It is criminal for someone to post something they know to be untrue, for the purpose of harming another person. Such "free speech" is not protected speech.

However, you are correct that it is not criminal for your site to host this type of free speech.

That said, there does exist a legal means by which I can obtain a court order which the major search engines will honor (they don't have to, they just do it anyway) even if you won't. And that will cause this site not to be indexed using my name as a keyword. Problem solved.

If I am to rack up legal fees doing that, then it makes sense to also file suit against those people who posted the defamatory and misleading information. The courts will order you to reveal IP addresses and email accounts.

Best,

Eric Allen Bell

(If everything goes here, I trust you will not hesitate to post this)

Eric Allen Bell:

Again, nothing "criminal" is occuring on this thead.

You simply don't like what people post about you here.

Posting negative comments about someone and expressing an opinion is not criminal or illegal.

You are completely wrong in your erroneous assumptions regarding the application of the law concerning message boards and the anonymous postings on message boards in the United States.

See [itlaw.wikia.com]

In Donato v Maldow the court upheld the legal rights of both the message board owner and those that chose to post anonymously on that board.

Donator v. Maldow resulted in a definitive ruling that no information regarding anyone that posted anonymously at a public message board would ever be disclosed and the lawsuit was dismissed.

Also see [www.dmlp.org]

Landmark Education sued this message board and its owner some years ago making similar claims, which you now claim. Landmark sought to have information disclosed specifically about anonymous members of this message board that posted about Landmark. The federal judge made it clear that no such information would ever be ordered to be disclosed by the court. Landmark later chose to dismiss its own lawsuit.

No information regarding anyone posting at this message board will ever be disclosed to you.

I suggest you stop making ridiculous threats and consult with an attorney who knows the law and can explain the legal rulings to you.

If you don't wish to respond to the issues raised about you and your activities at this message board in response to posts made here then perhaps you must simply move on.

Making hollow and pointless threats here is not appreciated, against the rules of this message board and may lead to you being banned from this message board.

Landmark Education IS a cult. I used this very site to research what people were saying about it. There is no way they could prevail in court, because they do not have a leg to stand on.

You are absolutely incorrect. If all we were talking about was posting negative remarks that I happen not to like, then you would be correct. However, when a person intentionally posts defamatory statements, which they know to be untrue, for purposes of harming someone's representation, that is a different matter.

Your site is not liable for hosting this content. But the persons who posted it are. And if I obtain a court order, you will be required by the court to cooperate in providing identifying information. Your legal department can confirm this for you. This is not my first time doing this so I speak from experience.

Again, if you anything to be posted here, as long as it is not "Ad Hominem" then I trust you will post this - so that the readers will understand that the outrageous accusations against me are hotly contested.

I'm sure that Landmark Education would like to imagine they are not a cult, but the fact is that they fit the definition and thus would not get very far in a court of law. I do not run a cult. I come nowhere close to the definition. It is, in my opinion, morally irresponsible for your site to allow this content to be hosted here, although I do recognize your right to free speech.

Speech which fits the definition of Criminal Defamation however is not protected speech. Again I am asking that you remove this entire thread. It seems clear by now that you will not. If I do proceed with the remedies available to me at law, then an attorney will post all relevant information, in the event that anyone who posted this material wants to come forward and cooperate or remove their posts.

If you block this post from being published, then you have clearly taken sides in a dispute that you claim to be neutral on. You may not like the opinions I have expressed in the media, but that is irrelevant. Even a public person has rights.

Thank you,

Eric Allen Bell

Eric Allen Bell :

There are three attorneys on the advisory board of the Cult Education Institute and I am very well acquainted with libel and slander law. The Institue and myself have been sued five times by various groups and all these actions failed to have any material removed from this site.

No one can remove posts from this message board, after about 30 minutes all editing capability ceases to exist.

None of the posts, nor the thread, will be removed per your demands.

FYI--I don't see Landmark Education as a "cult" per the core definition. And that wasn't the substance of Landmark's lawsuit. They sued, because like you, they wanted material they didn't like removed. Landmark also sought to identify those people that posted at this message board. All their effortd ended in complete failure.The legal fees Landmark paid must have been quite substantial, but the institute and myself were represented pro bono.

FYI--libel and slander are not "criminal" acts, but rather claims that can be litigated through a civil lawsuit. You are not even using the correct legal category to state your claim.

Again, consult an attorney to explain this to you.

If actually have any legal claim to make do so in writing through an attorney. Your claim will then be reviewed by legal counsel. I don't think you have basis to make a claim, but such a claim would be reviewed by a lawyer.

Again, nothing will be removed per your demands regarding any censorship of this thread. And no information whatsoever will be provided to you concerning anyone who posts here. As I previously stated Landmark sought such information, and the judge refused to issue such an order.

It seems to me that people that want suppress criticism usually have something to hide. If you don't then simply respond to your critics frankly by stating the facts, set the record straight and move on.

Frankly, people post some veryy scewed and misleading things about me on the Web and for the most part I jsut ignore it. The nature of the rants and/or the source makes expose them as fairly ridiculous to anyone seriously concerned.

You seem excessively concerned here.

