Cult News

Landmark Education, a for-profit privately owned company that sells “human potential” seminars originally concocted by “Werner Erhard” now run by his brother Harry, has created something of an Internet news buzz over what some are beginning to call a “forbidden video.”

As CultNews reported back in September a video was posted at YouTube that for the first time gave the public an inside look at what Landmark calls “The Forum,” its introductory four-day mass marathon training experience.

Critics for years, going all the way back to the Forum’s last incarnation under the name est (Erhard Seminars Training), have compared its version of “education” to “brainwashing” or “coercive persuasion.”

But until the French news report surfaced on-line complete with hidden camera footage from inside an ongoing Forum, no one knew exactly how coercive Landmark’s persuasion might be.

The French video demonstrates firsthand how Landmark breaks down participants through a combination of emotional battering and a commitment to confinement within an environment the company controls.

After this news report aired nationally in France two years ago, Landmark packed up and left the country, closing down its once lucrative branch in Paris.

When Art Schreiber, Landmark’s long-time “General Counsel,” learned about the video being accessible on-line he took immediate offensive action to have it pulled.

First, it was removed from YouTube, then Google, then Daily Motion, and then the Internet Archive.

The French video can now only be seen either by downloading it through Torrents or visiting a page within the Web site “Cult Awareness and Information Centre” (CAIC) based in Australia.

The Ross Institute of New Jersey (RI), sponsor of CultNews, has also archived a copy of the program transcript. 

For those that don’t know much about Landmark Education and its history of harassing its critics, the company’s tactics are eerily similar to a more familiar Netizen nemesis, the Church of Scientology.

Like Scientology, Landmark apparently employs legal threats directed at those who dare to question the ethics and efficacy of its training and/or somehow pierce its secrecy. This can be seen through a procession of threatening letters, which if unheeded, may lead to the filing of a frivolous lawsuit.

Landmark’s hope, much like Scientology’s own litigation strategy, appears to be that it can wear down and/or neutralize its critics through legal fees and costs.

Using litigation like a weapon against its perceived enemies Landmark has successfully cowed critics, by what some have characterized as an abuse of the judicial system.

To better understand the company’s long history of legal threats and litigation click here.

So what’s happening now between Landmark Education and Internet service providers like Google fits easily within the company’s historic use of legal threats and litigation.

CultNews would like to offer readers a glimpse into Art Schreiber’s “bag of tricks.”

In October a website that republished the September CultNews report about the French video received a nasty email from Landmark’s lead lawyer.

Schreiber stated, “I am writing you on behalf of Landmark Education…I come to you with an important request to delete the October 4, 2006 posting of the commentary from…Cultnews.com, titled…’Why Landmark Education Left France.'”

Schreiber continued, “France TV 3 referred to in this commentary seriously misrepresented our company and the report contained many wholly inaccurate and biased statements, as well as some extremely serious accusations that were totally and absolutely unfounded [sic]. TV 3 operated unprofessionally, using tactics including the use of illegally obtained materials, and in serious violation of the privacy of the other participants in the course [sic],” Schreiber claimed.

He then went on, “When this program was broadcast in France, Landmark Education’s attorney in France sent a detailed letter to TV 3 that illustrated the gross inaccuracies and libelous representations in their program [sic].”

However, CultNews could not find any report about litigation filed against anyone connected to the French television news report.

Schreiber then claims, “Immediately upon receipt of this letter, and having had the gross inaccuracies and libelous representations exposed [sic], TV 3 removed the transcript of the documentary from its own website and cancelled all future broadcasts.”

However, no public apology was ever cited or copied by Art Schreiber. And CultNews has found nothing to substantiate these claims.

The republished September CultNews article was not taken down per Schreiber’s request.

And the original report remains on-line at CultNews.

It is interesting to note that at no time in the letter does Schreiber invoke a copyright claim. What he is upset about is the critical content within the broadcast report.

This type of tactic is apparently standard Schreiber.

That is, make threats to publishers and/or Internet providers and hope that no one will “call his bluff.”

Schreiber has never contacted CultNews directly with a complaint alleging that anything within the CultNews article about the French video was either a misrepresentation or inaccurate.

Why not?

More about Schreiber’s history with CultNews later.

