"critical thinker":
You ae not here for discussion or an exchange of ideas. You are here to defend Landmark Education.
The Neff case was specifically about Landmark Education. Landmark was a defendant, along with its Dallas director David Grill, who assaulted Ms. Neff and was later criminally convicted and sentenced to prison time for his crimes.
See [
www.culteducation.com]
Landmark paid a very large settlement.
Due to a gag order Ms. Neff and I cannot discuss the details of the case.
I was an expert consultant.
Suffice to say that Landmark was very wise to pay the settlement rather than go to trial, even though from strictly a legal expense viewpoint, going to trial would have been far cheaper.
Landmark has made other settlements.
Landmark expects all participants to sign a document that essentially precludes contingency lawyers taking personal injury cases. That is, by waiving the right to a trial by jury and being bound to arbitration instead. Most contingency lawyers will not take a case so restricted. Landmark knows this.
Landmark did not want all complaints, claims of injuries, settlements etc. to become public record through discovery, so it dismissed its own lawsuit Landmark v. Ross.
Right now Landmark is attempting to once again use legal harassment against its critics.
See [
www.eff.org]
However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken the case and no doubt Landmark's ridiculous claims will be defeated, again.
How anyone claiming to be a "critical thinker" cannot see through this is a demonstration not of meaningful analysis, but rather the hallmark of a mindless follower--at least when it comes to Landmark.