Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 15 October 2006

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Landmark Education, LLC

File:Landmark Education logo2.jpg
Company type	Private Corporation
Industry	Self-help, Personal development
Founded	January 1991
Headquarters	San Francisco, California, USA
Key people	Harry Rosenberg, DirectorCEO Mick Leavitt, President, Director Steven Zaffron, Director, CEO, Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) Art Schreiber, General Counsel, Chairman, BOD, Director Martin Leaf, Counsel Joan Rosenberg, Vice President Centers Division, Director Nancy Zapolski, Vice President Course Development Werner Erhard, Research & Design Consultant Brian Regnier, Course Designer Gary Schaufler, CFO Laurel Scheaf, Director, Forum Leader Sanford Robbins, Director David Ure, Forum Leader, former Director
Products	The Landmark Forum, associated coursework
Revenue	8.6% to USD$76 million (2005)
Net income	USD$2.5 million (1997)
Number of employees	more than 450 employees (2006) 722 volunteer Leaders (2006) 7,500 volunteer employees (1998)
Subsidiaries	Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) Landmark Education International, Inc. Tekniko Licensing Corporation LandmarkDating Rancord Company, Ltd.
Website	Corporate Homepage

Landmark Education LLC (LE), is an international employee-owned for-profit private company headquartered in San Francisco, California which offers self-development courses and trainings. Its introductory course is The Landmark Forum.

Many of the techniques used in Landmark Education's courses were purchased from Werner Erhard's Est/Erhard Seminars Training.

Landmark Education's courses are primarily designed for individuals.
Its subsidiary Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) provides training and consultancy to organizations.

Landmark Education and its methods evoke controversy, with passionate opinions held both by supporters and detractors.

Corporation

Origin and evolution

Landmark Education, known from May 7, 1991 to February 26, 2003 as "Landmark Education Corporation (LEC)", purchased certain rights to a presentation known as The Forum from Werner Erhard and Associates (WEA, the corporate successor of Erhard Seminars Training - est or EST). The new owners, including former staff of WEA, renamed the course The Landmark Forum and further developed its content.

The company was originally organized as Transnational Education, The Centers Network, and in Japan Rancord Company, Ltd., and was re-organized as Landmark Education Corporation (LEC) later that year. In February 2003, Landmark Education LLC succeeded LEC.

The coursework and pedagogy of WEA evolved from est/Erhard Seminars Training, founded by Werner Erhard in 1971. The organization underwent multiple name and curriculum changes after its founding. (For time-line, see Erhard Seminars Training article.)

Similarly, Landmark Education has evolved since its inception. The introductory course was renamed "The Landmark Forum", and the four-day, two-weekend WEA "Forum" was shortened to three full days. Landmark Education states that changes were made to the course content at that time, and that there was a major re-design of the Landmark Forum in 1999. Additional lesser adjustments have periodically been made.

According to Landmark Education, Werner Erhard consults from time to time with its Research and Design team. (See also) Erhard's younger brother (Harry Rosenberg) is Landmark Education's Chief Executive Officer, and their sister (Joan Rosenberg) is the Vice President of the Centers Division.

According to statements made by Landmark Education CEO Harry Rosenberg in 2001:

...Erhard kept the Mexican and Japanese branches of the operation...Last year, Landmark had revenues of $58 million, and ... the company has bought outright Erhard's license and his rights to Japan and Mexico.

Landmark Education maintains 52 offices in 21 countries, with more than half of its offices in North America.

Structure and financials

Landmark Education LLC operates as an employee-owned company. Landmark Education employees own all the stock of the corporation, with no individual holding more than 3%. The company does not distribute dividends; any profits go to increase the company's assets, to expand the operation, or to subsidize courses in developing countries.

As of 2005 70,000 to 80,000 people take the Landmark Forum annually, and around 50,000 take other courses offered.

Landmark Education reported revenues of $70 million for 2004; $76 million in 2005

Corporate Officers

The Board of Directors is elected annually by the Stockholders.
Individuals involved at the Corporate level are detailed above.

Expenses

As of 1997 :

Last year Landmark Education Corporation spent $13 million on salaries and bonuses for its 451 employees, dedicated $4 million to travel and made $2.5 million in profit.

