I don't recall anything about waiving rights to a trial by jury in my waiver. Since my doctor was recommending LF, when I asked about the medical and psych waivers, he brushed them off saying that "nothing was going to happen to me. They don't want people mistaking LF for therapy." All the waivers were just formalities, like the signs you see in car washes where the business takes no responsibility for damage to cars being washed. Since LF was supposedly so innocuous, it was difficult to think of anything that could go wrong. And the introductory night was staged to feel like an Oprah show.

Quote

They don't want people mistaking LF for therapy

The crucial distinction here is ARE THEY or ARE THEY NOT practicing phycology ???

In the framework of the law, it makes no difference what you label a substance or a practice. The law does not look to how they purveyor defines their substance or practice. The law takes a functionalist perspective.

That means the law concerns intself with what something functionally IS or DOES.

For example, there were recently a series of raids on internet vendors who sold powerful drugs as "research chemicals". The DEA initiated Operation Web Tryp which located the physical position of these vendors, seized their articles, arrested them, and obtained lengthy prison sentences.

The Controlled Substances Act first stated that chemicals that were functionally similar in action to scheduled substances and closely chemically related were "equivalents" to controlled substances, and the law applied equally to them...

Secondly, it was of no moment that the drugs, which were in fact intended for human consumption (although always marketed with extensive disclaimers about "being for research purposes only"), were sold as materials for scientific investigation. The methods of marketing and distribution of these substances implied an intention, even is that intention was not explicitly stated.

Are we beginning to see a conceptual pattern here ?

IF you are doing stuff that has a profound emotional effect on people, on a consistent basis, you are charging good money for this stuff, the stuff you are selling comes with a strong suggestion that one's fundamental outlook on life will be changed (for the better, hopefully), and it will have a substantial impact on family dynamics, interpersonal relations in the workplace, and self image....and there is no religious affiliation involved..

WOULD a reasonable person (as in a juror) arrive at the conclusion that, regardless of what you are calling it, you are, FUNCTIONALLY, practicing psychology ?

Then, would a reasonable person ask, WHY do states require extensive training, academic study that last for over a decade, personal supervision, testing, licensing, and accountability ?

If I open my shop and call my new practice Internal Incision Healing and state investigators discover I am opening up people with a scapel then sewing them up and charging them for it, they couldn't care less what I call it, I'm practicing surgery without a license, plain and simple.

Quote
Hope
Since my doctor was recommending LF

Hope, have you thought about how deeply unethical it was for your doctor, as a licensed professional, to recommend Landmark? Have you considered reporting your doctor to the Medical Board?

Quote
nutrino
IF you are doing stuff that has a profound emotional effect on people, on a consistent basis, you are charging good money for this stuff, the stuff you are selling comes with a strong suggestion that one's fundamental outlook on life will be changed (for the better, hopefully), and it will have a substantial impact on family dynamics, interpersonal relations in the workplace, and self image....and there is no religious affiliation involved..

Yes! And, IF you are utilizing known techniques of mind control . . . (for the purpose of creating your own personal puppets/slaves)

That adds another level of . . . something.

I would LOVE to see LGATs legally challenged.

It would be interesting to see a copy of Landmark's waiver. Does anybody have the wording they can post here? Does Landmark give their participants a copy of the documents they have you sign like any reputable company would do?

Hope said:

Quote

All the waivers were just formalities, like the signs you see in car washes...

I don't know if that is your quote or your doctor's Hope, but if it is your's, I beg to differ - waivers are NOT formalities. Waivers are very serious matters that can bankrupt people and utterly ruin their life. Let's take your scenario as an example. Say your car is totalled in a car wash because the overhead blowdryer fell on your car. A waiver would absolve the car wash from compensating you. How would you feel if that happened to you and because you signed that waiver you have no legal grounds to sue the car wash owner? What's the difference between that and some drunk who totals your car by rear-ending you at a red light? You'd sue [i:51740e48fd]his[/i:51740e48fd] butt off, wouldn't you?

If we take this scenario to an extreme, what if you were sitting in the car when the blow dryer fell and you end up a paraplegic? My point is simply: don't sign your legal rights away. Ever. And don't ever think legal waivers are mere formalities. Whoever tells you that is trying to scam you or has something to hide.

It's unscrupulous wheeler-dealers who tell their victims that such waivers are "only a formality", such as shady businesspeople, fly-by-nighters and used car salesmen. Wait a minute, wasn't Werner the weiner Erhard a used car salesmen? Hee hee, Landmark reeks of Erhard in so many ways. But of course I'm not saying all used car salesmen (and women) are underhanded, I'm sure there's a lot of honest ones, but let's face it, they do have that reputation. The point I'm making is that when you are presented with a document to sign waiving your legal rights, an alarm bell should immediately go off in your head. And more so, when this waiver is not explained to you and instead are pressured to sign it, that's when it's time to get up, get out and move on. And that applies to any situation, not just Landmark. If it was just a "formality" and not covering their own butt, they wouldn't waste their time having you sign it. People do things for reasons.

