Landmark Education litigation: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Chmarkine (talk | contribs)
3,951 edits
m →‎Subpoena concerning electronic copies of the ''France 3'' television documentary material (2006): change to https if the server sends HSTS header, replaced: http://www.eff.org → http using AWB
Undid revision 629290544 by Zambelo (talk)
(30 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{primary sources|date=October 2014}}
{{cleanup|reason=Reads like a newspaper article, not an entry in an encyclopedia|date=September 2014}}
Since its formation in 1991, [[Landmark Education]] LLC (LE) has been involved in about a dozen lawsuits in the [[United States]] and a few more in [[Europe]].
Since its formation in 1991, [[Landmark Education]] LLC (LE) has been involved in about a dozen lawsuits in the [[United States]] and a few more in [[Europe]].


Line 8: Line 10:


==Landmark actions for alleged defamation==
==Landmark actions for alleged defamation==

=== Cases in the United States of America ===

==== Condé Nast Publications / ''Self'' magazine (1993) ====

In 1993, Landmark Education Corporation sued [[Self (magazine)|''Self'' Magazine]] ([[Condé Nast Publications]]) for defamation. The defamation claimed by Landmark involved the article published in February 1993. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. In a settlement-agreement, LE released Condé Nast Publications from any and all claims relating to the article, and ''Self'' Magazine issued a one-sentence editor's note stating that the magazine had no "first-hand" evidence that the "Landmark Forum is a cult".

==== The Cult Awareness Network / Cynthia Kisser (1994) ====

In 1994 Landmark sued the original [[Cult Awareness Network]] and Cynthia Kisser (its then [[Executive Director]]) for (among other allegations) issuing leaflets about "[[destructive cult|Destructive Cults]]". The entry "The Forum/est/the Hunger Project" appeared in a "partial list of groups about which CAN has received complaints."

During a deposition Kisser admitted that CAN held no opinion with respect to classifying LE as a [[destructive cult]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html |title=Deposition of Cynthia Kisser |author=Superior Court of the State of Illinois |date=15 May 1995 |accessdate=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101116034700/http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html |archive-date=16 November 2010}}</ref>

The agreement reached in November 1997 to conclude this case involved an undertaking by CAN not to distribute its leaflets mentioning Landmark, est or The Forum, or to sell Steven Pressman’s book entitled ''Outrageous Betrayal''.

==== Dr. Margaret Singer (1996) ====

In 1996 Landmark Education Corporation sued Dr. [[Margaret Singer]], an adjunct [[UC Berkeley]] professor of psychology, for defamation. Singer had mentioned LE in her co-authored book ''[[Cults in Our Midst]]'' (1995, ISBN 0-7879-0051-6); the text did not make it entirely clear whether she labeled the organization as a cult or not. The second edition of the book, released before the conclusion of the court case, omitted mentioning Landmark Education by name. Subsequent to the court case, Singer signed a terse statement on 7 May 1997 which read: "I do not believe that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is a cult or sect, or meets the criteria of a cult or sect."
<ref>Dr. [[Margaret Singer]], statement, [http://www.landmarkeducation.com/uploaded_files/694/msing.pdf Landmark Education, website, files]; retrieved 2008-05-29.{{Dead link|date=August 2014}}</ref> Singer admitted at deposition<ref>[http://home.swbell.net/danchase/depo.html Deposition of Cynthia Kisser], Superior Court of the State of Illinois, May 15, 1995, ''passim''</ref>{{Dead link|date=August 2014}}{{Failed verification|date=August 2014}} that she had "no personal, firsthand knowledge of Landmark or its programs."

==== ''Elle'' Magazine - Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. (1998) ====

In 1998, Landmark sued [[Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S.|Hachette Filipacchi Media]], U.S. publishers of ''[[ELLE|Elle Magazine]]'', for an allegedly defamatory article published in ''Elle'' magazine (August 1998) written by [[Rosemary Mahoney]] and entitled: " Do you believe in miracles?"

The court dismissed the claim, stating that LE had not "pled special damages", and had failed "to adequately plead actual malice".

==== Landmark Education Corp. vs. Pressman (1998) ====

In 1998, Landmark attempted to compel [[Steven Pressman]] to respond to deposition-questions aimed at obtaining the confidential sources he had used for research on his book ''[[Outrageous Betrayal|Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile ]]'' (ISBN 0-312-09296-2).

