmark Education dropped the action against Pressman after the settlement of the litigation against the Cult Awareness Network. ^[51]

[edit] Rick Ross Institute (2004)

In June 2004, Landmark Education filed a USD$1,000,000 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 caselaw regarding statements made on the Internet occurred in January 2005; see Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475 (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. ^{[52] [53]}

For the case against the Rick Ross Institute, Landmark Education also obtained the expert-witness testimony of Dr. Gerald McMenamin, a professor and in the field of forensic linguistics, claiming that Rick Ross himself had authored many of the materials on www.rickross.com, though presented as anonymous third-party postings. Rick Ross on his web-site dismisses this tactic as a "legal ploy" by which the plaintiff "could claim it needed to discover the identities of the anonymous users and subpoena them (all under the guise of seeking to “prove” that the anonymous posters in question are not real)".

In the Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, by attorneys Peter L. Skolnik and Michael A. Norwick, (Rick Ross's counsel), Skolnick and Norwick commented on how this litigation could have affected free speech, stating that "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 was why the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, sought to participate in the case as amicus curiae. ^[54]

Per 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." ^[55] 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". ^[56]

In December 2005, Landmark Education withdrew the lawsuit with prejudice, on the grounds that a material change in caselaw 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" ^[57] (which Landmark Education regards as trade secrets^{[citation needed]}) prior to the case's withdrawal. The Rick Ross Institute responded to a press-release from Landmark on the issue, stating that "The real reason Landmark dropped its lawsuit apparently was to avoid facing further discovery." ^[58]

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" ^{[59] [60]}.

[edit] DMCA Subpoenas and video postings on the Internet (2006)

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

From September 2006 onwards, anonymous people posted copies of the Pièces à Conviction France 3 documentary, Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus — including versions with English-language subtitles — to several video-sharing web-sites and bitTorrent sites on the Internet. ^[61].

In October 2006 Landmark Education issued subpoenas pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a piece of United States legislation which allows content-owners to issue subpoenas to identify alleged infringers — even without filing a lawsuit. Landmark Education sent subpoenas to Google Video, YouTube and the Internet Archive, demanding details of the identity of the person(s) who had uploaded copies (with English-language subtitles) to these websites.

Challenges to Landmark Education's efforts arose on multiple fronts. The Internet Archive commenced fighting its subpoena from Landmark Education, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed official objections on its behalf. The EFF (operating on behalf of the anonymous entity who uploaded the video) also planned to file a motion to quash Landmark's DMCA subpoena to Google Video. Google advised Landmark that it would not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena, and planned to give the user a reasonable opportunity to move to quash it. ^[62]

Art Schreiber, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education, commented on the issue, raising issues of intellectual property (IP) in RedHerring Magazine in an article dated 2006-11-03. Schreiber affirmed that the Electronic Frontier Foundation had released a statement characterizing Landmark Education's copyright claims to the documentary as "bogus". He went on to portray the Electronic Frontier Foundation's allegation as "entirely inaccurate". ^[63]

On November 8 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation posted a Draft Motion to Quash Landmark Subpoena on their website. ^[64] Independent filmmaker Enric Cirne interviewed a representative from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on Landmark Education's usage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. ^[65] Cirne also interviewed another staff attorney on-camera about the Electronic Frontier Foundation's actions regarding the issuing of the DMCA subpoenas. ^[66]

On November 9 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation responded to Art Schreiber's commentary and raised the issue of fair use in a post entitled "EFF and Landmark: Cards on the Table". In their statement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that any use of alleged material — even if copyright applied — involved usage "for purposes of criticism and commentary" and constituted a "non-infringing fair use". They asserted that Landmark's copyright claim remained "bogus". ^[67]

On November 10, 2006, the Reuters newsservice published an article about the dispute. ^[68] The Washington Post and many other news sources subsequently disseminated this article.

The Cult Awareness Information Centre (Australia: http://www.caic.org.au/ ) has made a non-official copy of the video available in flash video format. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has cited this location, ^[69] as has Rick Ross' website, ^[70] an article about Landmark Education on the "Yad L'Achim website, ^[71] InformationWeek ^[72] and Yahoo! News. ^[73]

On November 17, 2006, the Apologetics Index website received a "cease and desist" letter from attorneys in Amsterdam representing Landmark Education. The letter stated that Landmark Education demanded Apologetics Index remove their hyperlink to the Cult Awareness Information Centre's streaming video version of the documentary, due to alleged "copyright infringement" of Landmark Education's "Landmark Forum Leaders Manual" (TXu 1-120-461). The Apologetics Index responded on their site that after reading the responses from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, they did not intend to comply with Landmark's demands. ^[74] Further information on this matter appears on the Apologetics page devoted to Landmark Education.

Within the same period of time, Landmark Education also sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action to the Internet service provider of the Cult Awareness and Information Center website, "StudioSolutions", in Australia. Landmark again used the argument of alleged copyright infringement of material from their "Landmark Forum Leader's Manual". ^[75]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a statement in a post on their website regarding Landmark Education's legal letters in Amsterdam and Australia, entitled: "Landmark Forum's Internet Censorship Campaign Goes Down Under". The post includes a request to Landmark's General Counsel Art Schreiber, utilizing some Landmark Education jargon]:

In public statements, Landmark General Counsel Art Schreiber insists that Landmark supports free speech. We urge Landmark to take a stand for the principles of free expression and get out of the censorship racket--the answer to criticism is to explain and promote your own view. Landmark may believe that using copyright notices to takedown criticism is a winning formula, but it will ultimately come back to haunt Landmark. ^[76]

In a settlement reached on November 30, 2006, Landmark Education withdrew the subpoenas against Internet Archive and against the anonymous poster to Google Video. ^[77] The settlement includes the acknowledgment that the poster of the video will not repost it to the internet "in whole or in part." ^[78]

[edit] See also

[edit] Media

• Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus

[edit] Individuals

• Harry Rosenberg - current CEO of Landmark Education
• Steven Zaffron - current CEO, Landmark Education Business Development, LEBD

[edit] Related organizations

• Erhard Seminars Training
• Werner Erhard and Associates
• The Hunger Project

[edit] References and footnotes

[edit] External links

• Landmark Education Litigation Archive, archive of PDF documents involving Landmark's legal history
• Landmark and the Internet Archive, Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Google faces legal challenges over video service, The Washington Post, November 10, 2006
• Draft Motion to Quash Landmark Subpoena, November 8, 2006
• Landmark Forum Violates Constitution and Federal Law by Trying to Chill Speech, PressZoom, November 1, 2006
• Landmark Education Fires Back At EFF, Redherring.com
• Deposition of Cynthia Kisser, State of Illinois, Cook County, Cynthia Kisser, from Landmark Education Corporation vs. Cult Awareness Network
• 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
• Landmark Education registration as a Limited Liability Company

Landmark Forum / "The Forum"
Company
Landmark Education Corporation
History
Werner Erhard and Associates Erhard Seminars Training Werner Erhard
Legal issues
Landmark Education litigation
Media
Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus · Transformation The Century of the Self · Semi-Tough This box: view • talk • edit