Current Page: 22 of 34
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 04, 2005 08:34AM

No! Never heard of it, I am going to get it right away.
There need to be more books done by investigative reporters into this massive Self-Help racket.
Self-help is fine and good, but it really is an absurd joke what is going on these days. I agree with the blurb from his book.

Sham : How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless
by Steve Salerno

I will contact the author with info about this thread and others. It could be he is well aware of it, but his lawyers killed it for fear of LAWSUITS by Robbins and others. Robbins will sue for very little. As mentioned he is suing several large media companies in Canada as we speak.

When Robbins people killed ALL dissent on his website, it was very ugly. There was only ONE guy who posted extreme stuff, the other 2 dozen or so people were more mixed. So when they killed ALL dissent, and now block all customer complaints before anyone sees them, that shows how the ugly underbelly of Robbins work MUST be supressed from awareness.
Buyers Remorse is the ultimate enemy of a salesman.

The reality is that the facts and the truth about the Persusaion process have to be basically supressed for it to work properly.

I am fortunate as i saw Robbins almost from the beginning, so i have had many years to watch his techniques and see them develop. Also, in the early days, they were more overt with all the "Mind Control" stuff, that is, they taught you what they were doing to you as they were doing it.


Have you seen the book, SHAM (How the Self Help Movement made America helpless)? There's a chapter on Robbins and all of his ups and downs (Q Link, Dreamlife, juicy stuff, lol).

There's also a part about the Robbins message board! The author briefly wrote about the moderators deleting some controversial threads and "cleaning" up other unwanted posts. LOL.

You should have consulted with him on the book. He doesn't discuss any of the techniques that have propelled him to #1.

An interesting read overall.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 04, 2005 08:56AM

Yeah, that is a good point.
From the start, Bonnie/Sage wanted to be a part of the Robbins Myth Machine, so a perfect start is to create a new identity, and a name change is a perfect start.
Its like Hollywood, where they use their personal Romance to promote their movies. In this case, they use their relationship to sell those types of products. It works great on people!

But who knows what will eventually go on behind closed doors!
At a Hawaii seminar he openly stated how much he was in love with the old wife Becky, and how she was his partner for life, etc. It was proven on the old Robbins board from people who were there that Robbins was lying through his TEETH about all that BS, as him and Becky were estranged for a long time already at that point.
Many people were so angry at him for lying to their faces at that seminar, and then getting divorced a couple of months later. They were angry as they only then realized what a skilled liar the guy is. It really freaked them out.
This is why all that info had to be deleted. Its very damaging. This is why he is suing those media outlets as well.
It cuts to the CORE of his alleged "character" which is one of the main selling points he uses.

I think it is very healthy to have a healthy skepticism and to carefully analyze what we are being sold.
Robbins is a very seductive person, both to men and to women. This is done deliberately by him.
It was even shown in the Unconscious Influence thread on the Robbins site, how Robbins works to make women "love him".
He does it very deliberately with unconscious communication and the way he edits his infomercial, etc.

He used to teach that stuff overtly, but now does not, except perhaps in some of the "advanced" courses.
But he has to be careful, as he got busted doing some "Unconscious Commands" in one of his informercials, and some media outlets picked up on it, and showed it.
This makes people not "trust" him, so i guess he figures he has to really "hide" most of that stuff now.

I am new here, but interested.

For starters something I thought was kind of funny:

Sage has interesting meanings like

- a mentor in spiritual and philosophical topics who is renowned for profound wisdom
- having wisdom that comes with age and experience

Once your name was Bonnie it will not do for being mrs. Robbins, eh.
So you change it...

I've been to Mastery University and I learned a lot from Robbins' self help techniques, they just really help. Especially that I have a least some reponsibility for the paths I take in life, it's also inspiring and in a way uplifting. Although I am sure this is some basic thing I should have learned from parents or other peer- people.

These days I am sceptical though for all the reasons I read here also this board.

I keep reading here and posting every once in a while..



Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 05, 2005 09:28AM

This Robbins trial is fascinating stuff!
It seems like is covering it, but if anyone knows of any other news outlets covering it, please let me know.

Its a bit hard to follow, but there is some interesting stuff in todays proceedings.


What is interesting is that Robbins approached Bonnie at his seminar and told her she had a "beautiful soul" and an "amazing aura". :-)
That's a good one!

Also, they were communicating during the seminar, and went to a broadway show together right after the seminar, and he flew her and her sister to Fiji on his COMPANY credit card!
Also, what is most fascinating, is that Robbins gave "free tickets" to his dreaded "Date With Destiny" seminar TO ALL OF HER SISTERS!
This seminar is where Robbins gets DEEPLY inside of your brain, and really messes with your mind on the deepest level.

"The sisters did not pay to attend the seminar. He later learned that Mr. Robbins had arranged to have the seminar fees waived for the four sisters.
Soon after returning from the seminar, Ms. Zacklin (sister) separated from her husband, Richard Zacklin. Ms. Farnsworth (sister) ended her three-year common-law relationship within days of arriving home..."

Do you see how amazing this is?
Robbins is so persuasive, that right after his seminar, Bonnie's sisters go and END their marriages!
Isn't that interesting?
Robbins got Bonnie to also leave her husband! The guy broke up at least 3 marriages!
This guy is totally unreal.
These are the kinds of things that happen right after his seminars. People get worked into a frenzy, and then wreck their relationships.
In this case, it seems it "all about Tony". He wanted Bonnie to end her marriage, so he brings her and her sisters to his seminar FOR FREE, and likely focussed on "relationships" and did some mass hypnosis about "ending your marriage", then her sisters go and end their marriages within DAYS of the seminar! Right around then, Bonnie also ended her marriage!

This is the kind of power Robbins can wield over people.

Its such a cynical act to take a group of sisters to "Date With Destiny" when they have no previous knowledge of what he does to people in that very intense seminar. Then he is able to unconsciously to persuade them to end their marriages, and do the same thing he got their sister to do!

This is fascinating stuff.
The trial continues...