Volunteers

7,500 volunteers as of 1997 :

A case study by Harvard Business School reports that nationwide, 7,500 volunteers lend their time and services to Landmark. The corporation only pays 451 people, and only a tenth of them are Forum leaders...In the end the Department of Labor dropped the issue, leaving Landmark trumpeting about its volunteers' choice in the matter.

Programs

Scope and claims

Landmark Education portrays itself as "a global enterprise whose purpose is to empower and enable people and organizations to generate and fulfill new possibilities. We create and provide programs, services, and paradigms that produce extraordinary results for our customers."

In studies and surveys commissioned by Landmark Education, "graduates” of Landmark's programs self-report positive results in the following areas:

• The quality of their relationships.
• The confidence with which they conduct their lives.
• The level of their personal productivity.
• The experience of the difference they make.
• The degree to which they enjoy their "personal life". (see Assessments of Effectiveness below)

The education has as its basis ontological training rather than conventional knowledge as found in traditional educational contexts. For research and studies about Landmark Education compiled on Landmark Education's corporate website, see "Independent Research"

Landmark Education has not produced published peer-reviewed work in the field of education. Landmark Education trains its own course instructors intensively in Landmark's pedagogy (also known as "technology"). Traditional teaching credentials, education, or teaching experience is not required to teach or lead Landmark courses.

Courses

• Curriculum for Living, (at Landmark Education's Corporate Website)

1. The Landmark Forum, introductory course and pre-requisite for other courses
2. Landmark Forum in Action Seminar, optional seminar included in tuition of the Landmark Forum
3. The Landmark Advanced Course
4. Self Expression and Leadership Program (SELP)

• Note: For further information on other coursework, see Landmark Education's Corporate Website : About Graduate Programs

Other programs

Assisting Program

The bulk of Landmark Education's workforce comprises unpaid volunteers who work under the supervision of staff. Assistants make an agreement to “get more out of it than they put into it.” The Assisting Program is discussed in a negative light towards the end of the France 3, 2004 documentary: "Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous". Landmark Education does not sanction this interpretation.

Chief Executive Officer Harry Rosenberg commented on the Assisting Program in the 1997 Harvard Business School study:

In addition to our 420 staff members around the world, the people in the Assisting Program play a critical role at Landmark. We have a remarkable group of 7500 people participating on a weekly basis. They are both committed to our work, and to getting personal value out of the Assisting Program. They know we are a for-profit businesss and still they commit their time and effort.

According to this statement by Harry Rosenberg, as of 1997 the Landmark Education workforce consisted of 5.3% paid employees, and 94.7% volunteers from the Assisting Program.

The Introduction Leader Program (ILP)

The ILP consists of a six-month intensive leadership training program that prepares participants to lead Introductions to the Landmark Forum and apply the training they get to an area of life that matters to them (personal, professional or other). This course forms the foundation of the training for Program Leaders in all of Landmark's divisions.

Assessments of effectiveness

Landmark Education relies heavily on customer testimonials as a measure of effectiveness. Studies, surveys, and opinions vary in their reported outcomes though in general lean from neutral to very positive.

Academic studies

Charles Wayne Denison's Ph.D. research

The Denison study, 1994 involved interviewing Landmark Forum participants and reported a "varied impact on participants" ranging from neutral to positive:

The observation and interview data suggest that these curricula have a varied impact on participants; some report a certain distinction as having personal impact, while other participants scarcely recall the concept.

Fisher Study

An academic study commissioned by Werner Erhard and Associates concluded that attending a (pre-Landmark) Forum had minimal lasting effects, positive or negative, on participants' self-perception :

• J.D. Fisher, R. C. Silver, J. M. Chinsky, B. Goff and Y. Klar, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects, Published by Springer-Verlag, October 1990, ISBN 0-387-97320-6.
• (This study won a 1989 American Psychological Association award.)

Studies Commissioned by Landmark

Yankelovich study

An analysis done for Landmark Education by Daniel Yankelovich, chairman of DYG, Inc., (Analysis of The Landmark Forum and Its Benefits) consisted of a survey conducted of more than 1300 people who completed The Landmark Forum during a three-month period. Some details of the study methodology, especially concerning sampling methods and demographics of study participants, remain undefined in Landmark Education's "full report" on it. It is unknown whether Yankelovich was ever a participant in any of Landmark Education's related coursework. Yankelovich concluded that 90% to 95% self-reported value in taking the course.

