US FEDERAL COURT RULES FOR EX MEMBER WEBSITES

by DannyHaszard 8 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  DannyHaszard

  US lawsuit against NZ website operator thrown out Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand - 21 hours ago A United States federal judge has thrown out a racketeering and defamation lawsuit filed against New Zealand website operator, Ian Mander, by a Maine-based ...

  Judge throws out Gentle Wind lawsuit MaineToday.com, ME - Jan 9, 2006 A federal judge has thrown out a racketeering and defamation lawsuit filed by a Maine-based spiritual healing organization against former members who wrote ...

  ---------------------------------

  Judge throws out Gentle Wind lawsuit By GREGORY D. KESICH, Portland Press Herald Writer Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

  A federal judge has thrown out a racketeering and defamation lawsuit filed by a Maine-based spiritual healing organization against former members who wrote that they had been financially and sexually exploited by the group's leaders. Senior U.S. District Judge Gene Carter found that "no reasonable person could conclude" that the former members of the Gentle Wind Project, Judy Garvey and her husband, Jim Bergin, violated federal racketeering laws when they worked with the operators of Web sites to publish articles in which the couple compared the organization to a "mind control cult." Carter also dismissed claims of defamation and "false light" invasion of privacy, saying they did not belong in federal court. The decision was welcomed by Bergin and Garvey as the end of their three-year legal battle, which began when they started speaking publicly about their 17-year involvement with Gentle Wind. In their articles, which are quoted in the lawsuit, Bergin and Garvey allege that Gentle Wind controlled their lives, leading them to sell a profitable publishing business in Massachusetts and donate tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. "After 17 years of keeping our mouths closed and our minds closed, we had a right to speak out," Garvey said. "I think this ruling will make it a whole lot harder to stop a former member of a group to speak out ." Gentle Wind's leaders say the case is far from over. Mary "Moe" Miller, Gentle Wind's president, said the case will proceed, either with a new lawsuit in state court, an appeal in federal court or both. She said the group has lost more than $1 million in revenue since the articles were published and is not ready to give up. "Our company was a 22-year-old nonprofit in good standing," Mary Miller said. "Our life's work has been destroyed, and we feel we have to hold the people who did that to us responsible." According to court documents, the group took shape in the 1970s when Mary Miller was introduced to plastic "healing instruments" by her former graduate school classmate John "Tubby" Miller. Over time the group produced a wide variety of products, including brightly colored laminated cards and plastic hockey puck-like discs. According to John Miller and Mary Miller, their design comes in the form of blueprints via telepathic communications from spiritual entities known by the Gentle Wind Project as "The Company." According to the group, the instruments are distributed for free, but users are asked to donate to the organization. Suggested donations range from $250 to $7,800, and the group collected more than $1 million a year before the bad publicity hit, Mary Miller said. In the fall of 2003, Garvey wrote an article called "Insiders' Stories" describing sexual rituals that she claimed John Miller said were necessary for the creation of the instruments. She published the article on her own Web site and provided it to the operators of other Web sites, who posted links to the article. Bergin followed with his own article in which he described his research into "cults and high-control groups" and was struck by their similarity to Gentle Wind. Bergin, Garvey and the Web site operators communicated through e-mail, which became the basis of the federal claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, which was developed to prosecute organized crime figures. Some of the Web site operators settled the case by removing the Gentle Wind content from their sites. One operator, Ian Mander of New Zealand, did not respond to the complaint but was dismissed from the case along with Bergin and Garvey. Rick Ross, an expert on cults and other groups, refused to remove the content and was dismissed from the case by Carter last year. Ross said he has been sued many times by the groups he writes about on his Web site, but never successfully. "This type of litigation will not succeed," he said. "These former members have a right to speak, and they have as much right to be out there on the Internet as Gentle Wind does." Gentle Wind's lawyer said he was disappointed with Carter's ruling, but the group knew that the federal racketeering claim might not hold up. However, no court has evaluated whether Bergin's and Garvey's accusations are true, which is the question that lies at the heart of Gentle Wind's case. The group says the claims are false and it can prove it, said Daniel Rosenthal of the Portland law firm Verrill Dana, the group's lawyer. "Our strongest claims have not been made in any substantial way," he said. Rosenthal said the group will decide how to proceed within a week. Staff Writer Gregory D. Kesich can be contacted at 791-6336 or at: [email protected]
• 

  DannyHaszard

  Ruling # 2 Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech
  Texas Lawyer (subscription) - TX,USA
  ... Posts on his Web pages -- culteducation.com, cultnews.com and rickross.com -- are replete with data about what he labels as cults or otherwise suspect entities ... Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech Self-styled 'deprogrammer' says litigation is the price he pays for using the Internet to expose cult practices Charles Toutant
  New Jersey Law Journal
  01-10-2006 Lawsuits are occupational hazards for anti-cult blogger Rick Ross. Sued a half-dozen times during the past decade for his public pronouncements, especially on the Internet, he's managed to win all but one case, with the help of pro bono counsel. His latest close call came in December when Landmark Education, a promoter of self-help seminars, withdrew with prejudice its federal suit in Newark alleging defamation. But Ross, of Jersey City, knows certain groups still have him in their sights. Posts on his Web pages -- culteducation.com, cultnews.com and rickross.com -- are replete with data about what he labels as cults or otherwise suspect entities, including al-Qaida, the Ku Klux Klan, the Church of Scientology, Jews for Jesus and Amway. "If I wasn't getting sued by some of these groups, I'd wonder if my work was really having an effect," he says. "The fact that Landmark Education sued me was a testimony to the power of the Internet." "These organizations don't like critical dissent and that is clearly why people are pissed off at him," says Douglas Brooks, of Boston's Gilman & Pastor, who has represented Ross in litigation. "I think he's always going to have to worry about suits." Brooks represented Ross in a defamation suit filed in federal court in Maine in May 2004 by a group called The Gentle Wind Project, which distributes cards and trinkets that it claims will alleviate trauma and distress. The suit named Ross because one of his sites included a link to another site critical of the group, the latter of which was run by a husband and wife who were ex-members. Ross was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in January 2005. In 2003, Ross was named in two suits in the federal Northern District of New York filed by a group called NXIVM, which offers "executive success" seminars. In April 2004, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that NXIVM was not entitled to an injunction to remove information about it from Ross' site, finding that his postings were covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. Brooks says copyright infringement and common law claims by NXIVM against Ross are in discovery. In the recent New Jersey case, San Francisco-based Landmark Education had sued over postings on Ross' sites that called it "cultish" and accused it of "brainwashing" participants. Formed in 1991, Landmark bought the rights to Erhard Seminar Training (EST), a 1970s self-help program, from founder Werner Erhard and began offering 3-1/2 day seminars -- called The Forum -- that it says help participants improve their relationships and find happiness. Anonymous accounts of The Forum on a message board at rickross.com describe the program as long hours of positive-thinking generalities coupled with high-pressure pitches for participants to take more courses and bring friends along. Landmark's suit claims the anonymous posts are written by Ross himself. It also objects to its inclusion in a database on cultnews.com that lists 250 cults and other controversial groups. The 53-year-old Ross says he does not consider Landmark a cult because it lacks a central authority figure. Though the group treats Erhard with reverence, he lives in the Cayman Islands and does not participate, Ross says. But Ross considers the group harmful because, he says, subjects are intentionally intimidated and harassed over the course of 14-hour days and sometimes deprived of food and bathroom breaks. He says some participants have been hospitalized for nervous breakdowns after attending. "The stress and strain of The Forum is potentially unsafe," he says. "They require people to sign documents waiving the right to a jury trial." Landmark's attorney in the suit, Deborah Lans, of New York's Cohen Lans, says participants are not denied food or bathroom breaks but that she has no knowledge of whether they are required to sign waivers or are prone to breakdowns. Lans says Landmark sued Ross because he resisted its requests to post mitigating information on his site, a charge that Ross does not dispute. She says Landmark also obtained reports from an expert who analyzed the composition of the anonymous postings and concluded from the writing style that they were all written by Ross, a charge he denies. 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." Schreiber, who could not be reached for comment, said in a statement on Dec. 21 that Landmark's suit was not intended to stifle free speech. "We stand for people's self-expression," he said. "The lawsuit was about holding Mr. Ross accountable for having repeatedly made or published false statements on his Web site that damaged the reputations of Landmark Education and the people who choose to take our programs, solely for the purpose of his own financial gain." Landmark claims Ross' public criticism is intended to raise alarm about it and drum up more business. Ross makes a living as a deprogrammer of people who have joined cults, has served as an expert witness on cults and is frequently quoted in the news media worldwide. Ross says his interest in cults began in 1982 when the Jewish nursing home where his grandmother resided was infiltrated by members of a sect seeking to convert residents to Christianity.
• 

  greendawn

  Those cults, adding insult to injury, have quite a cheek trying to sue those who seek to expose them for what they are but fortunately up to now they all failed in their endevours, judges are not stupid or ignorant they have a good idea as to what the cultic religions are up to.
• 

  Gerard

  
  
  

  When we say "the WT can not stop the internet" is true but their lawyers backed by $billions have a lot of tools at their disposal to intimidate web masters. Now this may take physical form in the courts. Nice to see a court puting a stop to the playground bulley!
• 

  sf

  Danny,

  Thx for the breaking news item.

  Staff Writer Gregory D. Kesich can be contacted at 791-6336 or at: [email protected]

  If I were this reporter, I'd be very interested in 'QUOTES' case. I'm about to send the links RE: Quotes to this man. Perhaps make a call tomorrow as well. Anyone else? sKally
• 

  Atlantis

  Excellent Danny! Thank you for the news!
• 

  sf

  Dear Sir, I'm a member of a forum that discusses the Jehovah's Witnesses religion and their organization that leads them: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Very recently, this organization was successful in settling, out of court, the lawsuit they filed against the owner of the site provided in link below. A site where the owner puts up much of the orgs religious quotes and publications. Much like the case you wrote about. When I read your article today, I was stunned at the similarities, and knew I needed to send you the links that will give the history of the suit and the update; plus discussion of such. Please review these links {below} at your convenience. I would also like to encourage you to read other pertainent links from the site. It would be a great service to the community if you wrote up an article on the WTBTS/ QUOTES case too. Incidently, others have taken it upon themselves to mirror the site that the WTBTS took over. So it doesn't appear that they really won. Links: Sept. 9, '05 Watch Tower sues Quotes for $100,000 plus plus plus... Dec. 23, '05 WTS vs Quotes: Requiem for a Research Web Site Thank you so much for your time. I look forward to your reply.
• 

  DocBob

  Hi Danny,

  Thank you for starting this thread.

  Jim Bergin and Judy Garvey, the former Gentle Wind Project members who were sued contacted me several months ago after I posted a news item about the suit against Rick Ross on my website. I've been in touch with them since and have been monitoring the progress of the suit.

  Gentle Wind Project started up here in my hometown of Kittery and still owns a large house here. They also own a house and a large barn/garage where Judy tells me they produce their "healing instruments" in Durham NH (about 15 minutes away from Kittery). I drove by the Durham property last week and noticed that it was for sale. Asking price is a million and a quarter.

  I think Judge Carter's decision is a huge victory for Judy and Jim, but also for all of us. If GWP had prevailed in this suit, I could imagine the WTS filing the same kind of lawsuit, inovking the RICO statutes, against all of us who have websites that are critical of the WTS. It would not have been pretty.

  Below is a statement from Judy and Jim about the recent decision.

  Gentle Wind Project Lawsuit Dismissed
  
  On January 3, 2006 we received the long-awaited news that Senior District Judge Gene Carter granted our "Motion for Summary Judgment" on the Gentle Wind Project’s RICO (racketeering) claim -- the only Federal claim that remained in GWP’s lawsuit against us. The PDF of the Federal Court Order is an intriguing and educational read for anyone interested in the preservation of free speech on the Internet, and also provides a quick summary of the lawsuit facts. (Plaintiffs filing the lawsuit were GWP leaders: John “Tubby” Miller, Mary “Moe” Miller, Carol “Max” Miller, Shelbourne “Shelly” Miller, Pam Ranheim, and Joan Carreiro of Durham NH and Kittery ME.
  
  Judge Carter further ordered that GWP's lawsuit Counts III through VII against us (the state claims, such as defamation) be dismissed from Federal Court. This important Order granting our MSJ – which also provides a quick summary of the lawsuit facts – can be read on "Wind of Changes," the website for former members of GWP: http://www.windofchanges.org A large victory was also granted to Ian Mander of New Zealand Cults List – www.cults.co.nz/updates.php – one of our many co-defendants originally sued by GWP leaders. (Other co-defendants included Rick Ross, Steve Gamble, Ivan Fraser, and Steve Hassan.) Judge Carter dismissed GWP’s claims against Mander and denied their motion for default judgment against him. Ian Mander won this judgment without spending a dime on defense. Read the 3-page PDF to learn the story. The entire GWP lawsuit has now been completely dismissed.
  
  The Millers could refile in state court, but that would mean starting all over again. It would also put our Counterclaims into motion. http://www.windofchanges.org/Counterclaims.html “Tubby” and “Moe” Miller et al could appeal the decision to a higher court if they wish to contest the Judge’s opinion
  
  Since the Courts favor the plaintiffs, it is rare to have an MSJ granted. Such a decision would generally mean that the Judge is very certain of the legal correctness of his decision.
  
  If the purpose of the Millers' lawsuit was to silence us and others, it was an incorrect use of the legal system requiring vast amounts of donors' money. As Carl Starrett, Esquire, moderator of the Gentle Wind Victims’ Forum stated, "GWP must have spent several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees and they came up empty." http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/gentlewindvictims/
  
  In addition to the correct application of the law for us, this is an extremely important decision for anyone who believes in an individual's right to speak freely about personal experiences, and to share information of public importance through the Internet without fear of being intimidated, sued, silenced, and harmed financially. Judge Carter’s decision impacts anyone who writes about a group, job, corporation or agency that they at one time had a relationship with.
  
  We are very grateful for the support and encouragement – from a wide variety of individuals and institutions – that we have received throughout this two-year process.
  
  Jim Bergin and Judy Garvey

  Blue Hill, ME

  www.windofchanges.org
• 

  yaddayadda

  Gentle Wind.

  Appropriate name for a group that preaches a lot of hot air.

  I get gentle wind after eating cabbage.