DSAs are not independent regulatory bodies run by honest individuals

Shyam
This Scott ('Tex') Johnson fellow is like a character from a badly-written comedy script. There is a very good reason for this: he is a character from a badly-written comedy script. Apparently, Johnson really believes that we are like foolish children, incapable of thinking without his wise paternal guidance. Although, on the ample evidence of his ceaseless puerile and abusive contributions to your (and other) Blog(s) and his incapacity to spell common English words, Mr. Johnson is an ill-educated, immature and oafish lout who has quite obviously never had an intelligent thought in his life.
Trivedi is so naive that he imagines 'DSAs' to be independent regulatory bodies run by honest individuals. The suggestion that 'DSAs' are a smoke screen run by the de facto agents of major organized crime groups like 'Amway,' he considers to be 'gossip.' How the hell does Trivedi think that the corporate officers of 'DSAs' get paid? Does he think that they are brave and incorruptible law enforcement agents financed by tax payers?
In the adult world of quantifiable reality, 'DSAs' are generally registered as private companies, but they conduct no commercial activity themselves. They are wholly-financed by the membership fees of organizations including: 'Amway', 'Herbalife.', etc. Whatever lofty 'Codes of Ethics' these 'DSAs' brandish, are never enforced. The former Chairman of the 'World Federation of Direct Selling Associations' was none other than the son of one of the instigators of the 'Amway' mob. The elderly Director of the 'UK DSA,' Richard Berry, recently gave a lengthy deposition to the UK High Court in which he committed perjury on behalf of 'Amway UK,' but, mysteriously, no complaint was made to the Judge by UK government lawyers. The corporate officers of the 'US DSA' have been attempting to interfere with federal and state legislation concerning their pay-masters' criminal activities, for decades.
Unfortunately, intellectually castrated persons such as Johnson and Trivedi think using the two-dimensional (negative versus positive) scenarios which control totalitarian movements. They have been programmed systematically to view persons such as you and I Shyam, as being unenlightened. Sadly, they cannot comprehend any form of multi-dimensional thinking.
Most of the bleating flock of 'Amway' apologists, with the exception of Steadson (and his largely-invisible associates) are to be pitied. However, their pathetic, face-saving squawking, when faced with a mountain of damning evidence, demonstrates the frightening hold pernicious cultic groups can exert over their adherents.
David Brear