Harris Interactive

A survey carried out by Harris Interactive for Landmark Education Corporation concluded that 1/3 of respondents who had completed the Landmark Forum self-reported an increase of 25% or more in their incomes, 70% worried less about money and felt they were more effective in managing their finances, and an unspecified percentage reported working fewer hours. It is unclear over what time duration Harris Interactive conducted this study.

Other Studies

University of Southern California

The University of Southern California Marshall School of Business carried out a case study into the work of Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD) at BHP New Zealand Steel.

The report concluded that the set of interventions in the organization produced a 50% improvement in safety, a 15-20% reduction in key benchmark costs, a 50% increase in return on capital, and a 20% increase in raw steel production

The full study is available from USC. A summary and more information can be found here on Landmark Education's Website.

International Society for Performance Improvement (2005)

The International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) website contains a report of Landmark Education Business Development (LEBD)'s involvement with improving safety at Minera Escondida Ltd., which ran the largest copper mine in the world and employed 5,000 people. The ISPI report notes that when LEBD started working with Minera Escondida, the company had a total injury frequency rate of 23.7 accidents per million man-hours worked. Five months later, after LEBD had finished its program with Minera Escondida, the injury rate had been reduced by over 50% to 11.5 accidents per million man-hours worked. ISPI reported that Landmark created this environment of improved safety. The ISPI awarded LEBD a "Got Results" award for its actions.

The Talent Foundation

A study by the Talent Foundation, chaired by Sir Christopher Ball, and led by Dr. Javier Bajer, concluded that: "Within two years of participating from Landmark's three-day program, individuals showed:

• Significantly higher levels of self-esteem, motivation, and self-confidence.
• More proactive attitudes related to their learning and ability to apply new skills at work.
• More confidence in finding opportunities to apply their skills and make a difference at work."

Jargon

Landmark Education gives non-conventional meanings to some words that it uses in its courses. Landmark Education indicates that by doing so it seeks to enable course members and graduates to communicate more succinctly and unambiguously with each other. Some common Landmark Education vocabulary, and their specialized meanings, appear at Landmark Education jargon.

Criticisms, concerns and controversies

Critics of Landmark Education make accusations which generally fall into one or more of these areas:

1. Questioning whether the courses really produce worthwhile benefits.
2. Suggesting that participating in the programs may have harmful consequences.
3. Speculating that the Landmark Education system may exploit customers (financially or otherwise).

Is it a cult?

Cult experts

Occasionally this question is asked or debated on internet discussion groups, and by various self-styled "cult experts" (see the Links below: 'Generally critical of Landmark Education').

Paul Derengowski, formerly of the Christian cult-watch group Watchman.org, states that Landmark "has theological implications". The Apologetics Index (an online Christian ministry providing research resources on what it considers cults, sects, other religious movements, doctrines, and practices) maintains a page on Landmark Education.

Australian psychologist Dr. Louise Samways included a section on Landmark Education in her book on personal development courses and cults. She made no claim to have observed Landmark programs firsthand; she stated that her book

"evolved ... from thousands of personal stories told to me over many years by my patients and people attending my seminars and lectures. I have mentioned the names of groups and courses only where I have heard similar and consistent stories from many separate sources."

Dr. Samways went on further to list particular areas of concern :

"The courses I worry about particularly are those attempting dramatic change in short periods of time, such as Landmark Education, EST, Forum, Money & You and Hoffman Process, for they are misusing the psychological techniques allied to hypnosis in order to make the behavioural changes.

Empirical commentators

On the other hand, some less detached commentators with direct experience of Landmark Education's programs argue that they are not harmful and that Landmark Education is not a cult / sect by either the strict or the pejorative definition of those terms.

For example, Dr. Raymond Fowler, a retired CEO of the American Psychological Association, upon studying Landmark Education on his own behalf said, "I saw nothing in The Landmark Forum that I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant."

