Bakkagirl wrote:

"I feel I have lost a number of friends and associates to this, people who were "transformed" into uncaring, un-empathetic, besotted with themselves, well, con artists, who, then, want to sell this state to others."

I experienced this, too.

"I kinda have mixed feelings about creating a 'safe space' for individuals who were exposed to these programs via their employer. It seems to me that the best and safest space for them would be an aggressive legal representation."

I agree about the legal representation. I also think that having a safe space to talk about it, and find that there are so many others can be a first step to encouraging people to go that route. These programs annihilate confidence. Finding others who also see how inappropriate they are might spur some people to take action. Remember how the people running the programs convince participants that they are the problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2019 06:41PM by kdag.

On 'safe spaces', well, they need to be built in safe venues.

Suggestions?

I also had a severe breakdown during one of these LGATS. My recollection of the 2nd to last day of the advanced course is very fuzzy because I was dissociating. It was a five day course and I didn't make it to the last day because my roommates were very concerned for me. One of my roommates was familiar with psychotic episodes and she knew enough to make sure I got to the emergency room where I was diagnosed with unspecified psychosis. My employer did not expose me to the course. Ironically enough, I exposed my employer to the course and he was in the basic course while I was in the advanced. He told me that the very same night I was dissociating a girl in his class was having an anxiety attack. People can sue their employers for exposing them to the course. But not everyone is exposed to these courses by their employers (like me,and like MANY others) If thats the case then your only recourse is to sue the LGAT. The LGAT has a system of several contracts designed to protect them legally. Everyone has to sign these before participating and they don't realize what they are signing up for. Can you try to sue them anyway? Yes, but it's very risky and expensive. Also, talking about a traumatic experience on the stand with a cult's lawyer grilling you can be very dangerous for someone suffering from PTSD, it's not exactly safe either. Thats two years of your life that you will be in a legal battle. Some survivors don't want that kind of pressure. I'm all for people pursuing legal recourse but I don't think everyone has that option. I don't know for sure what the solution is for the others, everyone that I've talked to who has been harmed or had a family member harmed by an LGAT will tell you it's truly maddening when you try all these different things and run into obstacles at every turn. But I can say for sure that the solution is going to involve people coming together, coming forward and raising awareness. That's how everything that has ever mattered in this country has been solved. By brave people coming together to make a difference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2019 05:00AM by breakerofchains.

Breakerofchains,

I am very sorry for your experience, which sounds horrific.

My preference for legal solutions (providing a victim is suitably positioned) relates to the acknowledgment that what was experienced is a crime, no more, no less than physical assault, and needs to be dealt with as such. This is not a matter of a psychologically vulnerable individual, a one-off having a bad reaction, but of an organization, and there are too many of them, that is willfully dispensing a technology known to be unsafe. I believe that in an earlier post, a participant bystander related that the workshop 'coach' maintained that he/she had never seen such a response. This is complete b.s.; such responses are commonplace.

Also, it might be important not to conflate 'cult' litigation involving disputes as to whether or not an organization merits the descriptor, 'cult', with personal injury actions. If a participant suffers a psychological break 'during' a course of training that advertises itself as "transformational", I would think causality would be not so difficult to prove and would be relatively difficult to disprove. The PTSD should be an element of a damage claim.

bakkagirl

and, further to this last post, any legal action should name as defendants, ALL parties involved in the promotion, sale, and delivery of unsafe workshops, which should cut down on the number of lackeys who support these things. Being held legally responsible for their affiliations and actions, may serve to cause these individuals to grow the 'F up and stop wasting their useless lives on these enterprises.

bakkagirl

bakka - mailbox.