Wednesday, 21 April 2010

IBOFB is risking a long prison term

The masked 'Amway' Lord Haw Haw, