Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: October 30, 2006 09:38PM
turambar:
Specifically the lawsuit filed against the Ross Institute by Landmark Education contained a range of claims.
In my opinion Landmark Education does use coercive persuasion to break people down and gain undue influence.
This is done to make money, because Landmark is abusiness for profit. And the company has made Werner Erhard a very rich man, and others associated with the company have done quite well.
Because it is a privately held for-profit company, we may never know how many millions Erhard has tucked away, nor what has been paid to his other family members and business associates.
The undue influence Landmark gains through its programs I believe enables the company to get the results it wants, which are praise regarding its programs, accompanying testimonials, enrollment by past participants in more courses, past customers recruiting their friends, family, co-workers etc. and free labor as "voluteers" to reduce overhead.
Landmark isn't a "summer camp" its a multi-million dollar company that boasts sales of over $70 million per year.
EST and Landmark Education really are essentially the same thing. Other than Werner Erhard supposedly selling control of the company in the early 1990s. His brother and sister run the operation with the help of old associates like Art Schreiber.
Some people think Erhard never really relinquished control and still calls many of the shots from behind-the-scenes.
There are three defining elements of a "destructive cult."
See [www.culteducation.com]
1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
In my opinion when Werner Erhard ran EST he was the defining element of the group and could easily be seen as a "cult leader."
Subsequent to the "sale" of EST Landmark lacks this evident personality-driven critieria, i.e. an ever-present charismatic leader, which is the single and most saliant element that defines cults.
Other than that single criteria in my opinion Landmark could be considered a "destructive cult."
This would include the two other criteria as cited by Lifton.
You may not wish to recognize this, but many experts have as those interviewed through the French report and notably Margaret Singer.
Dr. Singer did not think Landmark was a "cult" for the same reason I have cited above, but she would not endorse or recommend Landmark and thought the company used coercive persuasion.
See [www.culteducation.com]
This paper by Richard Ofshe, a sociologist at Stanford, outlines "coercive persuasion."
"The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:
The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance
The use of an organized peer group
Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified."
These four factors are all evident in the Lanadmark Forum.
Please understand that all persuasion is not the same. For example there are distinctions to be made between education, adverstising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Again, in my opinion Landmark Education uses "thought reform," though they may call it "education."
Please also understand that Raymond Fowler, who Landmark touts as someone that didn't see "brainwashing" in their programs, is not an expert in this specific fieldm (i.e. coercive persuasion). Fowler may have been the "President of the APA," but he is not known for his work regarding coercive persuasion and did not speak officially for the APA regarding his opinions about Landmark.
It is interesting to note that even though Landmark Education paid Jean-Marie Abgrall, M.D. more than 45,000 euro to determine if they were a "sect" (European for cult) and used "brainwashing" Abgrall was critical of Landmark and when interviewed would not either deny that they are a "sect" or use "brainwashing."
See [www.culteducation.com]
Clinical psychologist Philip Cushman researched "mass marathon training" groups like Landmark and he noted that---
"13 liabilities of encounter groups, some of which are similar to characteristics of most current mass marathon psychotherapy training sessions:"
They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
They lack clearly defined responsibility.
They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.
They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.
They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.
They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.
They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.
It seems to me based upon my experience with EST/Landmark beginning in the early 1980s to present that Landmark exhibits all 13 of these liabilites.
Dr. Abgrall cited some concern.
"They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders."
He said, "My critique is of techniques that haven't been mastered at all. There is no control of a psychologist. They just put anyone in there, which means that if this guy takes a blow, he leaves alone in a daze, there's no one to take control for him. They don't exchange information - there's no real inspection of the technique. These guys aren't trained, as if tomorrow you set up shop as a psychotherapist. I mean, that's what's shocking."
Dr. Cushman also noted that "groups were determined to be dangerous when:"
"Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change."
"Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant."
"Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation."
"Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, 'blaming the victim.'"
In my opinion Landmark Education exhibits all four of these characteristics and is potentially dangerous.
This can be seen by the many personal injury claims that have haunted the company over the years, its repeated bad press and the constant complaints received by the Ross Institute about Landmark.
Landmark has tacitly concurred by requiring its participants to sign off on paperwork that waives the right to a trial by jury, in the event of a personal injury claim. This is something no licensed counselor, pscyhologist, psychiatrist, would typically require a client to do.
Landmark said in its lawsuit that my opinions are wrong and that they amounted to "product disparagement" or more simply put, defamation.
However, instead of moving forward and proving this position, when faced with discovery Landmark cut and ran.
This would lead many to conclude that Landmark knew through discovery more evidence would be found and compiled to support the conclusions cited above. After they realized discovery would not be sealed and therefore secret, they decided to dismiss their own lawsuit with prejudice.
Landmakr had never before done this in litigation.
The French report that Landmark has tried keep off the Internet is further proof of all these points.
Your denial and attempt to defend Landmark Education on this message board doesn't change its history, the facts cited, or the outcome of the litigation recentlys, which humiliated the company in a very telling way.
Specifically the lawsuit filed against the Ross Institute by Landmark Education contained a range of claims.
In my opinion Landmark Education does use coercive persuasion to break people down and gain undue influence.
This is done to make money, because Landmark is abusiness for profit. And the company has made Werner Erhard a very rich man, and others associated with the company have done quite well.
Because it is a privately held for-profit company, we may never know how many millions Erhard has tucked away, nor what has been paid to his other family members and business associates.
The undue influence Landmark gains through its programs I believe enables the company to get the results it wants, which are praise regarding its programs, accompanying testimonials, enrollment by past participants in more courses, past customers recruiting their friends, family, co-workers etc. and free labor as "voluteers" to reduce overhead.
Landmark isn't a "summer camp" its a multi-million dollar company that boasts sales of over $70 million per year.
EST and Landmark Education really are essentially the same thing. Other than Werner Erhard supposedly selling control of the company in the early 1990s. His brother and sister run the operation with the help of old associates like Art Schreiber.
Some people think Erhard never really relinquished control and still calls many of the shots from behind-the-scenes.
There are three defining elements of a "destructive cult."
See [www.culteducation.com]
1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
In my opinion when Werner Erhard ran EST he was the defining element of the group and could easily be seen as a "cult leader."
Subsequent to the "sale" of EST Landmark lacks this evident personality-driven critieria, i.e. an ever-present charismatic leader, which is the single and most saliant element that defines cults.
Other than that single criteria in my opinion Landmark could be considered a "destructive cult."
This would include the two other criteria as cited by Lifton.
You may not wish to recognize this, but many experts have as those interviewed through the French report and notably Margaret Singer.
Dr. Singer did not think Landmark was a "cult" for the same reason I have cited above, but she would not endorse or recommend Landmark and thought the company used coercive persuasion.
See [www.culteducation.com]
This paper by Richard Ofshe, a sociologist at Stanford, outlines "coercive persuasion."
"The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:
The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance
The use of an organized peer group
Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified."
These four factors are all evident in the Lanadmark Forum.
Please understand that all persuasion is not the same. For example there are distinctions to be made between education, adverstising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Again, in my opinion Landmark Education uses "thought reform," though they may call it "education."
Please also understand that Raymond Fowler, who Landmark touts as someone that didn't see "brainwashing" in their programs, is not an expert in this specific fieldm (i.e. coercive persuasion). Fowler may have been the "President of the APA," but he is not known for his work regarding coercive persuasion and did not speak officially for the APA regarding his opinions about Landmark.
It is interesting to note that even though Landmark Education paid Jean-Marie Abgrall, M.D. more than 45,000 euro to determine if they were a "sect" (European for cult) and used "brainwashing" Abgrall was critical of Landmark and when interviewed would not either deny that they are a "sect" or use "brainwashing."
See [www.culteducation.com]
Clinical psychologist Philip Cushman researched "mass marathon training" groups like Landmark and he noted that---
"13 liabilities of encounter groups, some of which are similar to characteristics of most current mass marathon psychotherapy training sessions:"
They lack adequate participant-selection criteria.
They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders.
They lack clearly defined responsibility.
They sometimes foster pseudoauthenticity and pseudoreality.
They sometimes foster inappropriate patterns of relationships.
They sometimes ignore the necessity and utility of ego defenses.
They sometimes teach the covert value of total exposure instead of valuing personal differences.
They sometimes foster impulsive personality styles and behavioral strategies.
They sometimes devalue critical thinking in favor of "experiencing" without self-analysis or reflection.
They sometimes ignore stated goals, misrepresent their actual techniques, and obfuscate their real agenda.
They sometimes focus too much on structural self-awareness techniques and misplace the goal of democratic education; as a result participants may learn more about themselves and less about group process.
They pay inadequate attention to decisions regarding time limitations. This may lead to increased pressure on some participants to unconsciously "fabricate" a cure.
They fail to adequately consider the "psychonoxious" or deleterious effects of group participation (or] adverse countertransference reactions.
It seems to me based upon my experience with EST/Landmark beginning in the early 1980s to present that Landmark exhibits all 13 of these liabilites.
Dr. Abgrall cited some concern.
"They lack reliable norms, supervision, and adequate training for leaders."
He said, "My critique is of techniques that haven't been mastered at all. There is no control of a psychologist. They just put anyone in there, which means that if this guy takes a blow, he leaves alone in a daze, there's no one to take control for him. They don't exchange information - there's no real inspection of the technique. These guys aren't trained, as if tomorrow you set up shop as a psychotherapist. I mean, that's what's shocking."
Dr. Cushman also noted that "groups were determined to be dangerous when:"
"Leaders had rigid, unbending beliefs about what participants should experience and believe, how they should behave in the group. and when they should change."
"Leaders had no sense of differential diagnosis and assessment skills, valued cathartic emotional breakthroughs as the ultimate therapeutic experience, and sadistically pressed to create or force a breakthrough in every participant."
"Leaders had an evangelical system of belief that was the one single pathway to salvation."
"Leaders were true believers and sealed their doctrine off from discomforting data or disquieting results and tended to discount a poor result by, 'blaming the victim.'"
In my opinion Landmark Education exhibits all four of these characteristics and is potentially dangerous.
This can be seen by the many personal injury claims that have haunted the company over the years, its repeated bad press and the constant complaints received by the Ross Institute about Landmark.
Landmark has tacitly concurred by requiring its participants to sign off on paperwork that waives the right to a trial by jury, in the event of a personal injury claim. This is something no licensed counselor, pscyhologist, psychiatrist, would typically require a client to do.
Landmark said in its lawsuit that my opinions are wrong and that they amounted to "product disparagement" or more simply put, defamation.
However, instead of moving forward and proving this position, when faced with discovery Landmark cut and ran.
This would lead many to conclude that Landmark knew through discovery more evidence would be found and compiled to support the conclusions cited above. After they realized discovery would not be sealed and therefore secret, they decided to dismiss their own lawsuit with prejudice.
Landmakr had never before done this in litigation.
The French report that Landmark has tried keep off the Internet is further proof of all these points.
Your denial and attempt to defend Landmark Education on this message board doesn't change its history, the facts cited, or the outcome of the litigation recentlys, which humiliated the company in a very telling way.
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
Madshus
()
Date: October 30, 2006 11:48PM
Quote
rrmoderator
Your denial and attempt to defend Landmark Education on this message board doesn't change its history, the facts cited, or the outcome of the litigation recentlys, which humiliated the company in a very telling way.
rrmoderator... why the long winded response? 'turambar' is gone, as in hooked mentally on Landmark. What's the point of your post? Do you think you will persuade him/her to see things differently? Or is your long response feeding you in some way?
You seem as obsessed with stating points against Landmark as are individuals like 'turambar' when defending the organization. Why the crusade?
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: October 31, 2006 12:41AM
Madshus:
Landmark Education genereates more complaints to the Ross Institute than any other single group.
As a category LGATs generate more complaints than any other group category after "bible based groups."
Landmark Education almost always lands on the "Top Ten" most popular subsections every day. And if you review this message board it remains one of the most talked about groups with related threads viewed by thousands of visitors.
The recent posting on the Internet of the French video has ignited additional interest.
This discussion board and database is devoted to education and the Ross Institute is an educational nonprofit.
The post you mention fits well within this context and helps anyone following the thread better understand Landmark, its history and the reason that it generates complaints, bad press and interest.
Landmark Education genereates more complaints to the Ross Institute than any other single group.
As a category LGATs generate more complaints than any other group category after "bible based groups."
Landmark Education almost always lands on the "Top Ten" most popular subsections every day. And if you review this message board it remains one of the most talked about groups with related threads viewed by thousands of visitors.
The recent posting on the Internet of the French video has ignited additional interest.
This discussion board and database is devoted to education and the Ross Institute is an educational nonprofit.
The post you mention fits well within this context and helps anyone following the thread better understand Landmark, its history and the reason that it generates complaints, bad press and interest.
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: October 31, 2006 01:49AM
Quote
turambar
You can go ahead and debate Landmark Education Forum's efficacy or express the opinion that you think it's dangerous, but I hope you're no longer making the allegation that there's any brainwashing taking place or that Landmark is somehow a cult.
Landmark is a cult that uses brain-washing techniques. Landmark is based, in part, on scientology. What part of cult and brainwashing do you not understand? Do you think they used the scientology and took out the cult and the brainwashing? LOLOL....
One thing that bothered Werner Erhard when he started the silly thing was how to get people coming back for more after he'd given them the initial "program." He saw the legions of faithful scientologists who continued "studying" scientology over a lifetime. He patterned his boring and repetitive follow-up programs to capture these "lifers."
Ellen
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: October 31, 2006 02:03AM
Turambar writes:
Obviously, Turamabar, you have no knowledge of sociopaths or of the nature of sociopathy. They rarely seek treatment themselves and are more often remanded by various courts or prison programs if they cause too much trouble. True sociopaths are famously resistant to change. Why? They feel no pain, no remorse, no regret, no shame at their behavior. They don't care how much they hurt other people. While they may remain law-abiding to stay out of prison, they have NO regard for the rights of others. They are users and manipulators and human parasites. I suggest you do a quick study on the subject as you have accepted the teachings of a couple of them.
Ellen
Quote
Let us all hope that the majority of sociopaths seek and are able to find decent professionals who can help them with their problems.
Obviously, Turamabar, you have no knowledge of sociopaths or of the nature of sociopathy. They rarely seek treatment themselves and are more often remanded by various courts or prison programs if they cause too much trouble. True sociopaths are famously resistant to change. Why? They feel no pain, no remorse, no regret, no shame at their behavior. They don't care how much they hurt other people. While they may remain law-abiding to stay out of prison, they have NO regard for the rights of others. They are users and manipulators and human parasites. I suggest you do a quick study on the subject as you have accepted the teachings of a couple of them.
Ellen
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
turambar
()
Date: October 31, 2006 02:30AM
Madshus, Rick Ross and Elena do seem to show an emotional attachment to the idea that Landmark Education is in some fashion a "cult", and that everyone who attends any of its classes is somehow "brainwashed" into thinking they got something out of it.
You've constructed an interesting box for me, though, as well. You've made the assertion that my arguments are not valid because I, too, have been brainwashed by Landmark.
Your reasoning is based on the believe that Landmark is a cult, therefore I have been brainwashed, therefore my arguments are invalid, therefore Landmark is a cult. Your reasoning is, therefore, quite flawed. By the same standard, anyone who attended Landmark could no longer be trusted unless that person professed a belief in the conclusion to which you've already arrived.
And by my standard, nobody who has not actually attended Landmark Education in its present form could possibly form a judgement regarding whether it is "dangerous" OR a "cult".
We are, therefore, at an impasse.
You've constructed an interesting box for me, though, as well. You've made the assertion that my arguments are not valid because I, too, have been brainwashed by Landmark.
Your reasoning is based on the believe that Landmark is a cult, therefore I have been brainwashed, therefore my arguments are invalid, therefore Landmark is a cult. Your reasoning is, therefore, quite flawed. By the same standard, anyone who attended Landmark could no longer be trusted unless that person professed a belief in the conclusion to which you've already arrived.
And by my standard, nobody who has not actually attended Landmark Education in its present form could possibly form a judgement regarding whether it is "dangerous" OR a "cult".
We are, therefore, at an impasse.
Quote
MadshusQuote
rrmoderator
Your denial and attempt to defend Landmark Education on this message board doesn't change its history, the facts cited, or the outcome of the litigation recentlys, which humiliated the company in a very telling way.
rrmoderator... why the long winded response? 'turambar' is gone, as in hooked mentally on Landmark. What's the point of your post? Do you think you will persuade him/her to see things differently? Or is your long response feeding you in some way?
You seem as obsessed with stating points against Landmark as are individuals like 'turambar' when defending the organization. Why the crusade?
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: October 31, 2006 02:43AM
turambar:
Again, I have not stated that Landmark is a "cult" as it lacks the one criteria previously referred to, a charismatic leader that acts as a defining element of the group.
See [www.culteducation.com]
And also [board.culteducation.com]
Please understand that the inclusion of or discussion about Landmark Education here does not signify that it is a "cult," though others posting here are free to express their opinions on this subject.
Many groups listed at this database, which contains hundreds of subsections, are not cults.
Only some have been called "cults."
My interest in Landmark Education is not personal, but professional.
The first time that I heard of Landmark was through work and the company has no connection to me personally.
If Landmark did not generate complaints as it does, it would not generate any concern or interest on my part.
Landmark's lawsuit required a response, but that action was initiated by Landmark and not by me.
Attempting to somehow dismiss criticism by personally attacking critics will not change the facts about Landmark.
