maybe there are some grad judges in the
new jurisdiction. maybe there are more landmark
grads that could be picked as jurors if this is
to become a jury trial.

any ideas ?

that was my first thought, and if not a grad judge, maybe a background check on the judge in the new county is presumed to be of like mind with how landmark plans on selling its case in the court room.
Or maybe the judge in the last county was openly aware and vocal of what landmark is...whatever the actual reason, landmark definately believes it had better chances in the next county.
They must not have a very solid defense to have to resort to building advantage through the physical setting of the trial.

Landmark made a motion for summary judgement, and it looks like the judge granted final judgement in favor of Landmark.
[www.oscn.net]

The text of the judgement would be interesting reading, but I don't see it on the case page.
Has anyone seen any press articles about the ending of this case?

I wonder how many promotional speeches by landmark will be based on this judgement...

At the end of the day, no matter how many lawsuits are judged in favor of the bad guys, they are still a destructive, self-interested, and inherently vicious organization. It seems that it remains up to the good sense of the consumer not to get sucked in and not to be deceived by what appears to be a positive model for living. I've come to realize that there is no way to dissuade the brainwashed from seeing the truth about their cult but I have also learned that prevention is powerful.

Since the loss of a once great friend to landmark (including the friends' family) I have managed to warn hundreds of people who would have been sitting ducks for culprits like landmark. In one case I have brought cult (landmark) awareness to a community organization which will in turn warn other associated organizations about the dangers of landmark or any organization that resembles it. It's too late for the victims but not too late for the untouched.

Hopefully the legal systems of North America will clue in to the unethical methods of cult driven organizations masquerading as 'businesses' but until such time, it is up to us who are aware to make sure the unsuspecting around us have been informed and warned.

Quote
joe6
Landmark made a motion for summary judgement, and it looks like the judge granted final judgement in favor of Landmark.
[www.oscn.net]

The text of the judgement would be interesting reading, but I don't see it on the case page.
Has anyone seen any press articles about the ending of this case?

From the top of their web page, it looks like there was some sort of html coding error at the top there as well. I'm not so sure on this one with the summary judgement thing, I mean, yeah it is a motion, but nothing there says that the case is closed, or something like that.

> I'm not so sure on this one with the summary judgement thing, I mean, yeah it is a motion, but nothing there says that the case is closed, or something like that.
Good point. It looks like the case is still open with Jason Weed as defendant, but it does look like Landmark is dismissed as defendant.

Hearing to "vacate entry of judgement" set for July 25, 2007
[www.oscn.net]

After the judge granted final judement in favor of Landmark, it looks like the plaintiff, Jeanne Been, got a couple new lawyers on May 9 and made a motion to vacate the judgement. I'm not a lawyer, but presumably if the hearing is successful, then Landmark is back in the case as a defendant.

The hearing was held yesterday. The meeting notes say "Plaintiff's motion to vacate entry of judgement is denied."
[www.oscn.net]

I'm not a lawyer but it sounds to me that the judgement stands that grants a dismissal to Landmark in the case. Does anyone else have info on this. I haven't seen any press on it.

Quote
joe6
The hearing was held yesterday. The meeting notes say "Plaintiff's motion to vacate entry of judgement is denied."
[www.oscn.net]

I'm not a lawyer but it sounds to me that the judgement stands that grants a dismissal to Landmark in the case. Does anyone else have info on this. I haven't seen any press on it.

My guess is that this is probably not the end of this case with regards to Landmark Education and the death of Robert Jenkins - but we will probably just have to wait and see for the time being ...

More info:
[lgattruth.blogspot.com]

Quote
ajinajan

Quote
joe6
The hearing was held yesterday. The meeting notes say "Plaintiff's motion to vacate entry of judgement is denied."
[www.oscn.net]

I'm not a lawyer but it sounds to me that the judgement stands that grants a dismissal to Landmark in the case. Does anyone else have info on this. I haven't seen any press on it.

My guess is that this is probably not the end of this case with regards to Landmark Education and the death of Robert Jenkins - but we will probably just have to wait and see for the time being ...

More info:
[lgattruth.blogspot.com]

What does this mean ?

[www.oscn.net]

Quote

09-12-2007 CTFREE - 64673308 Sep 12 2007 11:31:11:810AM - $ 0.00
NIGHTINGALE, REBECCA: GRANTED - ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

09-12-2007 O - 64674010 Sep 12 2007 12:00:35:387PM - $ 0.00
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT / DENIED