Again, you appar to be attempting to threaten people that use this message board.

I strongly suggest at this point that you cease posting threats, as they are both redundant and againt the rules of this message board.

Your claims have been noted.

Time to move on.

This whole thing is turning a bit Orwellian.

If you knew that every time someone did a Google search on your name, what came up was a site that said you were a cult leader, what would you be willing to do to try to get that false and harmful content removed?

Is it really true that only someone who is guilty would mind having it there? Does that hold up to common sense?

I have made no threats. Rather, I have unsuccessfully tried to expedite a process through open communication and an attempt at diplomacy.

Although it would be nearly impossible for me to get a court order demanding that you remove this defamatory content, it is quite simple to obtain documentation from a legal process, which the major search engines will honor. And this will cause them to stop indexing your site, with my name as a keyword. How you can mistake that for a threat is beyond me.

I have no interest in keeping this debate going. So I would ask that you maintain your policy of being fair and letting everyone have a voice. This is not spam so please don't prohibit this from being posted. I really don't have much to add after this. We will just have to let the legal system play out until I have the paperwork required by Google to consider not indexing a site based on a given search criteria. Time will tell if I will prevail or not.

I just wanted the public record to show that I object to this material and hear my side of the story. After all, I am being portrayed as cult leader. Who would not want that removed?

And is it really true that only someone who is guilty would be bothered by this? Again, very Orwellian logic there.

Thank you,

Eric Allen Bell

"The Institue and myself have been sued five times by various groups and all these actions failed to have any material removed from this site."

You've already said one was Landmark Education, if it wouldn't be a problem, it would be good to know which groups were the other 4.

cultleak:

NXIVM, Church of Immortal Consciousness, Pure Bride Ministries, Landmark Education and the Gentle Wind Project.

All these groups have information they sought to be removed, which remain on the site.

See the following;

NXIVM [www.culteducation.com]

Church of Immortal Conciousness [www.culteducation.com]

Pure Bride Ministries [culteducation.com]

Gentle Wind Project [culteducation.com]

Landmark Education [culteducation.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2014 12:50AM by rrmoderator.

Eric Allen Bell:

Your posts are becoming increasingly redundant.

Nothing "Orwellian" is going on, other than perhaps in your own mind.

You seem to have a learning disability.

Landmark made discovery requests, i.e. "to obtain documentation from a legal process." The judge refused to order this message board to provide Landmark with anything whatsoever. It was after that humiliating failure that Landmark subsequently decided to dismiss its own lawsuit rather than move forwad to further embarrassment.

Again, Donato v Maldow covered the same groups. No information was ordred to be disclosed from the message board whithin the context of the legal discovery process in that lawsuit. Donato was decided by a NJ federal judge. The Cult Education Institue is in NJ.

Again, you will receive no information about anyone or anything regarding this message board other than what you can read on this thread.

I doubt that Google will seriously consider such a ridiclous request. Google doesn't censor its search results based upon the whims and demands of people like you.

But have a go at it if you wish.

Now I suggest you move on and stop posting the same rant here over and over again. Frankly, it has very little in any educational value.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2014 11:02PM by rrmoderator.

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario: You are a semi-public figure. One day you discover that, on page 1 of a Google search for your name, you find you are listed on the Sex Offenders Registry.

Now imagine that you write to them, even plead with them, to please remove this, since you are in fact not a Sex Offender.

But what you are told is no. That in fact only someone guilty would be bothered by being on that list. And that it is suspicious that you are being to intense about wanting it removed.

You kind of get the feeling you are hitting your head against the wall. And the more you plead, or try to reason, etc. the more the moderators become convinced that this is clearly proof that you must therefore belong on the Registry. Circular reasoning at it's worst.

My reputation is valuable to me professionally and personally. It is also valuable to the people whom I employ, or to people who invest in my name as a brand. We live in a world where people Google you, whether it's to invest in a project or to allow their kids to come see your kids for a play date.

So, when I'm Google'd people are given the impression that I am a cult leader. Now I may be able to just have a since of humor about this. But I would be foolish to assume that is how everyone else is reacting.

It is irresponsible of this forum to allow a person's reputation to be damaged in this way. It may be legal, but that does not mean that is isn't reckless.

Eric Allen Bell

Eric Allen Bell:

There you go again ranting.

You offer a false argument.

A "sex offender" is someone that has been convicted of a sex crime, and subsequently would become a registered sex offender.

For example, Anton Hein, a supposed anti-cult crusader, who is in fact a fugitive sex offender.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Being a sex offender is not a subjective opinion, but rather an established fact proven by public records.

No one has posted that you are "sex offender," which would require documented proof, i.e. a criminal record.

On the other hand people can post opinions about you and your work.

Various critics have posted scathing critiques about me and my work on the Web.

I aknowledge the right that everyone has to express an opinion, it's called free speech.

But no one has the right to post false information about a criminal record that doesn't exist.

So your analogy falls flat here.

Again, I suggest you move on.

It is understood that you object strongly to being called a "cult leader" and that you feel such a description is baseless and incorrect.

Everyone on this thread gets that. And you have certainly spent ample time posting your rebuttal to the opinions of others you disagree with on this topic.