LE brought the suit as a means of compelling discovery for use in the then-active [[Cult Awareness Network]] litigation. The discovery commissioner who entered an interim order in the matter commented: "it does not appear that the information sought [from Mr. Pressman] is directly relevant or goes to the heart of the [CAN] action, or that alternative sources have been exhausted or are inadequate."

LE dropped the action against Pressman after the settlement of its litigation against the Cult Awareness Network. (See above)

==== Rick Ross Institute (2004-2005) ====

In June 2004, Landmark Education filed a [[US dollar|USD]]1,000,000 lawsuit against the [[Rick Ross (consultant)|Rick A. Ross Institute]], claiming that the Institute's online archives did damage to LE’s [[Product (business)|product]]. In April 2005, LE filed to dismiss its own lawsuit [[Prejudice (law)|with prejudice]] on the grounds that a material change in [[case law|case-law]] regarding statements made on the [[Internet]] occurred in January 2005; see [http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/appellate/a5942-02.opn.html Donato v. Moldow]{{Dead link|date=August 2014}} 374 N.J. Super. 475 ([http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/appdiv/index.htm N.J. App. Div.] 2005), which held an operator of an [[Internet forum|online bulletin board]] not liable for defamatory statements posted by others on his bulletin board, unless he made a "material substantive contribution" to the defamatory material.
<ref>
''Tech Law Advisor'', caselaw, 2005, [http://techlawadvisor.com/caselaw/2005/02/communications-decency-act-nj.html RE: Communications Decency Act, New Jersey]
</ref>
<ref>
[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13089 "Landmark Education Withdraws Lawsuit Against Critic"], December 21, 2005, ''[http://www.prnewswire.com/ PRNewswire]'', [[United Business Media]], [[San Francisco]].
</ref>

In 2006, retired Justice [[Edward Fadeley]], of the [[Oregon Supreme Court]], commented on the ''Donato v. Moldow'' decision:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01118/010197.html |title=The Unchecked World of the Internet |author=Edward Fadeley |date=8 August 2006 |accessdate=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090403043257/http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01118/010197.html |archive-date=3 April 2009}}</ref><ref>
"The Wild, Wild Web - We Need Laws Against Blog Defamation", ''The Portland Oregonian'', June 18, 2006, page C01, Commentary by retired Oregon Supreme Court Justice Edward Fadeley
</ref>
<blockquote>
'The courts aren't helping matters. For example, Landmark Education, an international training and development company that presents The Landmark Forum, dropped its lawsuit in New Jersey against Rick Ross [...]. Landmark Education terminated its lawsuit when, in an unrelated case, a New Jersey court significantly limited the kind of Internet behavior it would consider damages for. Court decisions like that make it even more difficult for companies to protect themselves against misinformation and false accusations.'
</blockquote>

==== Subpoena concerning electronic copies of the ''France 3'' television documentary material (2006) ====
In 2003, journalists surreptitiously filmed participants in a Landmark Forum in France, and selected excerpts were incorporated into a television documentary broadcast by France3 in 2004.

LE took the view that the program as a whole was biased, inaccurate and misleading, and that “France 3 has violated the personal rights of individuals unwittingly filmed using hidden cameras.” One of the women shown in the program stated publicly that she felt that it was an intrusion of her privacy and that the extract was taken out of context and that she had benefited from her participation in the Landmark Forum.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20050125202638/http://216.93.162.58/menu.jsp?top=20447&siteObjectID=21551 |title=accueil |publisher=Web.archive.org |date=2005-01-25 |accessdate=2013-04-23}}</ref>

Subsequently, an anonymous individual posted this footage on the Internet. Landmark appealed to copyright law and served a subpoena on [[Internet Archive]] to have it removed and to reveal the identity of the poster.<ref>https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/landmark/archive_landmark_request.pdf</ref>

The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]] declined, considering that Landmark was misusing copyright law<ref>https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/landmark/eff_letter.pdf</ref> to take down criticisms, referring to what it called Landmark's “Internet censorship campaign”.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/11/landmark-forums-internet-censorship-campaign-goes-down-under |title= Landmark Forum's Internet Censorship Campaign Goes Down Under |author= Kurt Opsahl |date=November 17, 2006 |publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]] |accessdate=February 23, 2012}}</ref> Landmark withdrew its application.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2006/11/30 |title=Self-Help Group Backs Off Attack on Internet Critic &#124; Electronic Frontier Foundation |publisher=Eff.org |date=2006-11-30 |accessdate=2013-04-23}}</ref>


=== Cases in Europe ===
=== Cases in Europe ===
==== Jean-Pierre Brard====

The deputy mayor of Montreuil, who served as the vice-president of the [[Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France]] (Commission parlementaire sur les sectes en France), was sued in 2004 by Landmark after appearing on the documentary [[Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous]].<ref name="palmer">{{cite book|last=Palmer|first=Susan|authorlink=Susan J. Palmer|title=The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored ''War on Sects''|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pY5pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27|date=2011-09-23|publisher=Oxford UP|isbn=9780199875993|pages=27, 186}}</ref>
==== Martin Lell (Germany) ====

After attending the Landmark Forum in Germany, Martin Lell wrote a book titled ''Das Forum: Protokoll einer Gehirnwäsche: Der Psycho-Konzern Landmark Education'' [The Forum: Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education], Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, 1997, ISBN 3-423-36021-6. This book detailed Lell's attendance at the course, and claimed that he had suffered a mental collapse directly afterwards. However, the record at the Hearing indicated that Mr. Lell did not see a doctor; was not hospitalized; did not seek or obtain medication; and was not diagnosed by a medical professional as being brainwashed or having any mental problem.<ref name="stelling">[http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm Art Schreiber letter], June 22, 1999
</ref>)

LE sued to have the word ''Gehirnwäsche'' ("[[brainwashing]]") removed from the sub-title of Lell's book, but the German court determined that "brainwashing" constituted a matter of [[opinion]]
<ref name="stelling" />
rather than an assertion of fact, and allowed the sub-title to remain.

==== infoSekta (Switzerland) ====

The Swiss subsidiary, Landmark Education AG, sued [http://www.infosekta.ch/ infoSekta] (Verein "Informations- und Beratungsstelle für Sekten- und Kultfragen infoSekta" — the infoSekta Association for Information and Advice on matters of Sects and Cults), a Swiss group, on 1995-11-23, demanding that infoSekta cease distributing information about the company. Further discussions followed, and the case concluded by negotiation on 1997-12-18 with infoSekta agreeing not to call Landmark Education a cult.
<ref>
{{cite web
|url= http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html
|title= Landmark vs. infoSekta: Geschichte eines Prozesses [Landmark vs infoSekta: Account of a Trial]
|accessdate= 2007-09-24
|last= Sträuli
|first= Dieter
|year= 1997
|work= infoSekta-Tätigkeitsbericht 1997 [infoSekta-Activity-report 1997]
|publisher=
|pages= 16–20
|language= German
|archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070928024849/http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-09-28}}

</ref>
</blockquote>

==== ''FACTS'' Magazine (Switzerland) ====

According to a 1999 letter,
<ref>
[http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm Letter] from [[Art Schreiber]], June 22, 1999, to SIMPOS, p/a Koppenhinksteeg 2, 2312 HX, Leiden. The Netherlands
</ref>
written by [[Art Schreiber]], the Swiss magazine ''FACTS''
<ref>[http://www.facts.ch/dyn/magazin/index.html FACTS homepage]{{dead link|date=April 2013}}</ref>
referred to Landmark Education as a "[[cult]]". The magazine later retracted this statement after Landmark Education took legal action.
<ref>
{{de icon}} [http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/lm_straeuli1998.html Landmark vs. infoSekta.] NB this reference does not relate directly to the FACTS case.
</ref>

==== ''Panorama'' Magazine (The Netherlands) ====

In 1999, a district judge in [[Haarlem]], [[the Netherlands]] ruled that [http://www.panorama.nl/ ''Panorama'' magazine] acted wrongfully when it labeled Landmark Education as a "cult" in an article<ref>
{{cite web
|url= http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/pano1.htm
|title= Sekten in Nederland
|work= Panorama
|accessdate= 2008-06-11
|date= 13-20 januari 1999
|publisher= [[VNU]]
|language= Dutch
|quote=
}}
</ref>
on ''Sekten in Nederland'' (Cults in the Netherlands) — because Landmark Education did not meet any of the criteria of ''Panorama'''s own characterization of cults.<ref>
Art Schreiber of Landmark Education wrote with reference to this case:

<blockquote>
"The facts are clear that Landmark Education and The Landmark Forum are not a sect or cult (the term used for sect [sic] in the United States and other countries).<br>
<br>
"To this end, I am enclosing the following materials which make clear that Landmark Education and The Landmark Forum are not a sect or cult:<br>
<br>
1. The Decision by C.J.J. van Maanen, acting President of the District Court in Haarlem, issued on May 4, 1999 regarding an article published about Landmark Education in Panorama Magazine. Judge van Maanen stated in Sections 3,3,3.4 and 3.6: "It is unmistakable that in Panorama's publication Landmark is qualified as a [[cult]], a word which, according to the first lines of the publication, 'in usage has obtained a very negative image'." "This qualification is unfounded because Panorama could not even subsequently quote a definition of the term 'cult' which is met by Landmark, and left it undisputed that Landmark in any event does not even meet any of the characteristics listed at the beginning of the article in the frame 'how to recognize a cult' . . [sic] Panorama simply called Landmark a [[cult]], using a definition of '[[cult]]' in its publication which is not met by Landmark. Thus, Panorama has acted wrongfully."
</blockquote>
[http://www.stelling.nl/landmark/schreib1.htm Art Schreiber letter], June 22, 1999, SIMPOS, p/a Koppenhinksteeg 2, 2312 HX, Leiden. The Netherlands
</ref>

</blockquote>

==Cases alleging adverse effects of Landmark programs==
==Cases alleging adverse effects of Landmark programs==

=== Ney vs. Landmark Education et al. (1992) ===

In September 1989 [[Stephanie Ney]] attended a session of "[[Werner Erhard and Associates|The Forum]]", conducted by [[Werner Erhard]] (doing business as [[Werner Erhard and Associates|Werner Erhard & Associates]] (WE&A)). In 1992 Ney sued Landmark Education Corporation (LEC, seen as the successor-organization of WE&A) for $2,000,000, claiming that three days after attending the Forum she "suffered a breakdown and was committed to a psychiatric institute in Montgomery County".
<ref>
Stephanie Ney case, September 1989, [http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/randr/robhow.htm psychiatric breakdown]{{Dead link|date=August 2014}}
</ref>
The trial court dismissed Ney's suit on summary judgment, and the appeals court upheld the decision.


=== Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education Corporation (2002, 2006) ===
=== Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education Corporation (2002, 2006) ===


In 2002 the Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed came before a court, with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant. Jason Weed had experienced a psychotic episode shortly after taking the "Landmark Advanced Course", and shot and killed a letter-carrier, Robert Jenkins, on December 12, 2001. The court found Jason Weed not guilty by reason of insanity.
In 2002 the Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed came before a court, with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant. Jason Weed had experienced a psychotic episode shortly after taking the "Landmark Advanced Course", and shot and killed a letter-carrier, Robert Jenkins, on December 12, 2001. The court found Jason Weed not guilty by reason of insanity. Both the family of the deceased Robert Jenkins and the attorneys for Jason Weed contended that the Landmark Education seminar had driven Weed insane,<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Tulsa World|date=April 4, 2004|title=Suit targets firm in postal killing|first=Nicole|last=Marshall|quote=The lawsuit claims that Jason Weed was driven insane by his treatment during a motivational seminar. Attorneys for Jason Weed and the family of the Tulsa postman he killed agree on one thing — that a motivational seminar he attended days before the shooting drove him insane, according to a pending civil suit.}}</ref>

Both the family of the deceased Robert Jenkins and the attorneys for Jason Weed contended that the Landmark Education seminar had driven Weed insane,<ref>''The Tulsa World'', April 4, 2004, "Suit targets firm in postal killing", by Nicole Marshall
<br>
“The lawsuit claims that Jason Weed was driven insane by his treatment during a motivational seminar. Attorneys for Jason Weed and the family of the Tulsa postman he killed agree on one thing — that a motivational seminar he attended days before the shooting drove him insane, according to a pending civil suit.”</ref> however at the sanity hearing a witness for the US Government, Dr. [[Harrison "Skip" Pope, Jr.|Harrison Pope]] - a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who also helped draft the DSM-III and [[DSM-IV]] - testified that he could rule out "steroid use and participation in an exhaustive [[self-awareness]] program" as causes of Weed's psychotic break.<ref>
[[Jeanne Been]] versus [[Jason Weed]] with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/035100.html 2002 file from Caselaw]
<br>
"Weed's previous steroid use and participation in an exhaustive self-awareness program [the Landmark Advanced Course] the week prior to the shooting could be ruled out as causes of the psychotic break, leaving only 'very rare possibilities' as the triggering factors."
</ref>

In June 2006, the plaintiff [http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2006-5200&db=Oklahoma&submitted=true refiled the case], as allowed under [[Oklahoma]] law, and the case against LE was dismissed again. The District Court of Tulsa County found "that although another defendant is named herein ... the Court directs the preparation and filing of a judgment in favor of Landmark [Education]"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Landmark_FJ.pdf |title=File:Landmark FJ.pdf - Wikimedia Commons |publisher=Commons.wikimedia.org |accessdate=2013-04-23}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Landmark Education]]


== References ==
== References ==
Line 174: Line 25:


== External links ==
== External links ==

{{wikisource}}
{{commons}}
{{wikisource|Landmark Education Labor Violations Investigations}}
{{commons|Landmark Education Labor Violations Investigations}}

* {{cite web
|url= http://www.culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html
|title= Landmark Education litigation archive
|accessdate= 2014-08-01
|last= Skolnik
|first= Peter L.
|author2=Norwick, Michael A.
|date=February 2006
}}: facsimiles of legal documents; legal commentary
* [https://www.eff.org/cases/landmark-and-internet-archive Landmark Education and the Internet Archive], [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] commentary and links. Retrieved 2008-05-27
* [http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/11/11/oukin-uk-media-google-video-idUKN1039190320061111 Google faces legal challenges over video service], [[Reuters]] and ''[[The Washington Post]]'', November 10, 2006
* [http://presszoom.com/story_120492.html Landmark Forum Violates Constitution and Federal Law by Trying to Chill Speech], PressZoom, November 1, 2006
* [http://www.redherring.com/Home/19552 Landmark Education Fires Back At EFF], [[Redherring.com]]{{Dead link|date=August 2014}}
* [http://www.alm.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1136838328818 Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech], [[Charles Toutant]], [[New Jersey Law Journal]], January 10, 2006, includes Landmark Education's response at bottom, from General Counsel [[Art Schreiber]]
* [http://www.alm.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1136838328818 Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech], [[Charles Toutant]], [[New Jersey Law Journal]], January 10, 2006, includes Landmark Education's response at bottom, from General Counsel [[Art Schreiber]]
* [http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=200305810074 Landmark Education registration] as a Limited Liability Company{{Dead link|date=August 2014}}


{{landmarkForum}}
{{landmarkForum}}

Revision as of 13:59, 12 October 2014

Since its formation in 1991, Landmark Education LLC (LE) has been involved in about a dozen lawsuits in the United States and a few more in Europe.

In about a dozen instances LE has initiated actions to defend itself against what it perceives as malicious or negligent defamatory comments. Critics of Landmark have portrayed these actions as an assault on Free Speech or an attempt to suppress legitimate comment, whereas LE has insisted that it only seeks to have inaccurate statements corrected and to protect its products from unfair disparagement.[1][2]

There have been two cases where actions have been brought against LE alleging harmful results from Landmark’s training programs; and one alleging assault by a member of the company’s staff, but none of these resulted in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Landmark Education was also mentioned in two cases where actions had been brought against employers who, it was claimed, had forced their staff to participate in Landmark training programs. In neither case was the accusation upheld by the court.

Landmark actions for alleged defamation

Cases in Europe

Jean-Pierre Brard

The deputy mayor of Montreuil, who served as the vice-president of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (Commission parlementaire sur les sectes en France), was sued in 2004 by Landmark after appearing on the documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous.[3]

Cases alleging adverse effects of Landmark programs

Been vs. Weed and Landmark Education Corporation (2002, 2006)

In 2002 the Jeanne Been vs. Jason Weed came before a court, with Landmark Education as a cross-defendant. Jason Weed had experienced a psychotic episode shortly after taking the "Landmark Advanced Course", and shot and killed a letter-carrier, Robert Jenkins, on December 12, 2001. The court found Jason Weed not guilty by reason of insanity. Both the family of the deceased Robert Jenkins and the attorneys for Jason Weed contended that the Landmark Education seminar had driven Weed insane,[4]

References

  1. ^ "File:2004 Landmark v Ross complaint.pdf - Wikimedia Commons". Commons.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
  2. ^ "File:2004 Landmark v Ross answer.pdf - Wikimedia Commons". Commons.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
  3. ^ Palmer, Susan (2011-09-23). The New Heretics of France: Minority Religions, la Republique, and the Government-Sponsored War on Sects. Oxford UP. pp. 27, 186. ISBN 9780199875993.
  4. ^ Marshall, Nicole (April 4, 2004). "Suit targets firm in postal killing". The Tulsa World. The lawsuit claims that Jason Weed was driven insane by his treatment during a motivational seminar. Attorneys for Jason Weed and the family of the Tulsa postman he killed agree on one thing — that a motivational seminar he attended days before the shooting drove him insane, according to a pending civil suit.

External links

Template:LandmarkForum

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education_litigation&oldid=629303973"