And Dr. Norbert Nedopil, a secte expert from the University of Munich, in a 2002 study said that Landmark Education is definitely not a sect, nor sect-like in any way. In that study he reported that: "On the basis of empirical investigation, it can be said that to the largest extent, Landmark Education does not present risks to the health, free will and legal integrity of its participants. Nor, is there any evidence that the Landmark Forum is harmful." Dr. Nedopil stated that he could not discern any form of behavior which would put the Landmark Forum near a so called sect.

Labeled "cult" by certain European governments

As stated below, Landmark Education has also been labeled as a "cult" or "secte" by the governments of France (1995) and Austria (2006). The government of Sweden (2006) has labeled the organization as a religion. A Senate Committee of the state of Berlin, Germany had also labeled Landmark as a religious organization, but modified this characterization after being sued by Landmark Education. This information is as reported in the 2006 United States report of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to the United States Secretary of State. In the two known cases where Landmark Education has availed itself of the court system (the Netherlands and Germany), the entities asserting it was a cult have retracted their assertions as referenced below.

Landmark in France

French government classification

An agency of the French government, the Interministerial Mission for Awareness against Sectarian Risks (MILS) has classified Landmark Education as a secte. (Unofficial English translation) It is unclear what criteria the MILS uses to make this classification, and many of the organisations which it has so classified strenuously dispute the validity of such classification. Defamation lawsuits in the US and the Netherlands refute this French-language classification Regarding France, the US State Department noted in a 2002 report that the French legislation creating the MILS did not define the term "cult" and that the president of MILS had resigned in mid-2002 and that no replacement had emerged by the time of the US State Department's reporting deadline.)

France 3 documentary

In France, Landmark Education 'assistants' have the apparent French legal status of volunteer unpaid workers. On May 24, 2004, the France 3 show "Pièces à conviction" broadcast the investigative report "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous" ("Voyage to the land of the new gurus").

The next month, in June 2004, the French government (L’Inspection du Travail) investigated labor practices regarding "volunteer workers." Shortly thereafter, Landmark Education ended operations in France.
(A short timeline.) Template:Fr icon
The video can be viewed and/or downloaded from Google Video, at 2003 Inside Landmark Forum.

Landmark in the Netherlands

NOTE: The following is a statement by Art Schreiber, General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education, citing the judgement of District Judge C.J.J. van Maanen of the District Court in Haarlem, Netherlands, and not necessarily the views of the government of the Netherlands:

Sect or Cult The facts are clear that Landmark Education and The Landmark Forum are not a sect or cult (the term used for sect 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' . . 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."

Landmark in Berlin

Although the Berlin State Senate report on Sects - their risks and consequences originally listed Landmark Education as espousing "a religious world view". The Berlin Senate subsequently retracted that, and re-classified Landmark Education as a "provider of life guidance" (Anbieter von Lebenshilfe).

Landmark in Austria

In 2006 the United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor released Austria: International Religious Freedom Report 2006.
Under Section I. Religious Demography of the Report, the U.S. government agency details the list of what the Austrian Government describes as "Sects" :

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government were small organizations with fewer than 100 members...Other groups found in the country included Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family.

Landmark in Sweden

According to the United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's Sweden: International Religious Freedom Report 2006, Sweden has labeled Landmark Education as an "active religious group" :

A significant number of smaller, internationally active religious groups have also been established in the country. Such groups included the Church of Scientology (approximately 3,000 members), Landmark-Forum, Hare Krishna, Word of Faith, and the Unification Church.

Religious implications of the Landmark Forum

Sometimes there are suggestions that Landmark has a philosophy which is religious in nature, or which is in conflict with the doctrines of established religions (e.g. see the references for watchman.org or the apologetics index cited above).

On the other hand, many clergy have attended the Forum and find no conflict between the Forum and their faith. Clergy and religious who have made statements supportive of Landmark Education include Father Gregg Banaga, Father Eamonn O'Conner, Sister Iris Clarke, Father Gerry O'Rourke, Father Basil Pennington, Episcopal Church Bishop Otis Charles, Rabbi Arnold Mark Belzer, and Sister Miriam Quinn, O.P..

Is it brainwashing?

After taking the Landmark Forum, 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 has gone out-of-print, and the publisher's web-site no longer notes Lell as one of its current authors.)

