IBOF sought the copy of the High Court Judgement which I immediately sent him. But he has already had conclusions about the judgement. He states that the judgement has some bizarre thinking in it.
The jdugement in the second itself clearly stated that "As pleaded by the petitioners thselves...". Still, the IBOFB says that nowhere did the judges stated that their opinions were based on the Amway affidavit.
Now he has the full text in his hand, what would IBOFB comment. I hope he would not comment on the 'bizarre thinking' again.
And the IBOFB tried to plant suspicion in the minds of readers by stating that one of the judges said "if the allegations of the police are true". It is a blatant lie. Nowhere either chief justice Singhvi or justice Nagarjuna Reddy said those words.
As per the letter published about the comments against products, it is the opinion of a reader and he has every reason to say what he believed. And the apologists have every right to defend it. It is like letters to editor in a newspaper.
But what they conveniently forget was the judgement of Consumer Forum at Vijayawada which levied a penalty of Rs. one hundred thousand on Amway for selling adulterated products And I have already posted that judgement. Nobody talks about it. I have illustrated what products are adulterated and what products are misbranded. Of course, it is now pending in the State Consumer Forum and Amway's lawyers did not turn up for the last hearing recently.
6 comments:
Thank you for the copy. It is the same as I have read before. I'll elaborate on the "bizarre thinking". First of all is the whole area of "quick and easy money". This is a key part of the Prize Chits & Money Circulations Scheme Banning Act, that "quick and easy money" is being offered as an inducement to join.
Yet when we read the case, evidence is provided that Amway makes "quick and easy" money through membership fees. Even if true, how is the relevant? The "quick and easy money" descriptive in the act is clearly an issue as an inducement to join - not related to whether the operating company is making "quick and easy money". Bizarrely, the judge seemed to accept this reasoning.
If this thinking is to be accepted, then every gym or club that has a membership fee falls under this act. Every newspaper or magazine that is deliver home falls under the act.
Indeed anything where anyone charges a renewable fee for services is a "quick and easy money scheme"!!!
How is that not bizarre?
The fact Amway India requires 50PV of volume for an IBO to earn bonuses is also held as evidence of "quick and easy money". Indeed, the judgement says -
Even though the scheme per se does not stipulate that each distributor has to maintain the minimum required business level, prescription of minimum level of 50 PV to qualify for getting commission is sufficient inducement for the members to relentlessly strive for maintaining the PV level at or above the said minimum levels.
Now I have no information at all of Amway's legal representation, but if they judge came to this conclusion they clearly did a pretty awful job. The judge claims this "is sufficient inducement for the members to relentlessly strive" for 50PV every month.
Amway's statistics would clearly show the judge is 100% wrong. Only a minority of participants generate 50PV of personal volume every month. Yet the judge says they're all pursuing it relentlessly? Reality indicates otherwise.
A similar situation arises where the judge says -
Once a person becomes a distributor in a scheme of this nature where the sops in the shape of commission are so luring, it would be very difficult for a member to withdraw from their membership to avoid payment of the annual renewal subscription fee
Again, reality shows the judge is simply wrong. Globally typically only around 30% of people who register with Amway renew after the first year. I am 100% certain the rate is not significantly different in India.
So 7 out of 10 people do not renew, yet the judge would have us believe not renewing is "very difficult"! Reality is different.
Elsewhere, Diamond Raja Naren is held up as an example of proof of "quick and easy" money because he continued to earn income on his Diamond business. Raja Naren spent at least 5 years working extremely hard to build a Diamond business. How anyone can consider that "quick" or "easy" is beyond me.
Again, if we accept this thinking, then Bollywood falls under this act, since people spend years making a movie, and then can sit back and earn an income!
With respect, this judge had either decided in advance what his position was, and was looking for justification, or Amway lawyer's did such an amazingly bad job they should be disbarred from practicing! I suspect the truth may actually lie somewhere in between the two.
The whole judgement is full of such strange statements. I do however highlight the following (which you claim I lied about) -
From the conclusion arrived at by us on the analysis of the admitted material available before us concerning the scheme, we have no doubt whatsoever that if the allegations contained in the report of C.No.1474/C-27/CID/2006 dated 24.9.2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.
This is the heart of the manner. The allegations cannot be taken at face value. To do so will lead to the kind of strange conclusions I outlined above. I have no idea what the evidentiary standards and court procedures are in a case of this nature, where a petitioner is trying to stop an investigation, but I suspect they are far looser than for an actual trial. Indeed, in dismissing Amway's petition, the court itself cited precedent with regard this kind of hearing -
The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material
They essentially admit to not having any more than facts which are "incomplete and hazy" and this is part of their justification (quite reasonably) for not approving Amway's petition to dismiss.
The judges themselves admit to not having the information to make a fully formed judgement, why do you think otherwise?
Look at the flunky trying to defend his joke of a business.
The difference is when you actually work out at a gym, you get results. There is ZERO unbiased evidence to show that the system of cds and functions actually work.
Joe, that was weak man. seriously there is no joke about a debt free 6 billion dollar a year business.
Newsflash Levi. You and other IBOs are not Amway.
Amway could have a hundred billion in sales and it doesn't mean you made a red cent.
whatever you would like to discredit us with is fine but the reality is still there we operate our business venture from a business that does 6 billion per year. now you can dress that however you want but the "flunkie"comment is just cheap and lame. grow up.
Post a Comment