Landmark is getting quite a buzz over its most recent Internet censorship crusade, which was picked up internationally through an article in Reuters. Part of its strategy of legal harassment seems to be focused on finding out who originally posted the “forbidden video.”

Schreiber used a ridiculous copyright claim in an effort to compel Google to expose the identity of the user.

Landmark’s lawyer claims that the French news report somehow violated the company’s intellectual property rights by filming the Forum and thus showing excerpts of a seminar weekend.

Schreiber used provisions within the “Digital Millenium Copyright Act” (1998) to go after Google,  hoping the Internet giant.

But the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has called Schreiber’s bluff.

Whatever use there was of Landmark’s material it was “clearly for purposes of criticism and commentary, i.e., a non-infringing fair use,” stated EFF in its response.

This is not the first time Landmark has tried to force a service provider or Internet host to give up the identity of an anonymous user that has posted critical information about the company.

Landmark attempted to do the same in a lawsuit it filed against RI, the sponsor of CultNews.

But in the end Schreiber chose to dismiss Landmark’s lawsuit with prejudice rather than go forward in discovery. This was done when the company realized, after repeated efforts to seal court records in the litigation, that everything discovered by attorneys representing RI would become permanent public record.

It would have been impossible for RI to successfully thwart Landmark without the generous legal help provided pro bono by one of New Jersey’s most prestigious law firms Lowenstein Sandler.

Now EFF is following in the footsteps of the New Jersey attorneys Peter Skolnik and Michael Norwick, who effectively forced Landmark to either “put up or shut up.”

That is, Landmark was forced legally to either demonstrate the validity of its defamation claims, which meant ultimately releasing any internal documents regarding complaints, personal injuries, past litigation and/or legal threats, or shut down the lawsuit.

Landmark and its counsel Schreiber decided to “cut and run.”

Of course Schreiber attempted to spin his legal defeat into a strategic retreat,  somehow due to a recent court ruling about the limits of vicarious liability for the hosts of message boards.

However, the RI message board was actually only a small part of Landmark’s overall lawsuit, which included many other claims.

Throughout the litigation Landmark’s lawyers repeatedly attempted to pierce without any success, the protection provided by RI to anonymous critics of its programs.

In Landmark’s latest effort against Google it is once again attempting to pierce the anonymity of a critic posting on the Internet.

Landmark hopes it can thus intimidate critics and/or potential critics on the Internet.

Ultimately, what Landmark wants, is to censor the Internet as it sees fit.

Landmark’s effort to purge the “forbidden video,” has now extended to Australia and even threatened a relatively obscure website operator in Europe, simply because he provided a link to the Australian site where the French video can still be seen.

EFF recently stated, “Landmark’s Australian lawyers entered the picture with a cease and desist letter of their own, sent to CAIC’s ISP Studio Solutions, and still asserting the same tired copyright claim. While Australian copyright law is different that the US, it doesn’t give you a copyright on someone else’s video.”

“Large portions of its copyrighted work”?

Anyone interested should watch the video.

What is being referred to as “large portions” is actually little more than brief snippets of an abusive Forum leader castigating a participant and encouraging public confessions.

Hardly a “copyrighted work.”

Whatever words were spoken that might have once been written by Landmark’s revered source Werner Erhard, they would fall well within what is legally considered “fair use” as EFF has pointed out.

The relevant case, which set a legal precedent recently, is yet again another effort to censor the Internet by a group that has been called a “cult.”

This time the seminar selling for-profit privately owned company is NXIVM.

Just like Landmark, NXIVM claimed that its “copyright” was somehow violated when two doctors wrote critical reports about its programs, which were later published and available on-line through the RI database.

However, NXIVM’s request for an “emergency injunction” to remove the material due to copyright was rejected. First, by a federal judge in Albany, New York and later that decision was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

NXIVM attempted to have its injunction request heard before the United States Supreme Court, but was rebuffed, which effectively allowed the Second Circuit ruling to stand.

Essentially, what the high court concluded was that like a theater or book review, a report or analysis of a company program may likewise quote from copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism.

RI was represented pro bono by Albany attorney Thomas F. Gleason and RI Advisory Board member and Boston attorney Douglas Brooks.

The brief presented to the Supreme Court was prepared with help from the Washington watchdog group Public Citizen.