Mr. Robbins says the broadcasts and the following articles in The Sun and other CanWest papers infer that he was an adulterous hypocrite who stole the wife of a Langley resident, John Lynch. The Sun and the other media defendants claim that the implication in the stories, that the hypocritical Mr. Robbins's theft of Mr. Lynch's wife caused the man to attempt suicide, was true, and that the articles were not defamatory.

(everyone knows Robbins owns a retreat in Fiji)
In January, 2000, Mrs. Robbins and her oldest sister Debbie Humphrey flew to Fiji. Mr. Anderson suggested that they flew there for a visit with Mr. Robbins, but Mr. Humphrey told the lawyer that he did not know that Mr. Robbins was there. Mr. Anderson pointed out that Mr. Robbins picked up the tab for Ms. Humphrey's plane ticket, and showed Mr. Humphrey a photocopy of a Robbins's company credit card statement from January, 2000, that paid for Ms. Humphrey's flight to Fiji. Mr. Humphrey said that he had not been aware of the payment arrangements of the Fijian trip.

Mr. Anderson then asked Mr. Humphrey if he understood that one of the issues in the trial was the state of the relationship between Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins in late 1999 and early 2000, or that his daughter Ms. Humphrey could be a potentially valuable witness in the trial. Mr. Humphrey said the thought had never occurred to him.

(Robbins next sent Bonnie's sister to Italy fro drug treatment, AT THE SAME TIME THEY WERE TRYING TO SERVE HER WITH A SUPOENA concering this trial!)

On Sept. 4, 2004, Ms. Humphrey went into a detox centre on Vancouver Island for a few weeks, while her family tried to secure her a passport. Mr. Robbins had found a drug rehabilitation centre in Italy for Ms. Humphrey, and she returned to her parents house overnight in the beginning of October. She was on a plane to Italy the next morning. The facility is very strict in its rules, allowing its patients no phone calls and very limited contact with the outside world.

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Humphrey if in early September, 2004, he spoke with a process server at the Humphrey house, who was trying to deliver a subpoena to Ms. Humphrey. Mr. Humphrey said he did not. Someone spoke with this process server, Mr. Anderson continued, and told him that Ms. Humphrey was out of town and would return on a Tuesday. By that date, Ms. Humphrey was on Vancouver Island in the detox centre. Mr. Humphrey agreed with Mr. Anderson's prompting that if someone had told the process server his daughter was out of town, that person would have been mistaken.

Mrs. Robbins did not tell her father right away about her first meeting with Mr. Robbins at the September, 1999, seminar. Mr. Anderson read an excerpt from Mr. Robbins's examination for discovery about that first meeting. On the first day of the seminar, Mr. Robbins approached Mrs. Robbins and told her that she had a "beautiful soul" and an "amazing aura," and that he hoped to get to know her better. On the last day of the seminar, the two talked about many things, including spirituality, her life, and her interest in hospice care and dying people, as well as Fiji and the Fijian people. Mr. Humphrey repeated that his daughter had not told him any of that at the time.

Mrs. Robbins, now 32, apparently also did not tell her father that she went to a Broadway show with Mr. Robbins in November, 1999, nor that she called Mr. Robbins often after their September, 1999, meeting.

After all these questions about what Mrs. Robbins did or did not tell her father, Mr. Anderson abruptly asked if Mrs. Robbins was hiding things from her father. Mr. McConchie stood up quickly and objected to the question. Judge Williamson excused Mr. Humphrey from the court while the lawyers discussed the question.

Mr. Anderson told the judge that because Mr. Humphrey had testified that he was close to his daughter, but did not know all of the details of her developing relationship with the self-help guru, it might call into question the credibility of his testimony. The other option was that Mrs. Robbins deliberately hid things from her family about her and Mr. Robbins.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 05, 2005 04:35PM

[Its very ironic that Robbins launched this lawsuit to create a libel chill around him like Scientology and other cults, yet the trial is revealing so much about his REAL self. I am very glad the lawyers have decided to fight this Robbins bully, and stick to their guns.
It shows what kind of guy Robbins really is. He got into a spat with his wife's sisters husband, as he was WRESTLING with her during an xmas holiday! Then later he and his new wife did NOT attend the wedding of his wife's sister! This is the same sister he had a "wrestling match" with, which made her husband jealous and upset both of them. Was he going after his wife's sister too?

This tells you alot about Robbins right there. The guy figures he can do whatever he wants, and get away with it.
Then, he does not even attend the wedding of his sister-in-law. What a crock, considering what he allegedly "teaches".
This guy has the worst interpersonal skills, and the most screwed up family life you can imagine. And here he gets away selling countless tapes on this very subject! Talk about irony.

Also, they have Robbins on video soaking his new wife with a water gun at another seminar of his, when he "didn't know her" yet. Wink Wink.
In Robbins recent program, "Get The Edge" he has a chapter about how he met his new wife, and talks about how there is a picture of them together, and he goes on and on trying to explain how this happened. Why? Because she was MARRIED at the time! So he does this big song and dance, and i recall the first time i heard it, i laughed out loud, as it was obvious he was trying to do some Damage Control about how he met this woman. It was obvious he met this hot chic at his psychological seminar, and then started a relationship with her.
But this is so damaging to his Public Image, he has to try and cover it up.
Just like he covers up everything else he has done to people, usually under the threat of lawsuits.
If anyone near Robbins spoke up, he would sue them into bankruptcy, as he has everyone sign confidentiality agreements.

It just goes on and on.
Robbins lives under a veil of secrecy, due to his ability to SUE anyone who dares speak about him.
It will be very interesting to see how the judge rules in this case.

But regardless, Tony got what he wanted.
Just sue the media, and soon they will leave you alone, as its too expensive.
And this is his "fans" beloved Tony Robbins.
What a total farce.


CanWest's Sun trial hears McConchie won't call Robbins

2005-07-04 22:39 ET - Street Wire

by Stockwatch Business Reporter

Langley resident Arnie Farnsworth became jealous of self-help guru Tony Robbins after a Christmas wrestling match between Mr. Robbins and Mr. Farnsworth's wife, Barbara, at a family gathering for Christmas 2000. This was revealed during the afternoon session of the trial of Tony Robbins versus The Vancouver Sun on Monday.

