[www.youtube.com]

Wow. I'm not done listening to this yet, but it sounds like the lawyers are subjected to the same stalking and harassment as their clients.

Indeed.

I think the Church of Scientology pioneered this technique, but other organizations have perfected it.

On a related note,

it occurs to me that this is 'why' one should NEVER involve oneself in ANY so-called professional organization, or organization related to personal or professional development that has built itself on 'volunteer' labor, and, a) because of the absence of fiduciary duty, any sense of it, and, b) owing to the maleability of acolytes.

bakkagirl

bakkagirl wrote:

"I think the Church of Scientology pioneered this technique, but other organizations have perfected it."

That makes sense. I guess W.E. learned a lot from the Scientologists, anyway, and they are notorious for gangstalking.

Playing with fire...

I have been grappling with all of this. I know nothing about the law, but in just trying to follow simple logic, combined with my experiences, I come up with this:

I am considering the LGAT paperwork that is signed, (in my case, with Landmark), and other agreements that are made, in the light of how binding much of it really is. I am trying to realistically look at the legal ramifications, the points over which an LGAT would be likely, (or unlikely), to take one to court, and the chances of these contracts actually standing up in court if they were challenged. I am also trying to discern how much of the time they are just playing "chicken."

Starting with the consent form; most of us have agreed that it doesn't give anyone a clue of what they actually do, stating only that the program is:

"... a series of philosophically rigorous and open discussions, voluntary sharing of your experience and short exercises, the Program provides an opportunity to explore basic questions that have been of interest to human beings throughout time and to examine many aspects of your own life."

Nothing here about thought-reform, sleep deprivation, gaslighting, privacy invasion, harrassment, intimidation, humiliation, etc. Only philosophically rigorous and open discussions. Therefore, no informed consent. I would suspect that if the consent form were challenged in court, and some of the elements more closely examined, it would be found to be an "unconscionable contract."

On to non-disclosure agreements, which I saw both as agreements that were signed on paper, and also verbal agreements:

I clearly remember one instance where a staff member had me alone, and spoke about one of the tactics they use on "hard cases." She stated that they would not use this tactic on me, and then extracted an agreement from me that I would not say anything. A few days later, they began using that very tactic on me.

I am quite certain that the way that the (above-mentioned) tactic was implemented is illegal. If it is within the law, (by a hair's breadth), it would still be considered extremely unethical by virtually anyone, so they wouldn't want it to get out. If I disclose Landmark's use of this tactic, I could descend to elementary school level and say, "She reneged first," and consider the agreement invalidated because of that; but when I consider how she got me alone before telling me about it, I would expect her, (as typical of Landmark), to say that the conversation "never happened," (They seem to say that a lot, and about all sorts of things). Turning Landmark's logic back on itself; if the conversation "never happened," then it would follow that I never promised that I wouldn't say anything about it. How could I have?

Alternatively, if they wanted to take me to court for disclosure, that would be an implication on their part that there actually is something to disclose, and that my account was reasonably accurate. The court records would then be available to the public. Considering the (probable) illegality of the tactic in question, I would not expect any penalty, imposed by the court on me, to be too harsh. In the meantime, the information about their methods would become available to anyone.

The final example I can give is about information we were given, in my last seminar, about a course that seemingly doesn't exist, if you look for it on their website. The materials handed out sing it's praises as a powerful, transformative course, that very few people have taken. Having been through it, from my perspective, it seemed more like a vicious "disciplinary" course to intimidate and bring into line anyone who criticizes anything at all about Landmark.

Once again, if they were to take someone to court for giving out information about the course, they would be, in effect, admitting it's existence. I'm betting they won't.

Of course, none of this will protect me from harrassment, or worse, but from a legal standpoint, I'm not overly concerned.

Having said that, I don't expect them to "play fair." Here's what I would actually worry about:

1) In my humble opinion, they're thugs. The way that they operate reminds me more than anything of organized crime. I would not put anything past them if they should seek revenge.