Despite legal threats by companies bent upon censorship like Landmark and NXIVM the Internet seems to have turned a corner in the courts. And this would not have been possible without pro bono help provided by attorneys dedicated to freedom of expression and the First Amendment.

Organizations such as Public Citizen, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and the  Electronic Frontier Foundation have provided much needed help to keep the Internet free and functioning as the “information highway” it was intended to be.

In another important legal case the Berkman Center helped the former members of a purported “cult” called the “Gentle Wind Project” (GWP) defend themselves against a harassment suit filed to silence them.

In the end not only did GWP decide to drop its lawsuit, but as a result of the litigation the Attorney General of Maine took a closer look at the supposed “nonprofit charity” and ultimately shut it down for making false claims, abusing charitable funds and illegal practices.

Former GWP members and defendants in the lawsuit, Judy Garvey and Jim Bergin, not only walked away in triumph, but also logged another legal victory for freedom of speech on the Internet.

RI also became a defendant in the GWP lawsuit, essentially for posting a link to the Garvey/Bergin site. Once again, pro bono help was provided by Douglas Brooks and also by attorney William Leete of Portland, Maine.

Ironically, companies like Landmark, NXIVM and GWP expect and depend upon a free marketplace of ideas to sell their ideas and/or wares.

But it seems when it comes to the concept of an “information highway,” these folks apparently feel it should be one-way street.

“TomKat” finally made it down the aisle with a 7-month-old baby in tow.

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Scientology vows were sealed with a reported 3-minute-kiss, until someone yelled, “stop,” though perhaps they might have just said, “cut.”

An Italian castle near Rome was rented out for the marital production that reportedly was budgeted at about $10 million, which is easily the going price for an independent film.

The supporting cast included David and Victoria Beckham, Jennifer Lopez and husband Marc Anthony, Jim Carey and girlfriend Jenny McCarthy, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, Richard Gere and a “cameo” appearance by Brooke Shields.

Shields has apparently forgiven Cruise for bashing her on national television. Scientology’s “Top Gun” used the actress as an example of what’s wrong with taking medication for depression, apparently an “unpardonable sin” for the star and his church.

Speaking of Scientologists, quite a few of Cruise’s religious brethren attended the nuptials, such as John Travolta. 

The head of Scientology’s New York City branch made the invitation list, but not Oprah Winfrey, even though she practically launched the couple on her show.

Maybe Cruise’s handlers didn’t want to remind anyone about his past performance as a “couch jumper.”

Oprah still sent a gift.

Tom Cruise chose as his “best man” Scientology’s “top dog” David Miscavige, the man who appears to be leader for life of the controversial church, which many have called a “cult.”

Reportedly some Hollywood notables were “no shows.”

Needless to say Cruise’s former employer Sumner Redstone, the man who dumped the actor from Paramount largely for talking too much about Scientology, wasn’t there.

The wedding vows, like all things Scientology, were hatched from the head of its creator L. Ron Hubbard and seemed more like stilted dialog lifted from a corny 1950s movie than a typical marriage ceremony.

During the service the Scientology minister asked the bride: “Do you take his fortune at its prime and ebb and seek with him best fortune for us all? Do you?” The bride responded: “I do.” Then the minister said: “Good then, I am sure you will and surer yet that you’ll fare well and staunchly as a wife.” To Cruise, he said: “And when she’s older do you keep her still? Do you?” He replied: “I do.” 

What’s interesting to observe in Hubbard’s version of wedding vows is the complete absence of any reference to God. And to the bride’s parents who are staunchly conservative Roman Catholics, any mention of Jesus.

Scientologists don’t believe in the bible, God or Jesus and are taught if they reach “Operating Thetan Level Three” (OT III), about “implanting,” which is done through space alien technology. Later, reportedly at OT VIII, they learn not so flattering details about how Christianity fits within that framework. 

However, Katie Holmes parents both attended the wedding and told People Magazine that they were “very happy” to be there.

And why not?

The pre-nuptial agreement reportedly negotiated in part by the father of the 27-year-old actress provides that she will receive $3 million dollars for each year that she remains “Mrs. Cruise,” plus a California mansion. And if Katie Holmes can somehow manage to make it to her 11th anniversary, she could hit the jackpot and get half of the 44-year-old actor’s entire fortune.