Landmark Education sued to have the word "brainwashing" removed from the sub-title of Lell's book. During a hearing in a German court, Lell admitted that:

...following completion of The Landmark Forum, he 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 decided that "brainwashing" constituted a matter of opinion and not an assertion of fact and allowed the sub-title to remain. (Opinions in many jurisdictions constitute constitutionally-protected free speech; false statements of fact in many jurisdictions subject the publisher to claims of defamation / libel.)

Landmark refers inquiries on the issue of brainwashing to a letter by Forum-graduate Edward H. Lowell MD PA, a New Jersey psychiatrist with expertise in the areas of cults and brainwashing who states that Landmark does not use brainwashing techniques

"Brainwashing involves: (1) intensive, forcible indoctrination aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs and (2) the application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation. Necessarily involved are a kind of physical entrapment, power to inflict harm or detrimental effects, and secluding one from contact with friends and family. Not one of these exists in Landmark or any of its programs."

In 1999 Landmark Education asked Raymond Fowler, a psychologist and past President of the American Psychological Association, to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness of the procedures in the Landmark Forum. Speaking on his own behalf and not that of the APA, Fowler reported

"I saw nothing in the Landmark Forum I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant. ... the Landmark Forum is nothing like psychotherapy ... has none of the characteristics typical of a cult ... does not place individuals at risk of any form of “mind control” “brainwashing” or “thought control.”"

Registration pressure

In 1996, Jill P. Capuzzo from The Philadelphia Inquirer, Weekend took the Forum and reported

"I made some eye-opening discoveries about myself and how I function in the world." However, she also stated that "One of the most irritating aspects of The Forum is the hard sell to sign up future participants."

Other participants have had different impressions. For instance Dr. Raymond Fowler has said:

"I was, along with everyone else in the group, encouraged to sign up for additional Forum sessions, but there was no coercion or high pressure sales. Participants were simply informed of the opportunities and told how to take advantage of them. In the months following the forum experience, I received, as I recall, two or three notices of forum opportunities and one telephone call which was cordial and non-coercive. I declined, because of time pressures, to attend any additional sessions and received no pressure to do so."

Lawsuits

Lawsuits against Landmark Education in the United States

In 1996, Art Schreiber, general counsel for Landmark Education, summarized Landmark Education's view: "Out of more than 350,000 people who have participated in The Landmark Forum around the world, there has been only 1 person who filed a lawsuit. ... the US District Court rejected Mrs. Ney's claims and ruled that The Forum did not cause her emotional problems." As of 2006, almost 880,000 people have taken the Landmark Forum.

1. 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) 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". 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.

Landmark Education's standard "course information form" for use within the US (but not elsewhere) requires course participants to waive their right to a trial by jury and resolve all disputes through arbitration. Whether such a waiver would withstand any significant volume of challenges by participants claiming injury (assuming they exist) is debatable, so the presence of this waiver may not alone account for the limited cases brought on.

2. Neff vs. Landmark Education (1997)

In a another case, not over the content or effects of the courses but rather alleging that Landmark had been negligent, in 1997 Tracy Neff sued Landmark Education. 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. Neff vs. Landmark Education. Landmark did not have a sexual harassment policy at the time. It introduced comprehensive anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies following this suit, as well as detailed complaint procedures. The parties settled out of court, and no charges were filed against the alleged perpetrator.

3. Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education Corporation (2002)

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. The US government had jurisdiction because the case involved the killing of a government employee. Jason Weed was found not guilty by reason of insanity. 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,

"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."

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

Lawsuits initiated by Landmark Education in the United States

Since 1991 Landmark Education has filed six lawsuits in the US, in each instance over alleged defamation.

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). Note that this document is not an encyclopedia entry nor is it POV neutral, simply the summarized opinions of the above attorneys.

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).

1. Condé Nast Publications (1993)

In 1993, Landmark Education sued Self Magazine (Condé Nast Publications) for defamation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. Rather than stand trial by jury, Self Magazine issued a retraction.

2. The Cult Awareness Network / Cynthia Kisser (1994)

In 1994 Landmark Education sued the original Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser (its Executive Director) among other allegations, for issuing leaflets about "Destructive Cults". "The Forum/est/the Hunger Project" was included in a "partial list of groups about which CAN has received complaints."

During a deposition Kisser stated that CAN held no opinion with respect to Landmark being 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.

3. 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) for defamation. Singer mentioned Landmark Education in her book; it was unclear whether she labelled Landmark Education as a cult or not. Singer issued a retraction stating that she did not intend to call Landmark a cult, nor did she consider it a cult. 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."

Scioscia (2000) reports:

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.

4. 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?" (Mahoney, 1998). See the press release for the lawsuit from August 31, 1998. The court dismissed the claim without going to trial, and Landmark did not appeal; Landmark received neither a retraction nor an apology.

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

In 1998, Landmark Education spent months attempting to compel Steven Pressman to respond to deposition questions aimed at obtaining the confidential sources he had used for research on Outrageous Betrayal. The suit was brought under the pretext 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:

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.

The action against Pressman was dropped after the Cult Awareness Network litigation was settled.

6. Rick Ross Institute (2004)

In June 2004, Landmark Education filed a $1 million US dollar 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.

For the case against the Rick Ross Institute, Landmark Education also obtained expert-witness testimony of Dr. Gerald McMenamin, a professor and leader in the field of forensic linguistics, claiming that Rick Ross himself has authored many of the materials on www.rickross.com, though presented as anonymous third-party postings. Rick Ross on his web site claims that this tactic was a "legal ploy" by which the prosecution "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)".

From Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, by attorneys Peter L. Skolnik & Michael A. Norwick, (Rick Ross's counsel):

On January 7, 2005, Landmark wrote a letter to the federal Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, the 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 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.

Per statements from Art Schreiber, General Counsel and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education :

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 combat the notion that lawsuit dealt with the stifling of freedom of speech :

The lawsuit was not about stifling freedom of speech; we stand for people’s self-expression. The lawsuit was about holding Mr. Ross accountable for having repeatedly made or published false statements on his website that damaged the reputations of Landmark Education and the people who choose to take our programs, solely for the purpose of his own financial gain.

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 been trying to obtain legal discovery of trade secrets prior to the case's withdrawal. The Rick Ross Institute responded to a press release from Landmark on the issue.