The court also heard on Monday that Mr. Robbins's lawyer, Roger McConchie, does not plan on calling Mr. Robbins or his wife Sage Robbins to take the stand. Mr. McConchie, in a letter to the media sent Monday evening, said, "Now that The Sun's key sources have admitted in court that the facts of The Sun's June 2001 story were untrue, I see no reason to subject Mr. Robbins or his wife to several days of unnecessary testimony."

Mr. Robbins is suing The Sun and several other media outlets for publishing the story of Mrs. Robbins's ex-husband, John Lynch, in June, 2001. The Sun reported that Mr. Lynch lost his wife to Mr. Robbins after she attended one of Mr. Robbins's motivational seminars in September, 1999.

Mr. Robbins says The Sun's words meant he is an adulterous hypocrite. The Sun denies that its words bore any defamatory meaning. Mr. Lynch, also named as a co-defendant, apologized mid-trial for his part in the stories and was dropped from the suit.

Tony cools down the crowd

The afternoon session began on Monday with Vancouver Sun lawyer Rob Anderson questioning Mrs. Robbins's father, Langley resident Bill Humphrey, about video clips taken at a January, 2000, motivational seminar in Tampa, Fla.

The clips portrayed Mr. Robbins squirting a jubilant, cheering crowd with a large water gun. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Humphrey if he could identify his daughter Bonnie (Mrs. Robbins was known as Bonnie Lynch at the time) as one of those dampened by the motivational speaker.

Mr. Humphrey, after watching the clip twice, confirmed Mr. Robbins did get his daughter with the wetting weapon.

Mr. Anderson also played other clips from the same seminar, showing Bonnie dancing and mingling with the crowd. Mr. Humphrey confirmed that the blonde in the clips was his daughter Bonnie.

A night in Whistler

Bonnie apparently attended the Tampa seminar one month after a trip she made to Whistler with her then husband, Mr. Lynch, in December, 1999. Mr. Anderson, in another line of questioning, asked Mr. Humphrey if he knew Bonnie went to Whistler with Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Humphrey confirmed they did go to Whistler, and added that they went there to reach a separation agreement. Mr. Humphrey could not recall if they spent a night there.

He also said he did not know that a third person, identified by Mr. Anderson as Alan Lawrence, had gone on that trip. Mr. Humphrey said he had no idea who Mr. Lawrence was.

Mr. Anderson then asked Mr. Humphrey if he knew who the best man was at the wedding of his daughter and Mr. Lynch. Mr. Humphrey said he did not recall.

The Christmas spat

That wedding aside, Mr. Anderson also asked about the wedding of one of Mr. Humphrey's other daughters, Barbara. After establishing that weddings in the Humphrey family are generally family affairs, he asked Mr. Humphrey if Mr. Robbins and Bonnie attended that wedding.

Mr. Humphrey told him they were invited, but did not attend.

Mr. Anderson then asked Mr. Humphrey about a dispute the prior Christmas between daughter Barbara's husband, Mr. Farnsworth, and daughter Bonnie's husband, Mr. Robbins.

Mr. Humphrey confirmed that Mr. Farnsworth became jealous of Mr. Robbins after Mrs. Farnsworth was in a wrestling match of some sort with Mr. Robbins. Mr. Humphrey was not sure of the details, saying he only learned about it later, but confirmed that daughter Barbara was upset about it.

Mr. Anderson did not delve any further into the subject.

Ted Chernecki, not Pamela Martin

Mr. Anderson did delve into an inconsistency in Mr. Humphrey's earlier testimony about a speakerphone call in which he said he played a BCTV newscast, live, to Mr. and Mrs. Robbins. Mr. Anderson suggested that Mr. Humphrey identified the incorrect newscast for the court in his earlier testimony.

Mr. Humphrey, in that earlier questioning, said he played a BCTV newscast advertising The Sun's story over the phone. That newscast, hosted by then BCTV anchor Pamela Martin, explained how The Sun planned to print Mr. Lynch's story the following day.

Mr. Humphrey, in the earlier testimony, confirmed he played the Pamela Martin newscast over the phone.

Mr. Anderson, however, suggested it was the late night newscast hosted by Ted Chernecki that Mr. Humphrey played over the speakerphone. Mr. Humphrey eventually agreed.

(The newscasts, both played earlier in the trial, were nearly identical.)

John Lynch, "You're a great man"

Mr. Anderson also questioned Mr. Humphrey at some length about trips made by Mr. and Mrs. Lynch, as they were then known, to Cancun, Mexico, and San Francisco, Calif. Leading Mr. Humphrey through photographs and Mr. Lynch's Visa bills, Mr. Anderson asked and Mr. Humphrey somewhat confirmed the Lynches made the two trips.

Mr. Robbins's lawyer, Mr. McConchie, raised several objections to Mr. Anderson showing Mr. Humphrey documents he had not seen before. The judge, however, allowed the documents.

Mr. Anderson then asked Mr. Humphrey to read a portion of a letter Bonnie wrote to Mr. Lynch ahead of the July, 1998, San Francisco trip. "I'm looking forward to San Fran, you're a great man, Bonnie," the then Mrs. Lynch wrote.

Mr. Humphrey also confirmed for the court that Mr. Lynch and his daughter bought a Langley house together on Nov. 20, 1998.

The Cancun photos

A point of great contention late Monday afternoon was the admissibility of photographs from the Cancun trip. It is not entirely clear what the photos depict, but Mr. Anderson says they show the state of the relationship between Mr. Lynch and Bonnie at the time of the trip, June, 1999.

Mr. McConchie argued the pictures should not be admitted because they were submitted two days after the deadline for submitting documents for the trial.

The judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Williamson, disagreed. He said the fact that the pictures came in after the deadline (seven days before the commencement of the trial, June 20 in this case) is offset by the length of time the trial has taken.

As a result of the ruling, Mr. Anderson will begin Tuesday morning questioning Mr. Humphrey about the photos. At that time the media may learn more of their contents.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 05, 2005 05:28PM

By the way, if anyone reading this still posts on the Robbins forum, it would be great if they might post the links from in a new thread about the trial in Vancouver.


I know they won't allow these links, now that the trial has gotten juicer and more personal.
Of course the True Believers will always "reframe" any information they receive, but more skeptical people will give it due consideration.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 06, 2005 12:35PM

[you will notice by this timeline, that Robbins was already DEEPLY and personally involved with Bonnie BEFORE she was divorced, and was still living with her husband. He was giving her free trips, seeing broadway plays with her, talking with her on the phone all the time, and flew her to his RESORT that he owns in Fiji, paid for by ROBBINS COMPANY!
Is that a legal business expense?
I think you will see in the days ahead, when the Media lawyers start up, that there is more to this story than even this....]


The contentious timeline, so far
· June 5, 1993: John Lynch and Bonnie Lynch marry.
· September, 1999: Mrs. Lynch goes to Hawaii to work at a Robbins seminar. She meets Mr. Robbins and they talk about life.
· November, 1999: Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Lynch are seen at a Broadway show in New York.
· New Year's Day: Mrs. Lynch spends New Year's at her parents' house in Langley. Mr. Lynch is not in attendance.
· Early January, 2000: Mrs. Lynch and her sister Debbie Humphrey fly to Fiji for a visit with Mr. Robbins. Ms. Humphrey's ticket was paid for by a Robbins company.
· Mid-January, 2000: Mrs. Lynch moves into the apartment above the garage at the Lynch home.
· Late January, 2000: Mrs. Lynch and her three sisters travel to Florida to attend a "Date With Destiny" Robbins seminar. The conference fees for the sisters are waived.
· Jan. 30, 2000: Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Lynch formally begin divorce proceedings.
· March, 2000: Mrs. Lynch buys a condominium and moves out of the Lynch house.
· August, 2000: Mr. Robbins makes a surprise appearance at Mrs. Lynch's birthday dinner in Langley, B.C., and meets her family.
· June 7, 2001: The first allegedly defamatory article appears in The Vancouver Sun.
· June 21, 2001: The divorce between Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Lynch is finalized.
· Oct. 14, 2001: Mr. Robbins and the former Mrs. Lynch, now known as Sage Robbins, marry.
Apology row

Before Mr. Anderson began his opening remarks, he wanted to deal with the two apologies and retractions from Mr. Lynch. (Mr. Lynch, formerly a defendant in the lawsuit, settled out-of-court with Mr. Robbins after the trial began. Part of his settlement included issuing a formal apology and retraction that was read in open court on June 24, 2005. Mr. Lynch was subsequently dropped as a defendant from the lawsuit.) The Sun lawyer argued that he was unable to find any instance in law when a plaintiff could use evidence documents, including apologies, that were not entered through a witness's testimony.

Another area of contention was the settlement itself. Mr. Anderson said that unless Mr. McConchie disclosed all background to the settlement between Mr. Lynch and Mr. Robbins, he could not know if Mr. Lynch made the apology out of the goodness of his heart, or if he was induced or threatened into settling. Until he knew, Mr. Anderson argued, the court could not know what weight to give the untested apology and retraction.

Mr. McConchie observed that this lawsuit may be unique in Canadian jurisprudence. He could find no other case when a set of media defendants continued to argue a defence that the meaning of the articles were true, after the sources for the articles admitted in open court that they had lied. He did not maintain the apology, read to the court by Mr. Lynch's lawyer, was in as a matter of truth; it would only go toward damages at the end of the lawsuit. It was up to the judge to decide when Mr. Lynch was lying: when he spoke with Sun reporter Mr. Lee in June, 2001, or when he apologized in June, 2005.

The judge reserved his decision until after lunch, when the trial continues.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 06, 2005 12:52PM

[Robbins suffers a crucial defeat!! The guy who was accusing Robbins of stealing his wife, "apologized" to Robbins, and was dropped from the lawsuit. But the judge wisely noted that there could have been a deal made, or he was "buying peace by settling". So the so-called apology is not going to have any bearing on the judges verdict! Now the Media's lawyers are going to start up, so i think things will get really juicy now. Robbins sure BLEW IT with this case. He has made a this situation much worse by exposing all his dirty details, and win or lose, he has made it worse for himself.

Robbins lost another lawsuit a while ago, and was forced to pay over $650,000 to Wade Cook for STEALING that guys financial info, and putting it into his seminar.
This is how arrogant Robbins is. He goes and BLATANTLY STEALS Wade Cook's info, and then puts it in his seminar. Then he fights a lawsuit and LOSES, which proved he stole this other guys work. OUTRIGHT THEFT without any conscience whatsoever. And the jury ruled against Robbins for stealing this guys stuff. (Robbins mentions in almost every tape how others are always "stealing" his stuff....what a hypocrite)

Robbins blatantly STOLE others work for decades, and just changed the words, and got away with it in most cases.
Hopefully this lawsuit will blow up in his face too. I am so happy the media has decided to FIGHT this bully Robbins, and support the freedom of the press to print critical stories about public figures. We don't live in a fascist state, yet. Robbins CANNOT STAND being criticized, it drives him crazy.]


CanWest's Sun trial hears Lynch apology inadmissible

2005-07-05 20:47 ET - Street Wire

by Stockwatch Business Reporter

The apology of John Lynch, ex-husband of Tony Robbins's wife, will not be used in the libel trial of Anthony Robbins versus The Vancouver Sun and others. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Williamson ruled Tuesday afternoon in The Sun's favour.

Judge Williamson ruled in favour of The Sun's lawyer, Rob Anderson, who argued he should have a chance to examine Mr. Lynch about the circumstances surrounding his apology.

Mr. Robbins is suing The Vancouver Sun and other media outlets over stories published in June, 2001. Mr. Robbins says those stories meant he is an adulterous hypocrite who stole another man's wife. In those stories, The Sun reported that Langley resident Mr. Lynch became depressed and suicidal after his wife left him for Mr. Robbins.

