RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawyers

Please support the RSE whistleblowers and citizen journalism and voice your concerns here. Act collectively and hold JZ Knight and the Thurston County public officials accountable for fraud and human rights abuse at RSE. This is about accountability and pursuing justice.
Qui tacet consentire
cooeee
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:52 pm

RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawyers

Unread post by cooeee » Fri May 30, 2008 6:53 am

HI GUYS,

I have read with some interest "The RSE Conditions of Participation Document" and whilst I am not a lawyer and have had no legal training I did study "Law of Contract" in Australia as a prelude to obtaining my Real Estate Licence - I am not suggesting for one moment that Australian Law is similar to U.S. but I would be surprised if it differed all that greatly where contracts are concerned.

It would be interesting to have a U.S. Lawyer address the following points so that those students who are having some reservations relating to their ongoing participation in the school are not being intimidated or duped into believing that JZ can legally prevent them from speaking out about their experiences....

In Australia, no contract can be held to be legally binding if signed "under duress" - if potential schoolies were being told that they would be denied participation if they refused to sign the document and accept it's conditions then any Lawyer worth his salt could prove "duress" - and especially for those who were not aware in advance that they would be asked to sign such a document as a condition of their participation (those flying in from overseas for example).

No contract can be legally binding if the conditions of the contract cannot be properly understood at the time of signing or are sufficiently vague - how can a new participant possibly sign away their right to sue in the event of injury or otherwise as a result of participating in field exercises and/or the tank if they have no for-knowledge of what either of these events require them to do in a blindfolded state and/or the dangers that they might face - if they have no knowledge of the potential risk involved how can they legally sign away their right to sue....I don't believe that they can!

As I said - it would be interesting to get a U.S. Lawyer to pass judgment on my comments but logic tells me that clients can't sign away their rights "unconditionally" when they have no idea what is involved.

Any thoughts anyone?

We really should get an informed opinion on this one if we really want to help educate schoolies to their rights!

Regards,

COOEEE

RSE's Conditions of Participation Document Registration Form
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=41

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

several review by U.S. Lawyers

Unread post by David McCarthy » Fri May 30, 2008 8:06 am

Welcome cooeee,

We do have several review by U.S. Lawyers that address "The RSE Conditions of Participation Document"
This is a Review of conditions of participation of Ramtha School of Enlightenment hereinafter called RSE
by Washington lawyers.
______________________________________________________________________________
Re: Reviews of the RSE Conditions of Participation document by lawyers.
This review is from Pat Nave a Retired Contracts attorney, Port of Los Angeles.
Overall,
The clauses in the RSE agreement do not prevent former members from revealing information they have learned from RSE.
There are some general principles that apply to agreements such as these.
First,
Agreements will be interpreted against the party who wrote them. In this case, any ambiguities will be resolved against RSE. Any reasonable interpretation in favor of the individual will be adopted by a court.
Second,
A second principle is that a court will look at the ?four corners? of an agreement to determine the intent of the clause. My specific comments on this aspect are included below.
Third,
Certain public policy issues will help a court interpret this contract in favor of an individual who signed it, including unwarranted infringement of freedom of speech, the right of association [with the church], reasonable use of the information and techniques, and the right to seek counsel from a pastor or other health care provider.

