“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.”

“Be yourself. Love yourself. Show others that you love them. And live your life to the fullest every single day.”
- Kim O’Neill

Owning our story can be hard but not nearly as difficult as spending our lives running from it. Embracing our vulnerabilities is risky but not nearly as dangerous as giving up on love, belonging and joy - the experiences that make us the most vulnerable. Only when we are brave enough to explore the darkness will we discover the infinite power of our light.

The Gifts of Imperfection, Brene Brown

Free Speech

Originally published by:
International Cultic Studies Association                                                                                                               Free Speech and Cultic Litigation Interview With Attorney Peter Skolnik

By Esther Friedman

In 2011, I left a philosophy group. I started researching cults. Everything I read echoed my  experiences to the letter, and I recognized that I had been recruited and indoctrinated. I  decided to expose this deception in a blog (cultconfessions.com) and, of course, the cult  tried to sue me. It didn’t work, but I was lucky. Typically when a cult sues a whistle-blower,  years of stress and accumulating expense follow. Today cults can leverage litigation to intimidate and muzzle whistle-blowers. Cults have  money and can afford lawyers. Many cults have a template for frivolous legal filings. In  contrast, there are no established protections, structures, or supports in place for  defendants. Resources are few and far between. Most former members can’t afford  counsel, and pro bono legal help is nearly impossible to find. In 2014, ICSA conducted a free-speech survey of its membership (see the report in  this issue). The purpose was to begin understanding the extent and impact of cultic  litigation and start documenting it. Respondents provided snapshots of how cults  suppressed their free speech through the court system, and the toll such litigation  takes on those threatened and/or sued. I interviewed nine of the respondents. They reported legal strategies that ranged from  manipulation of divorce and custody battles to restraining orders, defamation accusations,  accusations of violating religious freedom, multiple lawsuits filed against one defendant,  and—in the most extreme cases—criminal charges and jail time. All reported multiple  obstacles to finding legal counsel. Even those who could afford representation found  most lawyers unwilling to take on cult cases. Those lawyers who did take on the cases  were unprepared for the cultic legal strategies: intimidation tactics, intentional convolution  of the facts, unnecessary complications, relentless discovery filings. Attorney Peter Skolnik is the exception. I interviewed the New York-based lawyer, who  started litigating against cults in 2000. He represented the Cult Education Institute when  Landmark Education sued its founder, Rick Ross, for defamation. He has continued  litigating against cults ever since. In an interview, he discussed his experiences, the legal  strategies commonly employed in the majority of his cases, and effective responses. “I think that, for me, it’s always been a function of finding that my clients were intelligent,  sympathetic folks who really needed protection from onerous, overbearing litigation,”  Mr. Skolnik said. “I have never had the slightest iota of respect for any of the groups that  have brought these litigations … to some large degree, I’ve always viewed this all  as a mitzvah.”1  Indeed, Mr. Skolnik has provided 15 years of pro bono counsel for the Cult Education  Institute, and also has taken on other cult cases. Most of the time the cult in question  follows the Scientology model—the objective is to wear down the defendant financially  and psychologically; winning, losing, truth, and justice are all inconsequential in such  cases. As L. Ron Hubbard is known to have stated within Scientology policy documentation:  The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used  very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge  anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his  professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. (1955, p. 157) Sadly, Hubbard’s statement proves true. When I was seeking legal help, many who had  seen, or experienced, cult cases discouraged me. I was told that the more tangled the web,  the more expense accumulates—both financial and emotional. Many defendants are sued  into bankruptcy; many settle cases simply to end the stress and move on with their lives;  many plaintiffs are thus empowered to impose gag orders on those who could be exposing  deceptive and predatory groups. I am not a lawyer. I am an expressive-arts therapist. As a mental health professional I would  argue that these gag orders are damaging, both to the individual and democracy as a whole.  But, as noted, no protections exist against frivolous litigation, and cults don’t like to be called  cults. It’s bad for business. People join religious groups, Bible studies, yoga classes,  self-help programs, philosophy classes, theater groups, management trainings, and so on.  People don’t join cults. Cults must brand and market themselves as something else. It stands to reason that when a cult is called out, a lawsuit may follow. In the interview,  Mr. Skolnik said, The word has a very ugly connotation … there are other kinds of cults that are more  innocuous, more fan-based than anything else. But the leaders of these cults, who rely on  adherence, typically for money, sometimes for power, or for their own sense of power …  they don’t like to be called cults. The label might get members questioning: “I never wanted to join a cult! Why aren’t you  doing something about this?” Additionally, Mr. Skolnik said that cult leaders typically believe, “…they are really on the  side of the angels and that there’s nothing inappropriate with what they’re doing.” This  belief is necessary to proliferate an ideology that relies on a contrived social hierarchy— one in which societal laws, rules, and norms don’t apply to those in the cult, especially  the leadership. The narrative of an “us” — those in the group—verses a “them”—those  not in the group—is one of the hallmarks of culthood and, ironically, one of the hallmarks  that could be exposed if whistle blowers were protected legally. But when groups believe themselves superior beings on altruistic missions, it is also easy  to buy into another belief: The end justifies the means. Justice and truth seeking can  drop out of the picture. “The strategy is to wear you down, I think, in most cases,” Skolnik said. “A lot of them  [cults] litigate a lot and are used to having lawyers on the other side who haven’t done this  before, who don’t want to be involved in these cases and who are easy to push around.” In his experience, Mr. Skolnik has typically seen the following strategies: The opposing  counsel buries the defendant in unnecessary, never-ending, overarching discovery.  Independent law offices don’t have the resources to manage the relentless document  demands. They also commonly intimidate through depositions—subpoenaing the  defendant’s friends, family, and close associates. Legal fees, and stress, accumulate.  When asked why the court system allows such frivolous litigation, Mr. Skolnik explained  that when a complaint is filed, courts are obligated to respond, regardless of the merit of  the complaint. If the defendant doesn’t respond, the court has to do something. “One way or another, the wheels of the court system have to begin,” he said. How long they grind on is one of those issues that circle back to how intelligently the  lawyer who represents the defendant is able to start pushing the right buttons.  But is it an abuse of the court system? I think it absolutely is. There is no established infrastructure to weed out frivolous suits. Mr. Skolnik said that  one of his cases has been grinding on since 2006; the cult in question files continuous  lawsuits against detractors. Mr. Skolnik said, If you leave that group, you’re likely to be sued on some trumped-up charges that will  cost you so much to defend that you are forced into bankruptcy. When you are forced  into bankruptcy, they will litigate that you should not be allowed a discharge in the  bankruptcy. They have done this to 10 people whose names I can give you. They litigate and litigate  and litigate; they have destroyed lives. They have harassed almost to the grave.  It is simply their strategy. It is simply their way of saying, “You mess with us,  you’re going to be very sorry.” His experiences paint a grim picture. However, he offered some “right buttons” to push  when taking on cultic litigation. The lawyers must begin, he said, by educating the judge  about the group, exposing patterns of cultic practices that include frivolous litigation and  other such maneuvers against detractors. He said, Some judges get it pretty quickly and they know what they are dealing with; others either  don’t get it, or, for one reason or another, are unwilling to clamp their fist[s] down on  overreaching, onerous, harassing litigation tactics by the cults. Between lawyers who don’t  really know what they are getting themselves in for and judges who don’t become sufficiently  and quickly enough educated to know what they are dealing with, that can cause problems  all around. Additionally, he calls defamation claims “the horse that draws the cart,” the central claim  in most cases; other charges may be tagged on, but typically these suits rely primarily  on defamation. Federal defamation laws have become more sympathetic to defendants  over the past 30 years. Federal First Amendment constitutional principles that protect the  defendant must be applied by state courts. For example, defendants previously had to  prove that their statements were true; now the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the  allegedly defamatory statements are not true. “One tip I would have for a lawyer who is taking on one of these cases, and has very little  experience, is to learn the law of defamation,” Mr. Skolnik said. There is very likely to be far more protection for your client, because one of the rules in a  defamation claim is that the plaintiff has to say exactly what it is that your client said that  the plaintiff thinks is defamatory. Additionally, the defamatory statement must be factual—statements of opinion are not  actionable. Therefore, plaintiffs must provide a specific statement and cannot modify the  filing unless the court grants permission. “Defamation cases are always about what freedom of expression really means, what you  are allowed to say and what you are not allowed to say,” he said. “Defamation law is also,  by definition, state law. There are federal constitutional principles, but the specifics of  defamation law are a state-by-state matter.” However, when that plaintiff is a public figure, the First Amendment has an additional  requirement: The plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew he was lying when the  statement was made. Mr. Skolnik said, They essentially have to really prove that “the defendant is really just doing this to bug me.  He or she knows that it’s a lie, or that it’s likely a lie, but is just hoping to get away with it.” Additionally, he reported, “Cults do not like discovery aimed at their finances.” Oftentimes,  when facing a court-upheld document request for financial papers, a cult will withdraw its case. When asked how important it is for lawyers to understand the psychological impact of cultic  practices on their client, Mr. Skolnik said that it is important to understand the degree to which  a cult has impacted her decisions and actions: Sometimes there are ways to bring that to the litigation and to the judge’s attention in ways  that are useful because, again, it’s part of that education of the judge. If you can show a  court that, while my client was involved in this cult, she was forced to disinherit her children  and leave her husband, judges are going to pay some attention to that. So sometimes it will  have a direct impact on the way you litigate the case. But primarily understanding the psychology helps the lawyer also understand the overall  gestalt, the environment of the group and the pressures applied on members. Mr. Skolnik  likened it to a theater director understanding an actor’s creative process. It might not shape  the litigation strategy, but it might, and it is always useful in a lawyer’s relationship with the  client. In some cases, the group’s psychological profile informs the type of discovery that  would be most impactful. I have read through a number of Mr. Skolnik’s legal filings in connection with one particular  cult case, and have noted that these papers illustrate the tips he outlined for this article.  He makes a point of telling the judge, repeatedly, that the plaintiff is involved in a cult.  He blares spotlights on misleading, convoluted, or avoidant litigation strategies at every  opportunity. He does not hesitate to call out the opposing counsel for misusing and  manipulating the court. When the opposing counsel convolutes a legal filing; omits facts;  drags on the action unnecessarily, letting court-mandated deadlines slip past; and other  such distracting or evasive tactics, he immediately calls it to the judge’s attention. Clearly his  intention is to educate the judge and expose the group. But even given his knowledge, and his track record, he expresses a cautious pessimism.  Mr. Skolnik said, The First Amendment is probably the most important piece of legislation in this country,  but there’s a cost for defending it. And very often the poor man or woman who gets on  the wrong side of these cases has to ask, “What is ultimately in my best interest: pay the  lawyers, or fold?” Everything circles back to the inequity of the judicial system. At the end of the day, the  reality is that cults have a steady stream of income and resources at their fingertips,  while the former members and critics typically do not. It’s disheartening to hear this summation from a counselor who has been successfully  litigating against cults for more than a decade. But certainly cults are not the only  institutions to abuse the courts intending to silence critics. It would be interesting to know  how extensive this misuse is and what kind of ripple effects such abuse sends out into the  social fabric of our country. It would be useful to know how much wear and tear it inflicts on  free speech, one of the pillars of American democracy. Does it threaten our democracy?  How invested are we, as a country, in protecting free speech, our tax dollars, and our court  system? And is it possible to build a coordinated political/legal infrastructure to counter  such abuse and misuse of the courts? At the most superficial level, nonmeritorious lawsuits are a blatant misuse of tax dollars.  The extent of the damage inflicted by cultic abuse of the courts is hard to fathom. As a  nonlawyer, I’m out of my league when it comes to answers. But the fact that it does cause  damage is undeniable, and I’d like to believe that something could be done to protect our  free speech and our tax dollars from the ironic misuse and abuse of our courts. Note [1] A mitzvah is “a commandment of the Jewish law” or “a meritorious or charitable act”  (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mitzvah). Reference Hubbard, L. Ron. (1955). A manual on the dissemination of material. In L. Ron Hubbard,  The technical bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, Volume II, 195 –1956 (p. 157).  Available online at:  http://www.tep-online.info/laku/usa/reli/scien/SECRETDOX/1954_56.PDF About the Author: Esther Ruth Friedman is a Boston-based expressive-arts therapist with a master’s  degree from Lesley University, and a performing songwriter and recording artist. In 2006  a friend invited her to meet a “group of friends who got together on Tuesday and Thursday  nights to discuss ideas.” In 2011 she left the group, began researching the group's origins,  and discovered she had been recruited into what she now views as a secret cult called  School. In the 1970s, a man named Alex Horn employed the teachings and ideas of  Russian philosopher G.I. Gurdjieff and created The Theater of All Possibilities in San  Francisco. Investigative news reporters exposed the Theater after the 1978 Jonestown  tragedy. The group left San Francisco to reemerge in New York City and Boston, where it  continues to operate as a secret, esoteric, mystery school. After discovering that School  was not all that it claimed to be, Esther started researching high-demand groups and  employed writing and songwriting as recovery tools. She posted her experience online  in a blog called Cult Confessions. In 2014, the group filed legal papers in New York in a  failed attempt to establish jurisdiction over her. These experiences have set Esther on a  new path to build a therapeutic healing-arts practice for former members and abuse  survivors, and to expose and address how cultic groups manipulate the  court system to silence criticism.

Valentines Day 2017

Yesterday we had a major blizzard and this morning the sun was so bright and the glare was very intense from all of the sunshine on the accumulation of snow and ice. As I drove to work, it made my eyes tear even with sunglasses.

Cyndi Lauper’s song Time afterTime was running through my mind:

If you're lost you can look and you will find me

Time after time

If you fall I will catch you, I will be waiting

Time after time

I thought about the period of my life right after my first husband left me. It was 1990 and it would be almost ten years until I met my present husband. It was a long dry season and I was intensely lonely, isolated from family and friends, holding onto my sanity by a thin thread. There was no solace to be found from school which was the only thing in my life that I thought had meaning. The one place in the universe (I believed at the time) that would ever give me any hope of a meaningful life. I tried very hard to find a footing in the “work” but I think I was pretending most of the time. Solace from the people who told me “you are born alone and you die alone” did not really exist.

I felt an intense flashback from that period of my life and I started to cry in the car in the midst of all that bright lively sunshine, my heart felt black and dark and I wondered how I ever survived that period of time. Especially with my ex-husband and his new wife sitting there as she grew fat with the babies I would never have. I felt like the wind was knocked out of me. It's been a while since I have been so intensely "triggered" by something having to do with "school".

Of course, school was supposed to be the alpha and omega to all of my existence – it wasn’t supposed to matter how I felt. I had all those essence friends so why should I be lonely? I had the “work” so why should my life feel flat and empty and devoid of meaning? I tried desperately to find hope somewhere in the work but the moments were few and far between. I lived with a fickle “God” who changed her mind frequently, especially in relation to loyalties, interests, and affections.

Sharon was capricious, changeable, variable, volatile, mercurial, inconstant, undependable, unsteady, unreliable, faithless, flighty, giddy and skittish. She was a fair weather friend and the storms moved in on her with regularity. She professed a deep love for all of us. Well, that's what she said in public but in private she would badmouth even her most devoted followers.

This was not love, not even close.

I thought about our society’s dictum that we shouldn’t “take things for granted” but isn’t something like the unconditional love that a parent has for a child something that a child takes for granted? Isn't it every child's right to take their parents for granted and to feel their unconditional love?  Maybe it's not a bad thing to take something for granted in the right way. Yes, we grow up and strive to pay our parents back or to "pay it forward" but don't we deserve to have someone we can rely on? A safe harbor in a storm. We all deserve to be loved with a love that does not waver or cease. We all deserve to have someone who will catch us when we fall. We all deserve to be safe and secure. Someone we can count on when we are lost…

Sobbing, I called my husband and at first I couldn’t talk and he thought that something had happened, that I was hurt or had been in an accident. I couldn’t talk for a moment, I could only cry. I just wanted to tell him how much I love him and how much I appreciate his unfailing love and support for me. I wanted to wish him a Happy Valentine’s Day.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

― Martin Luther King Jr.,

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.”

― Mahatma Gandhi