The bride’s parents may also be smiling because the Scientology ceremony their daughter participated in is not recognized by their church. So some day, just like Nicole Kidman the last Mrs. Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes can get an annulment and still walk down the aisle the second time in a Roman Catholic Church.

It was reported that Andrea Bocelli sang Ave Maria at the reception. However, Bocelli later told the press that he did not attend the Scientology event, because of his Catholic faith.

Was the Italian tenor’s reported rendition of Ave Maria at the reception meant to be a peace offering to placate the bride’s family? 

Kidman and Cruise’s ex-girlfriend Penelope Cruz sent gifts.

No word from Mimi Rogers, the first Mrs. Cruise, who once complained that about their sex life.

What advice would these exes give the new Mrs. Cruise?

MSNBC says that the Katie Holmes should “forget about marriage counseling” if there are problems, because as Tom Cruise told Matt Lauer, psychology is a “Nazi science.”

L. Ron Hubbard, Cruise’s hero, wasn’t that successful at marriage either. He was divorced too, but unlike the actor was also accused of bigamy.

Hubbard’s first wife said she had trouble leaving him and claimed the former Sci-fi writer subdued her with a “hammerlock, causing strangulation and thus preventing any outcry” and later ran away with their baby daughter.

Let’s hope that Tom Cruise isn’t planning to follow his hero’s example if things get tough.

Hubbard’s third wife, if one questionable union is counted, Mary Sue Hubbard did time in federal prison over a Scientology-related criminal conspiracy. 

Hopefully Katie Holmes will never experience such harsh housing. 

Things don’t seem to look that promising though. When all the festivities were done in Italy the groom, his bride and “best man” reportedly flew away together.

Not exactly romantic, but maybe it is somehow spiritually fulfilling to bring the head of your church along to begin married life.

And news reports have noted that the height difference between Cruise and Holmes may be an issue for the actor, who is at least two inches shorter than his latest spouse. Apparently he was concerned enough to stage a wedding photo, which makes him look taller.

Tom Cruise is supposedly set to begin shooting a new movie with Robert Redford in January.

Katie Holmes has no reported career plans, other than of course being Mrs. Tom Cruise, which pays rather well.

Many have said that this much publicized romance and marriage is little more than a scheme to help the middle-aged actor’s career and give his public image a boost.

The Italian wedding was “branded” a “Scientology stunt.” And it was revealed that the couple had actually already “officialized” their marriage before departing for Italy while still in Los Angeles.

But can a $10 million dollar wedding somehow make Tom Cruise a hot Hollywood star again?

Despite the price tag for the production it’s unlikely to count at the box office. 

Tom Cruise may actually be morphing into something of a celebrity oddity much like Michael Jackson, another superstar that began his descent into pop culture irrelevance with a reportedly contrived Scientology marriage.

Follow-up: According to repeated media reports Katie Holmes is so unhappy with her honeymoon that she wants another one. Reportedly the bride and groom were accompanied on their honeymoon by Scientology leader and Cruise’s “best man” David Miscavige. But a spokesperson for the chairman of the controversial religion told the press, “This is so stupid. I don’t know how many times I have to say it: It is absolutely, 100 percent not true. Mr. Miscavige was not there.”

Carol Seidman, the self-proclaimed leader of the seminar-selling group known as the “Miracle of Love,” claims she speaks for a “higher power.”

Seidman’s followers call her “Kalindi La Gourasana.”

However, a local newspaper reporting about the group named it simply the “Kalindi Cult.”

Ms. Seidman, once the sidekick of self-styled “channeler” David Swanson, says that she has been channeling his power since her mentor’s death some years ago.

Well, that’s what Kalindi’s followers believe.

And Seidman is good at gathering followers, especially rich ones.

The group largely based in San Diego promotes “The Intensive,” which is an introductory six-day Miracle of Love seminar.

During the days of mass marathon training there is “screaming and crying…dancing and laughter. Seminar participants are hugged, praised, coddled and cradled. Their brains flood with endorphins; they feel purged, released, euphoric. Hearts fill with love for everyone in the room…they are experiencing…God’s energy” reported San Diego City Beat. 

Some say it’s more like “brainwashing.”

Has Kalindi concocted a formula based upon older more established seminars such as the Forum and added a dash of “Ms. Maharishi“?