But what I really want to know is how Landmark - you know, the "integrity" people, handle this phase of the recruitment process. Do they tell you that this waiver is merely "a formality"? Do they explain what this waiver means in plain English, what the implications are and under what circumstances the waiver might be invoked? Do they tell you WHY they want you to sign it? Were there perhaps legal problems Landmark faced in the past that make them feel compelled to have you sign this waiver? [i:51740e48fd]Do they explain ANYTHING about this waiver[/i:51740e48fd]? Or do they merely gloss over it, tell you its nothing to worry about and pressure you to sign? And once you do sign this document do they give you a copy for your personal records? If not, I wonder why - after all, that is common business practice. When do you ever buy anything without getting a receipt? When do you ever sign a contract or agreement without receiving a copy for yourself? If Landmark DOESN'T provide copies, I'll bet its because they don't want you taking it to your lawyer. But here I'm speculating; I just don't know if they provide copies or not. Sonnie _dee, maybe you can answer that question.

And again, if anybody has the wording of the waiver, I'd really appreciate you posting it.

Excalibur Wrote:

Quote

It would be interesting to see a copy of Landmark's waiver. Does anybody have the wording they can post here? Does Landmark give their participants a copy of the documents they have you sign like any reputable company would do?

The following link is to a thread of Nov 2004 that gives links to an embeded copy of the Landmark Participant Agreement together with an analysis. In it, I made the point how the agreement is contradictory, stating that it does not use psychotherapy techniques yet describes Gestalt Therapy - IMHO, this is a point of law to test.

[b:74c9887b6f]Personal Information[/b:74c9887b6f] - an analysis of the LE Agreement (please read the whole thread)
[board.culteducation.com]

Oz

A few things re Landmark's agreement.

I'd like to hear from Landmark what technology they use to help people create new possibilities. Quote: The Landmark Forum offers a unique technology through which people create new possibilities for their lives.

Landmark assumes that your presence in the The Landmark Forum indicates that you are "fully aware of what you are undertaking". However, the "unique technology" is secret. The main thing revealed about the Program is that it is (*incredibly) stressful. Stress is mentioned *over and *over and *over. Fully aware of what you're undertaking? How can that be? And why all the stress? Since when is [i:d76bc16cb4]education[/i:d76bc16cb4] so stressful?

When I signed a similar agreement (different LGAT) I was in therapy at the time, and just as Landmark's agreement instructs you to get your therapist's assurance that there is no health reason your attending would be inadvisable, mine did too. So, I asked my therapist who replied: since he knew nothing about the program, he couldn't assure anything. That didn't stop the LGAT from taking my money and turning me into a salesperson for them. HA.

But Landmark's agreement goes on to say that they will provide "whatever information about the Program you or your physician or mental health professional require for you to make an informed decision." WILL THEY REALLY DO THAT? It might be interesting to run a test on that.

Right. Got it. No contradictions here.

"It is not therapeutic in design, intent, or methodology
and is not a substitute for medical treatment, psychotherapy, or any health program, regardless of what you may have
heard from anyone. The Program will not address issues which are best dealt with by physicians, psychotherapists, or
other health professionals"

Then they want to enter into a "philosophical converstion" about your "rackets"... excuse my ignorance, but isn't that precisely what psychologist do ? Regardless of what I may have heard from anyone ?

"You are responsible for your health and well-being at all times during the Program"

Translation: don't come whining to us if you have a crack up.

"You may not know what might happen to you when you come in to this training, but whatever happens, you did it to yourself."


Next question.

Thanks Concerned Oz, that's exactly what I wanted to see.

Quote

"BY SIGNING THIS I AM AGREEING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THE LANDMARK FORUM DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AND I AM FREELY GIVING UP MY RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL."

Okay, how do I articulate this? Well, I'll give it a try. Here goes: THERE IS NO WAY, NO HOW, NOT FOR ONE SECOND, NOT FOR ONE MINUTE, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS, NOT IF YOU TIED ME TO A TREE BY MY BIG TOE AND SWUNG ME BACK AND FORTH, NOT IF YOU GAVE ME 10 FREE HOOKERS A WEEK FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, NOT IF YOU BOUGHT ME A 15 YEAR TIME SHARE IN TAHITI would I ever even THINK ABOUT signing an agreement or waiver with the above mentioned wording, with Landmark or any other organization. You'd have to be nutz to sign such a document! I'm starting to think they must serve taquila at these Landmark introductory sessions to get you so drunk you'll sign anything. How ANYONE would not have some major-league suspicions as to why this clause is included in the agreement in the first place is totally and completely beyond me.

But I will give Landmark some credit. The contract does say, "

Quote

The Agreements below and on the back page are intended to have legal significance. If you have any questions about their
meaning, please feel free to consult an attorney."

As well, the actual waiver (see wording in my first quote) is in capital letters on the contract so as to stand out. So I don't know why sonnie_dee said,:

Quote

... however like me and mostly like everyone else most of us read it and it went over our heads, use of legal jargon for most people is like a sleeping pill, it numbs you to what is actually being said.

The wording is not legalese at all; it's quite clear and I don't see why it would go over anyone's head.

But I still want to know what would happen if you told a Landmark recruiter you want to take the agreement to a lawyer before signing. Because I've heard from so many different places that Landmark staff are trained to make you sign up the day you step into their offices and put the most extreme of extremist pressure to get you to do so. For example, I've heard that if you don't sign up, they tell you that's your sickness talking and you have to push through it. In that vein, what's the use of the agreement advising you to see a lawyer if you already signed the damned thing?

Has anyone said to a Landmark recruiter, "before I sign this agreement I want to take it to my lawyer?" Or does anyone know someone else who did? I'd like to know how the Landmark recruiter responded.