The Sun, for its part, says the stories do not bear the defamatory meaning Mr. Robbins attaches to them and is fighting the lawsuit.

Mr. Lynch, initially a defendant alongside The Sun, apologized mid-trial and was dropped from the suit. In the apology Mr. Lynch admitted he never attempted suicide and Mr. Robbins did not destroy his marriage.

"I offer my sincere apology for any embarrassment, damage and inconvenience that my inaccuracies caused Mr. Robbins. I have committed to make a substantial contribution to a charity of Tony Robbins' choice," Mr. Lynch said.

The Lynch apology is out

Judge Williamson, however, will no longer consider that apology when he makes his final ruling. The judge agreed with Sun lawyer Mr. Anderson, who contended that the there may be an agreement between Mr. Lynch and Mr. Robbins that he should be given the chance to explore.

In his ruling, the judge pointed out that Mr. Anderson's argument led to the question of whether Mr. Lynch is telling the truth or buying peace by settling. Mr. Lynch and Mr. Robbins could have reached "some sort of agreement," the judge said.

The order of events

It appears, at least from the testimony to date, that Mr. Lynch's ex-wife Bonnie: attended a Tony Robbins seminar in Hawaii in September, 1999; attended a show with Mr. Robbins in New York in November, 1999; and negotiated a separation agreement with Mr. Lynch in December, 1999.

Mr. Anderson, undoubtedly, will present more details of the chronology of events when he begins his side of the case.

Roger McConchie rests his case

Judge Williamson, at the end of Tuesday's session, granted Mr. Robbins's lawyer, Mr. McConchie, some time to consider if he wanted to present further evidence in light of the apology's inadmissibility. Mr. McConchie, who had already rested his case, did not reply immediately. However, a statement to the media issued Tuesday evening suggests he is resting his case.

"Following the completion of Bill Humphrey's testimony today in BC Supreme Court, lawyers for Anthony Robbins rested their case in Mr. Robbins's libel trial against the Vancouver Sun and several other media defendants.


With Mr. McConchie resting his case, Sun lawyer Mr. Anderson begins presenting his case Wednesday morning.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 06, 2005 01:04PM

[too bad all the other guys who Robbins has ripped off have not sued him. He paid quite a few of them off out of court, like Richard Bandler...]

October 1, 1998
Jury hands Wade Cook copyright victory

A jury in Tacoma has found speaker and seminar leader Tony Robbins guilty of copyright infringement and has awarded damages of $655,900 to plaintiff Wade B. Cook. The verdict comes in a case filed by Cook, a financial author and educator, who claimed Robbins had copied and used without permission material from his book "Wall Street Money Machine." Arguments in the two day trial that concluded Wednesday centered around "The Meter Drop," a concept of stock trading created by Cook and incorporated into his book as the central theme. According to testimony, in May 1996, Robbins read Cook's book, met with Cook several times and attended one of his seminars. In August 1996, Robbins introduced a financial seminar manual that included repeated use of the term "meter drop" and other phrases found in Cook's best seller. Robbins admitted use of the phrase and concepts but claimed he did not need permission from Cook to do so.

Cook awarded $650,000 in copyright trial against Robbins

by Jake Batsell... Seattle Times business reporter

A federal jury has awarded more than $650,000 to Seattle-based stock-market pitchman Wade Cook, bringing a close to Cook's copyright-infringement trial against self-help guru Tony Robbins.

Cook, the speaker and author whose company runs financial seminars around the country, accused Robbins of using phrases Cook coined in his book "Wall Street Money Machine" in a Robbins course called "Financial Power."

Cook testified in U.S. District Court in Tacoma that Robbins, known mainly for his nationally televised infomercials, used without permission a pair of Cook-copyrighted terms:

-- "Meter drop," an expression Cook uses to liken investing to the business strategies he learned as a Tacoma cabdriver. Cook says it's more profitable for a cabdriver to take a large number of short rides instead of concentrating on the larger fares. He advises investors to adhere to the same principle.

-- "Rolling stock," a phrase Cook uses to describe stocks that fluctuate in predictable patterns.

The eight-person jury agreed that Robbins had used those terms without Cook's permission and awarded Cook $655,900 in damages, Cook attorney Kiman Lucas said.

"We're very pleased Tony's finally having to pay for plagiarizing," Lucas said.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 06, 2005 02:59PM

[Doing a little more reading about this trial. It appears that Robbins had 7 lawyers when he started this trial. 7 lawyers.
Do you know how much that costs, to have 7 lawyers going at once in court? Wouldn't that be over $30,000 a day in legal fees? So we are talking maybe $500,000 in legal fees, or much more for this trial, when you include expenses? It could be a million bucks, easy, or even more!

This is where the money from Tony Followers goes. Into legal fees. What a sick joke.
Tony Robbins is a VERY dangerous person at this point.
He has so much money, and he is so ruthless, and he is such a narcissist and so self-righteous, he seems to think he is above the law. I bet he will shortly end up living offshore somewhere, if he does not do so already for legal purposes.

Also, below is some FASCINATING info from the time when Robbins closed down his internet site to ALL criticism of his outrageous and unethical business practices. Lots of his customers were hurt by his getting involved with this new girl and dumping his former wife, and also there were charges that his former wife got a "restraining order" against Robbins, as Robbins was buying his new girlfriend expensive gifts, like breast implants, and as has been proven in court, expensive trips, etc, all on the COMPANY credit card.
This is the exact time when Robbins must have ordered his website to delete all references to these facts, and to ban any person who brought up these issues. His goal was to block this information from coming out. You can see that the Media lawyers are well aware of the problem that Robbins dumping his old wife, and trading her in for a younger model, caused with Robbins customers. So much so, that it is part of the legal case!
People could see what REALLY happened, and many of Tony's Followers were really freaked out to see some of the REAL Tony for a change, and not the fake-manipulator and his public image.

It will be interesting to see what the Media lawyers have to say when they go into these details, like the status of his former wife, and if Robbins used company money to buy his new wife breast implants, etc.

Are breast implants a legal business expense when you buy them for your married girlfriend?]


Tony Robbins's chat line fans

As part of the legal details surrounding the hearsay debate, Mr. McConchie gave the court its first glimpse of Sun lawyer Mr. Anderson's pretrial interview of Mr. Robbins. (The interview of Mr. Robbins, and the questions The Sun could ask, were the subject of much pretrial debate.)

Sparse details were read from that interview, but we now know Mr. Anderson did ask Mr. Robbins about his first wife, Becky, as well as about a chat site for his fans.

With regard to his first wife, Mr. Robbins confirmed he married her in 1985. Mr. Anderson asked if she ceased employment with Mr. Robbins's companies in May, 2000, drawing an objection from Mr. McConchie. Mr. McConchie instructed Mr. Robbins not to answer the question.

(Pretrial interviews do not take place in court, so there is no judge to rule on points of contention. Mr. Robbins's pretrial interview was so contentious a B.C. Supreme Court judge had to set down exactly what Mr. Anderson could and could not ask Mr. Robbins.)

In the brief excerpt read by Mr. McConchie, Mr. Anderson also asked Mr. Robbins about a fan chat line he may participate in. In particular, Mr. Anderson wanted to know if the greatest complaint Mr. Robbins's fans had was his breakup with his former wife, Becky.

"I object, irrelevant," was Mr. McConchie's reply. It is not clear when the rest of the transcript will be read.

Options: ReplyQuote
Psychosis after a Tony Robbins Seminar??
Posted by: Cosmophilospher ()
Date: July 07, 2005 10:06AM

[The real Tony Robbins is now appearing in court...they are going to show the court how Robbins intentionally gave false phone numbers to the court, intentionally edited documents given to the court, and was intentionally lying and hiding documents from the court, to try and cover up his affair with this married woman. Also, remember that Robbins was still married at the time this was going on. This is going to get VERY ugly for Robbins...]

"he plans to lead evidence into the lack of production by the plaintiff, as well as intentionally mistaking phone numbers and intentionally redacting relevant documents. Among the documents that were originally redacted by the plaintiff, Mr. Anderson discovered records of payment for Ms. Humphrey's trip to Fiji, and for tickets to the Broadway play in November, 1999. He hoped the judge would infer that there was intentional lying and non-production of documents relevant to the media defendants case.

There was also a whole series of documents lost by the plaintiff, some in a hurricane in Fiji in 2003, and others which have just vanished. It all gives an indication of the plaintiff's conduct in the lawsuit, Mr. Anderson said. "


CanWest's Sun trial gets to defendants' case

2005-07-06 20:33 ET - Street Wire

by Stockwatch Business Reporter

The libel trial of motivational speaker Tony Robbins versus CanWest Global Communications Corp.'s The Vancouver Sun and others heard the opening statement of the media defendants' lawyer on the 12th day of trial. The Sun said it would show that the developing relationship between Mr. Robbins and the woman who later became his wife was an influencing factor in the decision for Mrs. Robbins to dump her then-husband, John Lynch.

Mr. Robbins sued The Sun and others over articles and television news clips in June, 2001, which he says implied that he was an adulterous hypocrite who stole Mr. Lynch' wife, driving Mr. Lynch to try to kill himself. The media defendants have claimed that the some of the implications in the stories were true, and that the articles were not defamatory. Mr. Lynch was a defendant at the start of the trial, but settled with Mr. Robbins and apologized publicly for his 2001 comments.

Sun opening

After Tuesday's ruling to exclude the Lynch apology from evidence, Robbins lawyer Roger McConchie did not call any further witnesses. Defendant Gary Sir John Carlsen III told the court that he would not call any evidence. Rob Anderson, lead lawyer for The Vancouver Sun and other media defendants in the case, began his opening remarks.

Mr. Anderson pointed out that the court has not heard any testimony from plaintiff Mr. Robbins, his wife Sage Robbins, or her former husband Mr. Lynch, the three main players in the case. The only witness who Mr. McConchie called to support the plaintiff's version of the facts in the case was Pearl-William Humphrey, Mrs. Robbins's father. Defendant Carlsen was not privy to the events that occurred surrounding the Lynch divorce, and the court should remember that all of his information was second-hand, Mr. Anderson said.

The main article in the defamation lawsuit was the Jeff Lee story that appeared in The Sun on June 7, 2001, Mr. Anderson continued, and all other instances of publication stem from that article. The article written by Mr. Lee relied on statements from Mr. Lynch and Mr. Carlsen, as well as numerous divorce documents and interviews with representatives from Mr. Robbins's side, including Stephen Jaffe, a Robbins consultant, and Sharon Humphrey, Mrs. Robbins's mother. These communications took place even after Mr. Lee was told that Mr. Robbins would not comment for the story.

In the first draft of his article, Mr. Lee made four references to Mr. Lynch's defence in his divorce action, in which Mr. Lynch alleged that his wife, at the time known as Bonnie Lynch, was having an adulterous affair with Mr. Robbins. After consultation with Brian Wolf, Mr. Robbins's Los Angeles lawyer, Mr. Lee agreed to remove any adultery references from his article out of fairness to Mr. Robbins. Lawyer Mr. Anderson said it was ironic, because if Mr. Lee had persisted in reporting the adultery allegations, the story would have been protected from a defamation action based on a qualified privilege.

When he wrote the article, Mr. Lee also had other divorce documents from Mr. Lynch, which showed that the Lynchs stopped living together in January, 2000. The final Lynch divorce was granted on June 21, 2001. Mr. Anderson noted that Mr. Robbins and his former wife Becky were divorced in March, 2001. The defence lawyer later told the court that Mrs. Robbins had filed a second divorce action in late July, 2001, seeking to set aside the Lynch divorce's separation agreement, under which Mrs. Robbins received a lump sum of $60,000 and $1,000 per month.

The media defendants claim that three implications in the articles and broadcasts are true. These imputations are:

Mr. Robbins stole Mr. Lynch's wife.
The wife-stealing drove Mr. Lynch to attempt suicide.
Mr. Robbins is a hypocrite who does not practice what he preaches about working to preserve marriages.