2) They could accuse me of slander, (though it actually isn't slander, being true). This would put me in the position of having to prove my allegations. At this point, I do have a fairly decent list of people who I could ask my attorney to subpoena, and at least some of them, would probably tell the truth . Others would probably not.

In order to accuse me, they would first have to identify me. Though there are probably people at Landmark who could identify me, they would have to do so by narrowing it down to the group of people who were subjected to their most abusive practices. I'm sure my attorney would ask them to explain how they arrived at the conclusion that I had been the one to post it. Once again, in doing so, they would likely incriminate themselves.

3) They could claim that I am mentally ill, and if I can't give strong evidence of my allegations, they would use the allegations themselves as evidence of that.

They do talk about the virtues of being "unreasonable," and also seem to value unpredictability, (but only in themselves. They want participants to be predictable - that makes them easier to manipulate). They then engage in crazy, and crazymaking, behaviour, so that anyone reporting their actions sounds a little unbalanced, at best. I'm am sure that this is all calculated to the nth degree, for exactly that effect.

Your post is a great example of how these 'people' tie their victims up in knots of self-doubt.

I have always believed that class action is the best route by which to go after these 'entities', in that this form of litigation tends to limit possible legal exposure and mental duress among co-claimants.

See:

[www.timesunion.com]

Also, I note that the James Damore claim against Google (a great example of workplace fascism in action) was filed as a class action suit, with another employee being brought in to constitute a 'class'. I believe this might protect Mr. Damore from being singled out as a malcontent, and allows the litigators to gather evidence regarding systemic practices.

From a PR perspective, it also makes the defendant appear to be as calculating and nasty as they usually are.

As for the NDA, I am wondering AGAIN if any reader of the forum was required to sign an NDA as part of an LGAT-style corporate development program. As a provider of corporate development programs, I can say that this practice would be absolutely 'extraordinary'.

bakkagirl

bakkagirl wrote:

"Your post is a great example of how these 'people' tie their victims up in knots of self-doubt."

LOL - yes. It's hard to think of what to do/what is ethical/what is safe without trying to anticipate their possible responses and arguments. Also, it was no more exhausting than many of the conversations I had at Landmark, (in fact, that was pretty mild in comparison). And my conversations were not unique.

In fact, to elaborate further:


bakkagirl wrote:

"Your post is a great example of how these 'people' tie their victims up in knots of self-doubt."


Yes. And many are kept that way until they have missed their filing deadlines. If you have had recent involvement with an LGAT, and if crimes have been committed against you, get lawyered up FAST!!! Document everything.

One thing I have noticed, over time, is that involvement with these organizations has a numbing effect, (sort of like ticks, mosquitoes, or leeches). When you first see what has been done to you - you know that it's bad, but it's not until later that you realize just how bad it was. Over time, I realized that they had done more than I had initially believed. I kept uncovering more and more. You want to go as hard on them as you legally can.

Don't talk to their lawyer, but get your own, and have your attorney do the talking. Press charges whenever possible. If charges are filed, they become a matter of public record. Then the public can be informed of what these people actually do. It would take only a few cases where charges are filed before it would snowball and bring them down.


I hope that people will go beyond out -of-court settlements, get the law and lawmakers involved, and wipe these organizations out completely and permanently.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2019 05:14AM by kdag.

I think that a certain rationale exists in anti-cult circles; that being that in a pluralistic society we must tolerate even these entities.

The values of a pluralistic society do not, however, accord individuals or organizations the right to psychologically entrain human beings and use their unpaid labor to advance nefarious schemes.

And these same values ABSOLUTELY do not accord employers the right to subject their employees to these 'technologies'.

bakkagirl

I will go so far as to say that we must tolerate pretty much any philosophy or religion, as long as the adherents are not being instructed to break the law. The problem with these groups is that they do have employees, associates, and some of the volunteers, (oh, excuse me. I mean some of the people in the "assisting program"), breaking the law. They rely heavily on loopholes and on simply not getting caught - and those are their ethics!