Quote

from the website of Lowenstein and Sandler LLC:

Peter L. Skolnik is Chair of the firm's Media and Entertainment Practice, and concentrates his litigation practice in the areas of media and entertainment law, First Amendment law, intellectual property litigation and counseling, and complex civil litigation.

Mr. Skolnik counsels clients and litigates copyright and trademark matters around the country for high tech companies, publishers, broadcasters, authors, literary estates and arts organizations. He represented the Estate of Vladimir Nabokov successfully in a highly celebrated case involving infringement of the copyright to Lolita; successfully defended David Chase, creator of The Sopranos, through litigation and trial concerning early development of the enormously successful television series; and defended filmmaker Jamie Johnson against an invasion of privacy suit arising from his award-winning documentary for HBO, Born Rich, in which Mr. Skolnik appears.

Mr. Skolnik will also appear in a documentary being completed for RAI Italian television, discussing his successful First Amendment pro bono defense of cult expert Rick Ross, in defamation litigation brought by Landmark Education about criticisms of Landmark’s “Forum” that appear on Ross’s internet web site.

Quote

After a year, Landmark moved to dismiss its case with prejudice, saying newly decided case law undermined its position.

Ross' attorney, Peter Skolnik of Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, wanted to go on litigating. He asked U.S. District Judge John Lifland to condition dismissal on allowing further discovery of Landmark's training materials and on its history of litigation against critics.

Skolnik hoped the additional discovery would show that Landmark acted in bad faith because postings about it on Ross' site were substantially true. He also sought to recover legal fees -- which he estimates to be in the six figures -- based on the assertion of bad faith.

Lans argued that Skolnik's request for extended discovery was an attempt to litigate the merits of the case after the complaint was withdrawn. Skolnik admits that demonstrating bad faith necessarily touches on the underlying merits.

But on Dec. 28, Lifland pulled the plug on further discovery and the fee application, saying, "This is not a case where attorneys' fees are authorized by statute. Moreover, there are neither exceptional circumstances nor a private agreement between the parties. Therefore, Defendants' request for attorneys' fees and for further discovery in this matter, as a condition of dismissal, is overly broad and without legal support." Landmark Education LLC v. The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey, 04-3022.

Landmark dropped its suit in the wake of the Appellate Division ruling in Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475 (2005), which held the operator of a Web site immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 for anonymous postings that two local politicians claimed to be libelous.

Lans acknowledged that the Donato ruling had an impact only on that portion of her complaint dealing with Ross' message boards but said that issue was "difficult to disentangle" from the rest of the case. "Landmark is an educational institution and as you might expect it picks its battles carefully," she says.

But in addition to the suit against Ross, Landmark has sued media outlets and critics four times in its 14-year history, according to a certification filed in the New Jersey case by the company's general counsel, Arthur Schreiber.

Says Skolnik, "The primary objective here was to get a ruling that would make them think twice about such litigation in the future."

Quote
rrmoderator
Everyone should get a kick out of this.

Received a letter Federal Express from Werner Erhard's old buddy and lawyer Art Schreiber.

It seems Mr. Erhard didn't like the sound clip of him rapping to Reggae music, which has been linked below his photo on the EST page.

See [www.culteducation.com]

It will be taken down per Schreiber's urgent request, in which he claimed "copyright infringement" and cited the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

Oh well, whatever, wasn't a popular link or important in any way, so it will be taken down.

The parody of Erhard was a bit funny, but it seems that Schreiber and Erhard didn't "get it."

Just thought everyone here might find Schreiber' little fit amusing.

There is no loser like a sore loser.

Seems Mr. Schreiber is still smarting over his humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey.

See [www.culteducation.com]

It's pretty bad and very difficult to spin such a total loss, after all when a lawyer dismisses his own lawsuit with prejudice and receives nothing through the litigation from the defendant, it certainly doesn't demonstrate any legal skill.

But then Schreiber seems to have a job for life, working for Erhard's brother and sister as Landmark's "General Counsel."

Who else would be willing to hire the guy and pay him the same?