Someone is suing Google in France for $195,000.00 over the French video. It seems to be about copyright infringment.

Is it the French production company or TV network?

Or is it someone working for Landmark?

I thought it might be the French copyright holder somehow involved since the lawsuit was filed in France.

But the video remains intact for view at the Australian anti-cult Web site.

Apparently that site has not been contacted by the French who are the actual copyright holders.

Yes, it will be very interesting to see who is suing Google in France.
It should be in the public record...
Anyone speak french? Some french newspaper is going to find it out.

Maybe it has something to do with whoever added the english subtitles? I read on Usenet that someone put the subtitles in from the closed-caption version.
Maybe Landmark through a proxy is suing in France, to try to find the person who put the english subtitles on?

Or maybe its something else...maybe the France lawsuit is about something else?

Well, we'll have to wait for the facts to come out...

Regardless, the Reuters news piece is appearing in every major country...and it has lots of Landmark details.
The writer must have been working on the Landmark story, and then linked it with the SEC filing for Google.

[www.francedaily.com]
is carrying the story...the same Reuters one!

just a thought with all this media attention
regarding landmark education,
is it worth writing letters to various members of parliment,
and congress to get these outfits banned
as the information is all over the media
at the moment
and will be fresh in their minds monday morning
and after all they are our representatives/ our mouth pieces for free speech,

Quote
sj
just a thought with all this media attention
regarding landmark education,
is it worth writing letters to various members of parliment,
and congress to get these outfits banned
as the information is all over the media
at the moment
and will be fresh in their minds monday morning
and after all they are our representatives/ our mouth pieces for free speech,

I think that public education, not "think of the children"-style bans, are the best thing.

Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, snail oil salespeople have the same rights as those who question them. If they don't then society becomes a tyranny of the majority.

News mentioned on at least 2 more blogs, which are also now linking directly to locations of the video:

[www.conspiracyarchive.com]

[www.religionnewsblog.com]

[videosites.blogspot.com]

[blogsearch.google.com]

Quote
grub
I think that public education, not "think of the children"-style bans, are the best thing.

Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, snail oil salespeople have the same rights as those who question them. If they don't then society becomes a tyranny of the majority.

That's 100% true of course, Free Speech applies most to the speech we despise.

On the other hand, if people are engaging in practices that are damaging people, then they need to be held to account.
Think of a Quack therapist, invoking "false memories" and hurting their patients, they need to legally be held to account, and stopped from practicing.
Or recently, the Gentle Wind Project was charged with fraud, and a bunch of other things, and put out of business.
If Landmark is factually found to be damaging people, and doing it to gain more influence over them, I think they need to be held to account.
Perhaps class-action lawsuits for damages, and things of that nature.

Bad publicity alone could drive them out of corporations. One big news expose, and no big company will touch them...
:D

I think if things keep going as they are going, the liabilities of the damage Landmark is doing to people, is going to byte them...all it takes are a few folks who feel they have grounds against Landmark, and then get some top lawyers on contingency to pursue their class action claim.
This is why Landmark forces people to sign away their rights. But there must be a way around that.

Perhaps they could simply change their minds after the forum experience turns out to be well beyond what they would have reasonably expected?

To take an extreme example ... if a rape or other crime was committed during a session, giving evidence as a witness at a trial would superseded the signed confidentiality agreement.

John

also, Landmark backed down from Rick Ross, partly I think, to avoid having to air their dirty laundry in public.
Perhaps if a person/people feel Landmark damaged them, they could have a meeting with a contingency lawyer, and the lawyer could study the Rick Ross litigation, and see where Landmarks weaknesses are.

Landmark would probably just pay out some $ to make it go away, to keep their dirty secrets secret.
But maybe some lawyer will see a way to go all the way with it.

Landmarks judgement day will come, with the amount of complaints about it.

This reminds me of the writings on the Local Church of Witness Lee by Jim Moran. When Jim died the Local Church (Fullerton) purchased his writings from his estate and then sent out revocations of any permission previously granted to publish these.

A lot of sites removed the content, whilst some others didn't. Surprise surprise ... no legal action despite the threats.

John