Implication of wife-stealing

At the centre of the case will be the nature of the evolving relationship between Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins, and the nature of the separation between Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins. The defence will look for any indication that these two events coincided, in an effort to show that Mr. Robbins did "steal" Mr. Lynch's wife.

Mr. Anderson said that the plaintiff claims that Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins separated as early as 1998, and that it was April, 2000, before the relationship between Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins became serious. It is the stance of the media defendants, however, that the relationship between Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins, in whatever aspect, had developed to the point where it was a factor in the separation and subsequent divorce of Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins.

Suicide attempt implication not defamatory

Mr. Anderson moved next to the suicide attempt. It is the position of his clients that it is apparent from the context of the Lee article, if Mr. Lynch threatened to kill himself, or actually did try suicide, readers will not assume that was the fault of Mr. Robbins. In addition, in a June, 2001, letter sent to Sun lawyer Barry Gibson about the article, Mr. Wolf indicated that Mrs. Robbins told him that Mr. Lynch threatened to kill himself and to harm others. Mr. Wolf went on to say that nothing in his letter was defamatory of Mr. Robbins, including Mr. Lynch's comments.

(As part of his apology and retraction, as reported in Stockwatch on June 24, 2005, Mr. Lynch said, "I never took psychiatric counseling for constant depression, nor did I attempt suicide, contrary to my statements to the Vancouver Sun." The apology is not part of the evidence in the trial, following the judge's July 5 ruling.)

Hypocritical Mr. Robbins

Mr. Anderson tied the third imputation in The Sun story, that Mr. Robbins is a hypocrite, directly to the the implication that Mr. Robbins stole Mrs. Robbins away from Mr. Lynch. If at the end of the case the judge decided that one has been proven, then the other one will follow.

Sun timeline

Mr. Anderson laid out his own chronology of events in the Lynch marriage. In 1991, just after Mrs. Robbins graduated from high school, she moved in with Mr. Lynch. On June 5, 1993, the two married. The couple travelled to San Francisco in June, 1998, and purchased a home in Langley, B.C., in September, 1998.

Mr. Wolf told The Sun in 2001 that Mrs. Robbins left Mr. Lynch for the first time in January, 1999. In June of that year, Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins went on a vacation to Cancun, Mexico. In September, 1999, Mrs. Robbins went to work at a Robbins Life Mastery seminar in Hawaii. She met Mr. Robbins on Sept. 15, 1999. On the last day of the conference they spent hours talking about various things including spirituality, and exchanged phone numbers. As he is unable to ask Mr. Robbins or Mrs. Robbins about phone calls to each other after that seminar, Mr. Anderson plans to call representatives from Telus, Rogers and other phone companies to verify the records in court.

The phone calls between Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins began soon after Mrs. Robbins returned home from the seminar. The calls continued throughout the month of October. Mrs. Robbins then travelled to Fiji on Oct. 26, 1999, the media defendants claim, at Mr. Robbins's invitation.

In November, 1999, Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins went to Whistler to work out the details of their separation agreement. Along on the trip was Alan Lawrence, who had toasted the Lynches at their 1993 marriage.

More phone calls between Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robins were exchanged throughout the month of November. On Nov. 26, Mrs. Robbins flew to New York. On the same day, Mr. Robbins's credit card records show he purchased tickets for a Broadway show.

On Dec. 3, 1999, Mrs. Robbins was in Fort Lauderdale for another Robbins seminar. In January of 2000, Mr. Anderson said, the two played golf together. On Jan. 14, records show that Mr. Robbins called Mrs. Robbins's cell phone, and shortly after the call Mrs. Robbins was on her way to the airport with her sister Debbie Humphrey, destination Fiji. The media defendants have documentation that shows Mr. Robbins paid for the sisters' flight to the island nation, which is a direct indication as to the evolving nature of the relationship between Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins, Mr. Anderson said.

On Jan. 23, 2000, Mrs. Robbins and her three sisters went to a Robbins seminar in Florida, paid for by Mr. Robbins. The court saw video footage of that seminar, Mr. Anderson said, that showed Mrs. Robbins was not working at the seminar, but was rather a participant.

Court documents show that Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins claim they stopped living together in January, 2000. In February, 2000, Mrs. Robbins attended Mr. Robbins's birthday party, location not stated. In April, 2000, Mr. Robbins claims that an "intimate relationship" between him and Mrs. Robbins began.

The letters from Mr. Wolf to The Vancouver Sun in June, 2001, indicated that Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins began seeing each other publicly in January, 2000. Mr. Anderson notes that this was the same month that Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins formally separated. If there is an overlap in those times, Mr. Anderson plans to prove it during witness testimony.

The plaintiff's lawyer was "all over the map" with its letters and timeline, Mr. Anderson said, and the judge should give more weight to what was said during the 2000 Lynch divorce. "At the time of the divorce action," Mr. Anderson told the court, "The only thing that mattered was the truth."

First Sun witness

Mr. Anderson called his first witness, Sam Georges, as an adverse, or hostile, witness. Mr. Georges is the president, chief operating officer and general counsel of many of Mr. Robbins's companies.

Before Mr. Georges could take the witness stand, Mr. McConchie jumped up and protested that Mr. Georges had not been on Mr. Anderson original list of witnesses. Knowing who would be on the witness stand ahead of time would help prepare for cross-examination, Mr. McConchie said.

Mr. Anderson indicated he will call Mr. Gibson and Mr. Lee from The Sun, as well as editor-in-chief Patricia Graham. He will also call several representatives from telephone and credit card companies to prove the truth of a pile of phone and credit card bills that he had previously planned to run through Mr. Robbins and Mrs. Robbins.

Other witnesses include Mr. Lawrence, who will testify as to the state of the relationship between Mr. Lynch and Mrs. Robbins in Whistler in November, 1999. Mike Murphy, at one time involved in a common-law relationship with Mrs. Robbins's sister Barbara Farnsworth, and Rick Zacklin, former husband of Mrs. Robbins's sister Christina Zacklin, may also testify.