CultNews recently received YouTube links that show Seidman performing for her faithful.

In one clip the 52-year-old becomes nostalgic, and dances to 1960s pop music after telling followers that her version of enlightenment doesn’t prohibit “sex,” “hamburgers” or “rock-n-roll.”

If you want to see this middle-aged guru shake her tailfeathers click here.

In another clip Seidman is somewhat less of a joke.

She eerily warns seminar attendees that in order to expose the “beautiful gem” inside of them they may have to rub away some “evil.”

To see Seidman holding forth about polishing off the “darkness” click here.

Miracle of Love is registered as a “nonprofit.”

However, whether it’s dancing carelessly festooned in feathers or pontificating comfortably from her overstuffed throne, Seidman seems to be doing well.

Miracle of Love is largely based in San Diego and at least one “Intensive” was held in the La Jolla Marriott Hotel.

Kalindi likes to keep her followers carefully organized within “group houses,” supervised by appointed “spiritual leaders.”

Interestingly, one California man ended up less than enlightened. He was sentenced to a year in jail over a kidnap plot that reportedly centered on recovering $3.8 million lost by members of the group.

It appears dancing Kalindi is swinging pretty big assets.

Note: Don’t be surprised if these clips are quickly removed from YouTube subsequent to this report, point and click soon before they are gone.

Tonight the Los Angeles affiliate of Fox News will broadcast a deeply disturbing report about a “cult” that flogs its own members publicly as penance after a bizarre mock trial.

The Fox News 11 report tonight about the group called “Jesus Christians” will air at 10 PM on the West Coast exclusively in the greater Los Angeles area.

American-born Dave McKay, a self-styled holy man that has been called a “cult leader,” created “Jesus Christians” after leaving the group “Children of God,” a notorious “sex cult” known for sexually abusing children and sending its female members out to raise money as “hookers for Christ.”

The so-called “Jesus Christians” is a much smaller group of less than a hundred, but McKay has managed to grab attention around the world through sensational stunts, such as encouraging his followers to give up a kidney as an organ transplant to total strangers.

The British press accordingly has called “Jesus Christians” the “kidney cult.”

60-year-old McKay seems to have an insatiable desire for attention and will apparently do almost anything to feed his ego.

The Fox News report about “Jesus Christians” tonight includes coverage of its staged mock trial, which culminates in the sentence carried out of public fogging.

The trial features a family that struggled to free a teenage son from McKay’s influence.

“Jesus Christians” has a history of recruiting minor children, a practice that has gotten the group into serious trouble.

McKay appears to be following in the footsteps of Claude Vorilhon known as “Rael,” leader of the “Raelians,” another group with a penchant for staging publicity stunts to garner attention for its leader.

The often-ridiculous Raelians are best known as the “clone cult,” due to the claim that they had somehow cloned the first human. A story that got the group worldwide attention, but turned out to be little more than a joke.

However, former members of the “Jesus Christians” see McKay as anything but amusing and say they were manipulated and exploited within the group some now consider a “cult.”

Some former members have been posting comments about the group on an open forum message board provided by the Ross Institute of New Jersey, which is the sponsor of CultNews.

McKay himself, endlessly concerned about his public image, has at times posted at the board too.

One thread at this forum is titled “Australian Cult” and has been open for more than a year, with posts added as recently as today. 

Other threads discuss the recent public whippings and various other egocentric antics of the man labeled a “sick cult leader” in California. 

McKay apparently planned the beatings for months, which are included in the report tonight on Fox 11.

This drama can be seen as little more than retaliation against the family in Los Angeles that opposed him. Their teenage son, an outstanding student and athlete, deserted his goals and family to follow McKay.

Perhaps the only visibly positive portion of the Fox 11 report tonight, is that Dave McKay is one of those being beaten, a man that many feel deserves some punishment for the many people he has hurt. 

The Fox 11 report is a unique and startling inside look at one of the most bizarre and potentially dangerous “cults” in the world today. A compelling lesson about how controlling such groups can be, which is probably not quite the message McKay imagined or wanted.

CultNews doubts that anyone can beat some sense into Dave McKay, but this news event underscores the damage that can be done to individuals and families at times, “in the name of God.”

Rev. Ted Haggard has stepped down as the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, which includes 30 million American members amidst a growing scandal about his personal life.