References

1. When it comes to Landmark Education Corporation, There's no meeting of the Minds., Steve Jackson , Westword, April 24, 1996.
2. ^ Minutes of the General Meeting of The Board of Directors of Landmark Education Corporation, August 19, 2002, San Francisco, California.
3. Landmark Education Settles Lawsuit with Cult Awareness Network, Business Wire, November 10, 1997.
4. Landmark Education v. Cult Awareness Network, Cook County, Illinois, Martin N. Leaf, Esq., 1991
5. Landmark Education, website, archived, controversy, Landmark Education, website
6. Time Magazine article, Werner Erhard, Time Magazine
7. Landmark's listing at Better Buiness Bureau
8. Landmark Education Corporate Website, Faculty Photos, 2006
9. Landmark BOD minutes, 7/31/2000, "Minutes of the General Meeting of the Board of Directors of Landmark Education Corporation", July 31, 2000, San Francisco, California.
10. Landmark Financial Information
11. The est of Friends, Metroactive Features, July 15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc.
12. The Landmark Seminar Leader Program, Landmark Education Corporate Website, 2006, "Seminar leaders are accomplished women and men who volunteer their time and talent..."
13. The est of Friends, Metroactive Features, July 15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc.
14. see quote: "'This letter serves as the consent by Landmark Education Corporation for the use of the name "Landmark Education International, Inc." by our wholly-owned subsidiary, currently known as Werner Erhard and Associates International, Inc."., Articles of Incorporation, January 16, 1991
15. Articles of Incorporation, May 7, 1991, "Amendment and Restated Articles of Incorporation", Brian Regnier, President.
16. Limited Liability Company, incorporation, Legal Document, California Secretary of State, February 26, 2003, Agent for Service of Process, Arthur Schreiber, Esq.
17. Pressman, Steven, Outrageous Betrayal: The dark journey of Werner Erhard from est to exile. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. ISBN 0-312-09296-2, p.254.
18. Landmark Education, website, archived Japan - Rancord Co., Ltd.
19. Secretary of State of California website, record: Landmark Education LLP Landmark Education registration
20. Landmark Education, website, archived, controversy, Landmark Education, website
21. Time Magazine article, Werner Erhard, Time Magazine
22. Pay Money, Be Happy, New York Magazine, July 9, 2001, http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/4932/index2.html
23. Better Business Bureau, June 19, 2006, report, Landmark Education Corporation, Better Business Bureau
24. Landmark education, website, Revenues, 2005
25. The est of Friends, Metroactive Features, July 15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc.
26. The est of Friends, Metroactive Features, July 15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc.
27. See Landmark Education's "Benefits" web site
28. Harvard Business School study: Landmark Education Corporation: Selling a Paradigm Shift, Karen Hopper Wruck, Mikelle Fisher Eastley, 1997, case # 9-898-081, page 13., quote, CEO Harry Rosenberg.
29. Charles Wayne Denison, Part 4--The Curriculum of The Forum, "The Children of EST: A study of the Experience and Perceived Effects of a Large Group Awareness Training (The Forum)", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Denver, 1994, excerpt available online
30. J.D. Fisher, R. C. Silver, J. M. Chinsky, B. Goff and Y. Klar, Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Effects, Published by Springer-Verlag, October 1990, ISBN 0-387-97320-6. (This study won a 1989 American Psychological Association award.)
31. Landmark Education, website, Yankelovich Study, excerpted
32. Landmark Education, website, quote, RE: Yankelovich Study
33. International Society for Performance Improvement, award to LEBD, award, Landmark Education Business Development
34. Landmark Education Corporate Website, The Talent Foundation, Study
35. "Landmark Forum", The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert T. Carroll, Published by John Wiley & Sons, August 15, 2003, ISBN 0-471-27242-6.
36. Apologetics Index, page, Landmark Education
37. Louise Samways, Dangerous Persuaders: An expose of gurus, personal development courses and cults, and how they operate, Penguin Books: 1994; ISBN 0-14-023553-1
38. Louise Samways, Dangerous Persuaders: An expose of gurus, personal development courses and cults, and how they operate, Penguin Books: 1994; currently out-of-print ISBN 0-14-023553-1
39. http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm
40. Austria: International Religious Freedom Report 2006, US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2006, Section I. Religious Demography.
41. Sweden: International Religious Freedom Report 2006, US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2006, Section I. Religious Demography.
42. Edward H. Lowell, MD, PA, letter, letter on issue of brainwashing
43. Landmark Education, website, Raymond Fowler, psychologist, personal statement
44. Jill P. Capuzzo, Philadelphia Enquirer, 1996, The Scoop About the Landmark Forum
45. Dr. Raymond Fowler, letter, February 22, 1995
46. Art Schreiber, 1996, Letter RE: article "Handel In Geluk", general counsel, Landmark Education
47. Landmark Education Corporate Website, 2006, participation statistics
48. Stephanie Ney case, September 1989, psychiatric breakdown
49. Legal document, Stephanie Ney case, Court Ruling
50. Neff vs. Landmark Education, September 18, 1997, DISTRICT COURT Dallas County, Texas, 162nd Judicial District, CAUSE NO.97-00933-I
51. Jeanne Been versus Jason Weed with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant, 2002 file from Caselaw
52. Landmark Education v. Cult Awareness Network, Cook County, Illinois, Martin N. Leaf, Esq., 1991
53. Deposition of Cynthia Kisser, Superior Court of the State of Illinois, May 15, 1995
54. Dr. Margaret Singer, retraction, Landmark Education, website, files
55. Amanda Scioscia, 2000, Phoenix News Times, Drive-thru Deliverance
56. Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, Peter L. Skolnik & Michael A. Norwick, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland NJ/February 2006
57. Landmark Education Litigation Archive, Section: Pressman,
58. Tech Law Advisor, caselaw, 2005, RE: Communications Decency Act, New Jersey
59. Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic, December 21, 2005, PRNewswire, United Business Media, San Francisco.
60. Introduction to the Landmark Education litigation archive, Peter L. Skolnik, Michael A. Norwick, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland, New Jersey, February 2006.
61. Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic, December 21, 2005, PRNewswire, United Business Media, San Francisco.
62. Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic, December 21, 2005, PRNewswire, United Business Media, San Francisco.

External links

See also

• Human Potential Movement
• Personal development
• Employee-owned companies of the United States
• The Hunger Project