It does seem that you are "boxed in" by your Landmark training and its effects.
Hopefully you will eventually get out of that box and move on.
If you don't keep taking Landmark courses and/or submerge yourself within Landmark's subculture perhaps you will.
Again, I have not stated that Landmark is a "cult" as it lacks the one criteria previously referred to, a charismatic leader that acts as a defining element of the group.
See [www.culteducation.com]
And also [board.culteducation.com]
Please understand that the inclusion of or discussion about Landmark Education here does not signify that it is a "cult," though others posting here are free to express their opinions on this subject.
Many groups listed at this database, which contains hundreds of subsections, are not cults.
Only some have been called "cults."
My interest in Landmark Education is not personal, but professional.
The first time that I heard of Landmark was through work and the company has no connection to me personally.
If Landmark did not generate complaints as it does, it would not generate any concern or interest on my part.
Landmark's lawsuit required a response, but that action was initiated by Landmark and not by me.
Attempting to somehow dismiss criticism by personally attacking critics will not change the facts about Landmark.
It does seem that you are "boxed in" by your Landmark training and its effects.
Hopefully you will eventually get out of that box and move on.
If you don't keep taking Landmark courses and/or submerge yourself within Landmark's subculture perhaps you will.
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: October 31, 2006 02:59AM
Quote
turambar
Madshus, Rick Ross and Elena do seem to show an emotional attachment to the idea that Landmark Education is in some fashion a "cult", and that everyone who attends any of its classes is somehow "brainwashed" into thinking they got something out of it.
Not an "emotional attachment," turambar, but thirty-five years of "cold" observation, indirect experience, correspondance with hundreds of ex of former or victims of Landmark, and a ton of literature.
And certainly not everyone, turambar. There are thousands who were repelled at the initial interaction or somewhere else early along in the process. It can be said that most of those who venture onto the internet to sing the praises of Landmark are suffering some sort of mind control.
Quote
You've constructed an interesting box for me, though, as well. You've made the assertion that my arguments are not valid because I, too, have been brainwashed by Landmark.
Uhhhh...
That is the nature of the beast.
Quote
Your reasoning is based on the believe that Landmark is a cult, therefore I have been brainwashed, therefore my arguments are invalid, therefore Landmark is a cult. Your reasoning is, therefore, quite flawed. By the same standard, anyone who attended Landmark could no longer be trusted unless that person professed a belief in the conclusion to which you've already arrived.
And by my standard, nobody who has not actually attended Landmark Education in its present form could possibly form a judgement regarding whether it is "dangerous" OR a "cult".
We are, therefore, at an impasse.
There are many here who fit your criteria. Pull up the posts written by sonnie_dee, for instance. Or search "NoLanmark" on alt.fan.landmark
if you're really curious, that is, and not just here to try to defend Landmark.
Ellen
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: October 31, 2006 03:18AM
Quote
rrmoderator
turambar:
Again, I have not stated that Landmark is a "cult" as it lacks the one criteria previously referred to, a charismatic leader that acts as a defining element of the group.
There are a few cults that have famously survived the loss of their leaders. Two of them are scientology and Landmark.
The "leaders" or "trainers" at Landmark are notorious for their mimicking of Werner Erhard and are meant to stand in for him. They spend hours and hours rehearshing and practicing and copying his every move, gesture, and expression in order to "re-create" him as closely as possible.
Ellen
Has anyone taken any Advanced/SELP/ILP with Landmark...
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: October 31, 2006 03:33AM
elena:
Good point.
I am not completely convinced that Erhard isn't still running Landmark, through his brother, sister and old associates.
His "Legacy" documentary probably had some interesting financing and is evidence that Erhard is still quite alive with an ego that still must be fed.
But the one most saliant thing about most groups considered "cults," is a very visible living leader that becomes the focus of the group and locus of power.
Some "cults" get new leaders, such as Scientology, with its new President Miscavige. He may not be Hubbard, but he essentially has Hubbard's power over the organization.
Good point.
I am not completely convinced that Erhard isn't still running Landmark, through his brother, sister and old associates.
His "Legacy" documentary probably had some interesting financing and is evidence that Erhard is still quite alive with an ego that still must be fed.
But the one most saliant thing about most groups considered "cults," is a very visible living leader that becomes the focus of the group and locus of power.
Some "cults" get new leaders, such as Scientology, with its new President Miscavige. He may not be Hubbard, but he essentially has Hubbard's power over the organization.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.