Haggard has admitted that he bought illegal drugs from a gay prostitute reports ABC News.

Mike Jones, a “male escort,” says that Rev. Haggard paid him for sex regularly over a period of three years and that the minister liked snorting methamphetamine “to heighten the experience” reported Times Online.

The disgraced minister has “confessed to the overseers” of the 14,000-member New Life Church he led in Colorado Springs, Colorado. And Haggard has “temporarily stepped aside” pending the results of an internal church investigation concerning the allegations.

Haggard, married and the father of five was named by Time Magazine as one of the top 25 most powerful evangelical leaders in the United States.  

The 50-year-old minister told the press, “I bought [methamphetamine] for myself but never used it. I was tempted, but I never used it,” he repeatedly insisted. 

However, Haggard’s claims sounds eerily like the much-ridiculed remarks of Bill Clinton who once told the press that he “experimented with marijuana a time or two,” but “didn’t inhale.”

Carefully parsing his words Haggard says he received a “massage,” but that he never had sexual relations with the prostitute.

Maybe that depends upon what your definition of a massage is? 

Many Christian fundamentalists are embarrassed by the recent disclosures about the minister including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, another powerful evangelical leader and close associate of Haggard.

Ted Haggard was an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, but he may have favored gay prostitution.

“It made me angry that here’s someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex,” said Mike Jones the “male escort” that exposed Haggard.

“I just want people to step back and take a look and say, ’Look, we’re all sinners, we all have faults,” Jones added.

Amen?

No doubt that’s a sentiment that Rev. Haggard will be counting on.

Note: Paul Crouch, the president and founder of Trinity Broadcasting Network paid an employee a $425,000 settlement, who alleged that he had sex with the televangelist to keep his job reported the Los Angeles Times.

Madonna seems to be trying to “reinvent” herself once again as a globetrotting celebrity humanitarian, supposedly following in the footsteps of Angelina Jolie and Bono, but it appears that she has stumbled badly.

The 1980s diva adopted an African baby only to have that act raise questions about her motives and morality.

Perhaps it wasn’t good press, but generosity that motivated the former “Material Girl.” However, her public statements seem increasingly conflicted and confused.

Discussing her new baby boy David’s religious future she said, “If David decides he wants to be a Christian, then so be it,” and then added, “I believe in Jesus and I study Kabbalah, so I don’t see why he can’t too” reports the BBC.

However, how can the child make up his mind about religion when his mommy apparently can’t?

Madonna, formerly a Roman Catholic, now celebrates Jewish holidays and festivals through the religious organization known as the “Kabbalah Centre,” founded by Philip Berg, now effectively run by his wife Karen and their two sons Yehuda and Michael.

Little David has already been spotted wearing the “red string” amulet sold by his mother’s spiritual mentors.

Madonna’s rep, Liz Rosenberg, told Jeannette Walls at MSNBC this was to protect him from “the unfriendly stare and unkind glances,” more commonly called the “evil eye.”

Experts on Jewish mysticism have frequently criticized the Kabbalah Centre, which has been called a “cult,” for its crass commercialism. And the group has no meaningful status within the organized Jewish community.

Madonna likewise hasn’t much standing amongst Christian leaders, other than frequent denouncements, most recently for her concert crucifixions.

So where does that leave little David?

Should he follow mom’s example, a woman that seemingly believes in certain chosen and combined facets of two religions simultaneously?

Has Madonna become something like a so-called “Jew for Jesus“?

Welcome to the confusing world that this celebrity’s kids must inhabit.

Madonna has dismissed critics of her adoption as “racist” claiming, “A lot of people have a problem with the fact that I’ve adopted an African child.”

However, CultNews thinks baby David may “have a problem,” trying to form a consistent identity under Madonna’s influence.

Follow-up: Madonna was ridiculed about her adoption. Dressed in drag as the “Material Girl” for the MTV Europe Music Awards comic Avid Merrion did a send-up of the diva’s dance number from last year backed up by “little people” gyrating in baby clothes reports The Independent online.  “I’m getting too old for this s***.” Merrion mugged. And then the comic told the audience mimicking the star, “I’ve been getting a lot of hoo-ha from the press recently just because I bought a baby. But I’m Madonna. If I want to buy a baby I buy a flipping baby.”