Mr. Georges was questioned about how he assisted Mr. Robbins in delivering documents to the media defendants. Mr. Georges claimed that he could not answer those questions, based on his client privilege with Mr. Robbins. Mr. Anderson turned to an affidavit signed by Mr. Robbins on April 20, 2005. Flipping to the back of the affidavit, Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Georges if it appeared as if there were only two documents on the list from before April 17, 2005. Mr. McConchie objected, saying that it looked as if Mr. Anderson was going to ask the witness a series of tiny details.

Mr. Justice L. Paul Williamson excused Mr. Georges from the courtroom while the lawyers argued about the case. Mr. McConchie said that he expected to hear a litany of complaints from the media defendants about the plaintiff's lack of disclosure, and pointed out that the subject was already discussed in extreme detail at the trial's preliminary hearings.

Mr. Anderson disagreed with Mr. McConchie's interpretation, saying that he plans to lead evidence into the lack of production by the plaintiff, as well as intentionally mistaking phone numbers and intentionally redacting relevant documents. Among the documents that were originally redacted by the plaintiff, Mr. Anderson discovered records of payment for Ms. Humphrey's trip to Fiji, and for tickets to the Broadway play in November, 1999. He hoped the judge would infer that there was intentional lying and non-production of documents relevant to the media defendants case.

There was also a whole series of documents lost by the plaintiff, some in a hurricane in Fiji in 2003, and others which have just vanished. It all gives an indication of the plaintiff's conduct in the lawsuit, Mr. Anderson said.

Mr. McConchie replied by saying that as long as The Sun lawyer restricted his questions for Mr. Georges to information available in a publicly filed affidavit, he will not object.

The trial continues after lunch.


CanWest's Sun trial hears of phone record gap

2005-07-06 20:50 ET - Street Wire

by Stockwatch Business Reporter

The afternoon session of the libel trial of Anthony Robbins versus The Vancouver Sun and others heard on Wednesday afternoon how several of Mr. Robbins's employees slaved over phone records The Sun asked for ahead of the trial. The trial also heard about a two-month gap in the records.

The phone records were a matter of contention before the trial ever began, when The Sun asked for the records to help its defence. The Sun's lawyers, however, received edited versions of the phone records that apparently did not meet their needs. Sun lawyer Rob Anderson, in a pretrial motion, applied for and won a court order forcing Mr. Robbins's companies to provide unedited phone records.

The phone records will form part of The Sun's defence to Mr. Robbins's lawsuit against the paper. The records could show what, if any, communication existed between Mr. Robbins and his current wife after they first met.

The lawsuit so far

Mr. Robbins is suing The Sun over a story he says portrays him as an adulterous hypocrite. He says the paper defamed him when it published the story of John Lynch, his wife's ex-husband.

Mr. Lynch, a Langley businessman, told The Sun his wife left him for Mr. Robbins after she attended one of Mr. Robbins's motivational seminars in Hawaii in September, 1999. The Sun printed Mr. Lynch's story, including his claim that he was depressed and suicidal.

The Sun, for its part, argues the story did not mean anything defamatory.

The trial to date has mostly heard Mr. Robbins's lawyer, West Vancouver libel specialist Roger McConchie, present his side of the case. Mr. Lynch, originally named as a co-defendant, was dropped from the suit mid-trial after he apologized to Mr. Robbins and offered to make a charitable donation on his behalf.

The Robbins staff at work

Sam Georges, head of several of Mr. Robbins's companies, testified on day 12 of the trial about his hard-working staff that prepared the contentious phone records. Under questioning from Sun lawyer Mr. Anderson, he told the court he followed Mr. McConchie's instructions to the letter with the preparation of the records.

He said he asked his staff to supply both land line and cellular records in response to The Sun's pretrial requests. In the first version of the records, the edited version, Mr. Georges testified his staff deleted the last four digits of several irrelevant phone numbers to protect privacy.

He added that his staff left any phone calls to Canada on the lists.

(Mr. McConchie, earlier in the afternoon, explained the need to edit all the records. He said it is "quite staggering to see how many calls an organization of 200 people can make." He added that not all of the calls belonged to Mr. Robbins.)

Praise for the staff

Mr. Georges, several times in his testimony, praised the hard work of his staff in assembling the phone lists. He said he instructed his staff to "hastily" do a "diligent search" for all the records in question. "The team that did this deserves nothing but accolades," he told the court.

Mr. Georges testified that his people worked over weekends pouring through thousands of pages and hundreds of pounds of documents to get Mr. Anderson his phone records. He said his staff members "put their heart and soul" into assembling the records.

Two months missing

In spite of all the hard work, Mr. Anderson suggested there was a two-month gap in the records. It is not clear which two months are missing, however.

(The records covered the period from September, 1999, to April, 2000. The missing two months could be important, depending which two months they are. The Hawaii seminar Mr. Lynch's wife attended was in September, 1999. The court earlier heard testimony the Lynches were separated by December, 1999.)

Mr. Anderson questioned Mr. Georges about two months of records that could not be located. "I don't have a clue ... which two months," Mr. Georges replied.

When questioned further, he told Mr. Anderson, "These are matters I delegated to responsible people."

Mr. Anderson asked him if his staff was instructed to produce all records.

"I don't remember the specifics," Mr. Georges replied.

Mr. Georges's job

Aside from telephone testimony, Mr. Anderson also asked Mr. Georges to clarify his roles with the myriad of companies Mr. Robbins owns. Mr. Anderson said it is not entirely clear to him just what titles Mr. Georges holds.

Mr. Georges testified he is, or was at the relevant times, president of several companies, including Robbins Research, Tony Robbins Productions and Anthony Robbins Associates. Mr. Georges also testified that he serves as the lawyer and chief executive officer to several of the companies and agreed he is the top business adviser to Mr. Robbins.

The role of Mr. Georges was a point of contention earlier in the afternoon, when Mr. Anderson argued that Mr. Georges was serving as the company's president and not its lawyer some of the time. This is important to Mr. Anderson because Mr. Georges has declined to answer some of Mr. Anderson's questions, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The trial resumes Thursday morning, with more testimony from Mr. Georges.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 22 of 34

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.