I have a couple of specific comments inserted below. I think these are the two germane paragraphs from the RSE agreement:
1. The information and techniques taught here are for your knowledge only. You are licensed to use this information and techniques for your personal use only.
Revealing the information and techniques as part of seeking help from a support group meets this term.
You are not authorized to teach or otherwise disseminate through speeches, books, articles, media interviews, or other forms of mass or group distribution (collectively, to "Teach or Disseminate") any information that you learn or teach at the School.
By its terms, the plain meaning of this clause has to do with mass distribution of the teachings. This clause would not be held to apply to revealing the information or techniques as part of a therapy or recovery program.
By signing these Conditions of Participation you agree not to, directly or indirectly, Teach or Disseminate to others the information and/or techniques that you teach or learn here without the prior written consent of the School, nor shall you assist or facilitate other persons in their dea1ing or dissemination of these matters to others without the prior written consent of the School.
2. The materials provided to you at the School have been copyrighted. You are not authorized to copy, reproduce, prepare adaptations, publicly distribute, publicly perform, or publicly display any of those materials without the prior written consent of the School. All School events are routinely recorded on audiotapes and archived under the registered trademark RAMTHA DIALOGUES?. RAMTHA DIALOGUES? serves as a historica1 record of the teachings of Ramtha. Portions of those recorded teachings have also been reproduced in various print and other media with the express permission of JZ Knight and a1so form a part of the historical record. By signing these Conditions of Participation. you agree that you will not attribute to Ramtha any statement that is not part of that record. You further agree not to Teach or Disseminate anything you BELIEVE you received from Ramtha in a dream, a vision or discipline, or any other source.
The gist of this clause and the prior one are aimed at commercial exploitation of copyrighted material. I do not believe a court would apply it to revealing the information as part of a recovery program.
The RSE agreement has been interpreted in Washington. See
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=o01
In general, the opinion shows how the court will put the burden on RSE to prove anything, even of a commercial nature.
Lastly,
I want to comment that it seems unlikely to me that RSE would want to sue someone seeking help from a church or support group.
I think a court would be very skeptical about such a suit

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Second review

PARAGRAPH 1: Appears to be legal.
That is a very common practice for institutions to in essence copyright their techniques and information.
It would be pretty difficult to challenge.
It has some weak points that would be harder to defend. For example, there is no time limit set for this limitation (which the law requires). We don't know if it lasts one day or a hundred years. That being the case, it is a paragraph that is ripe for challenge, or to avoid being responsible for violations of the paragraph.

PARAGRAPH 2 is real unique.
It appears to be consistent with copyright restrictions and proprietary interest.
Of course we have a problem here for anybody who wants to enforce this.
You agree not to disseminate anything you BELIEVE you received in a dream, vision or any other source. That provision becomes so speculative and undefined that I don't believe it is enforceable.

PARAGRAPH 3:
Appears to be consistent with standard limitations on what people can do at a particular place of business. The Court does not like forfeitures without probable cause and because we do have some language in this document that is speculative and undefined, I would recommend inserting language allowing ejection and forfeiture after being notified of the violation and penalty.

PARAGRAPH 4:
This is an interesting paragraph, and I can see where a lawyer reviewed this and interjected some restrictions. As a matter of law, an employer or landlord or anyone asking someone on their property cannot ask a person to give up all rights of litigation. In this case, looking at the last sentence, ?in any case for all the activities at the School or any School sponsored event, you hereby release JZK Inc. and its employees and Agents of all liability for damages and injuries you incur while participating at such events except for JZK, Inc's gross negligence.? That is a minimum. Our tobacco companies found that the level of responsibility is not just gross negligence but if the activity is inherently dangerous. (Verbal additions: This paragraph is asking people to waive something when they don't know what they're waiving. You can't legally put a person in a situation where they can't control their own personal interests. She cannot excuse herself from negligence in an inherently dangerous activity. A person cannot waive in advance for gross negligence.)

PARAGRAPH 5: This is a real stickler.
While on its face it appears to be impersonal, I don't think you can require a student to agree to a blanket release of images or pictures that would place them in an embarrassing circumstance, or violative of some privacy issues. I think for normal activity it probably would be serviceable and would preclude someone bringing a law suit for a perceived violation of privacy rights. At the same time, if the person is portrayed in something extremely silly or embarrassing or humiliating circumstance,
I don't think this release will protect the School.

PARAGRAPH 6:
I don't think this is consistent with the rights a private organization is entitled to. When they talk about discriminatory acts for reasons of nationality, set, religion, etc, I don't even know if they would want to exclude anyone who paid money.

PARAGRAPH 7: This is an interesting one.
These conditions will remain in effect for the life of JZ Knight plus 21 years?. The question is how long these rules are going to be in place, and we were talking abut that in Paragraph 1 and 2.
These are standard laws. There is a law against a perpetuity, and what that refers to is life plus 21 years. I don't know if this thing is enforceable, primarily because the people who attend the JZ Knight School won't necessarily continue when she goes to the great courtroom in the sky. So that's when the 21 years start. The rule against perpetuity arises when they give the property to someone for a period of their lifetime. This is the grantor creating this 21 years. The verbiage about damages and compensation, I suspect, is enforceable because it is about proprietary rights.

(Verbal additions: This Agreement is smoke and mirrors clearly a control device. If a person is a believer in Ramtha, it works; if a person is not a believer, it doesn't work.)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you Russ and Pat... :idea:

David

Ockham
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Re: RSE's Conditions of Participation Document Registration

Unread post by Ockham » Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:03 pm

Thank you kindly David,

That is what I was looking for. I just didn't search the board index using the correct key words. That is even more outlandish than I expected. I laughed out loud at the clause that one can't even share thoughts or dreams if it is suspected that, 'Ramtha,' caused them. I wonder how many Ramsters really take time to read the document? It is tough to think that anybody would want to agree that her or his own thoughts are virtually owned by Judy Knight and Company. Well that really is putting it down in black and white, isn't it? Mind control!; and she has it right there on paper for the attendees to read.

Vanilla
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:51 pm
Location: Rome, Italy

Re: RSE's Conditions of Participation Document Registration

Unread post by Vanilla » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:37 pm

When you initial this, you sign away your whole life. You will give all your money to the school, and live a life of only my prophecys and predictions, whatever I make up. You will not question if I say one thing one week, and a different thing the next week, you will just follow and obey. You will not complain if there is snow on the ground and you have to sleep on the floor in a tent. You will not move one inch during candle focus, and not go to the bathroom for sometimes hours. By signing this you agree to waiting in long lines for porta potties and expensive coffees. You will buy all my books past present and 20 years into the future.

Eddie
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:07 pm

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by Eddie » Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:21 pm

I have been to court many times to argue over business contracts; over 90% of the time both parties settle out of court. "Release" contracts and/or "Non-compete" contracts in the U.S. always fall into grey areas. It always depends on what county your case is heard in; and most importantly, which judge hears your case. Most judges do not value these kind of contracts. But in most "contract" court cases, it always comes down to which legal team out works the other legal team. Your initail statement/argument/case to the judge must be very strong; if you limp in ... you will lose.

.

Virginia
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:12 am

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by Virginia » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:10 pm

We have no worries her about any waivers signed before an event. You can not use confidentiality agreements to cover up a crime nor can you use waivers to exclude someone from negligence. Those pieces of paper are fairly worthless. I don't think there are any "non compete" agreements. OMG what would that read like:

"You may not work for another sociaopathic cult leader within 50 miles of RSE."

"Oh DARN and I was going to leave RSE and go to work for Mafu. Darn darn."

freemysoul
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:40 am

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by freemysoul » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:55 pm

LMAO, ROTFLOL.
Yes Virginia, that is exactly how that would read. :lol:

freemysoul
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:40 am

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by freemysoul » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:22 pm

What I really love about this post: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by US Lawyers, is the work David and whoever else may have helped, put into it. I admire that dedication, and in effect, the heart and pluck of people who give of themselves in this way. I find a kindred soul in those who pick up the 'scary things', and allow those who find it threatening or insurmountable the freedom to see them as the paper tigers they truly are. Thank you David. It is because of this type of commitment you exhibit that not only helped free me, but convinced me to walk hand in hand with all of us dedicated to drawing back the curtain on the 'great' JZ, and reveal her true nature. This was one of the many things on EMF that helped allay my fears of repercussion from those at rse, and I am better because of it.

Ockham
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by Ockham » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:09 am

Disclaimer: I am not a lawer; consult a credentialed lawer when seeking a legal opinion.

A potential defense against the RSE NDA is that signatories are asked to agree to the terms under duress. The school attendees are given no advance notice that they will be required to agree to the contract nor are they given reaonable access to review the document in advance of showing up to attend the event.

Consider a typical RSE attendee that travels from Europe, having to arrange time off from employment, the considerable expense of travel, and then the expense of the RSE event itself. RSE has a policy that if you show up for an event and then change your mind, tough shit, no refund. The situation creates a high stakes evironment of duress where not signing the NDA results in a potentially huge financial loss. The threat of RSE refusing you admittance to the event is the condition of duress.

References:
1. http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/stu ... acts11.htm
2. http://contracts.lawyers.com/contracts/ ... racts.html
3. http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation ... 0/333.html

Ockham
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:15 am

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by Ockham » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:42 am

Another defense would to take the non performance angle against RSE. RSE says it is going to give you gnostic teaching, but instead you get fanciful horse shit about subterranean lizard people that want to eat your brain in cahoots with the US government, or five hours of diatribe about Catholic Church. Gnostic my foot!

I think this line of attack might be less successful than a duress angle at trial, but it would be fun to have RSE try to prove in a public trial that the crap they dispense at events meets the standards of what they claim in the NDA. It would be fun to see student with the financial ability spill the beans, get sued by RSE, lawyer up, then take RSE to the mat in court over the quality of instruction.

joe sz
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by joe sz » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:23 pm

No contract can be legally binding if the conditions of the contract cannot be properly understood at the time of signing or are sufficiently vague - how can a new participant possibly sign away their right to sue in the event of injury or otherwise as a result of participating in field exercises and/or the tank if they have no for-knowledge of what either of these events require them to do in a blindfolded state and/or the dangers that they might face - if they have no knowledge of the potential risk involved how can they legally sign away their right to sue....I don't believe that they can!
all 'large group awareness trainings' [LGAT] or "retreats" as well as closed systems of any kind make participants and even employees who are not part of the organization sign waivers like the one RSE uses. my eldest daughter took a job teaching at a sectarian high school in Australia for several months, then quit. This "Exclusive Betheren" sect is quite constricted, won't allow higher education and does suppress women...my daughter cannot publish anything about her experience there. Where I work at a mental hospital, employees are under a similar law of "privacy" and cannot report specifics regarding what we observe at work or about any particular patient.we can however talk in general terms....

These contracts are only binding as long as the group or employer does not break any laws or does not abuse the participant, or as stated above, is not clear about what is being contracted for. eg, all LGATs that use private retreats/intensives/workshops tell participants NOT to reveal what is going to happen so as "not to spoil the experience" of new recruits or particpants. This is supposed to be like not telling someone what happens in a movie or novel! Really :?:
I recently had a session with a young lady that as a teenager was 'required' by her parents to attend a catholic retreat--the retreat organizers used the same tactics as Landmark/est or most LGAT do to manipulate the experience of those young kids "for their own good."

When sued, LGATs have tended to settle out of court asap, so asnot to damage income with an ongoing legal exposure in the press.

The public in general has a short memory, and that is what these abusive groups rely on: If it is not in the drive-by media, it must not be important...

Watcher7
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by Watcher7 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:09 am

Why should anyone be afraid of what they were not fully aware of.
NOTICE OF RECISSION OF SIGNATURES.
Through extortion and coercion,i put my signature on forms and other documents.
Because of these acts of threat,duress,and coercion,i hereby rescind any and all signatures that i placed on any and all forms,
documents,contracts,and the like,acted upon on or about{ whatever date].
All unconscioable contracts are subject to rescission under the common law for failure to make the proper disclosures in
constitute an acceptance,where there is is no meeting of the minds there is no contract as required by 226.23[1] regarding
notice of right to recind as set forth in In re Pearl Maxwell v. Faibanks Capital Corporation,281 B.R. 101,2002 Bankr.Lexis 759.
The UCC addresses unconscionability in 2-302.

I waive and reject any and all benefits express or implied arising from any such signatures ,all resulting contracts,agreements
or trust resulting from force,under threat of arms,involuntary servitude and peonage,committed against myself.

Signed on this ,the day of ,2012.


/s/ Signature Upper and Lower Case Letters.,Sui juris



Seal/Rt. Thumbprint


This is posted for entertainment purposes only,i am not an attorney,or a lawyer.
I reserve all my GOD given rights,under the UCC,UCC1-207,-308.

GOD Bless You All.

enchanted
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:26 am

Re: RSE Conditions of Participation Doc Review by U.S. Lawye

Unread post by enchanted » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:57 pm

It appears to me that Virginia Cloverdale was exposing HATE CRIMES.

It is one thing for a person to criticize the Catholic Church, Gays, the Jewish people etc but to use foul demeaning language is a hate crime, secretive school or not. As a matter of fact, it is worse in a school because she is teaching hatred and bias.
This needs to be reported to the Attorney General, Department of Justice.

Come on America. We are living at a time when we conciously serve God and our fellow men and women in a manner which represents the highest ideals of humanity.

Post Reply

Return to “Lawsuits & Court cases - JZK,Inc - latest lawsuit - RSE Music Copyright Infringments”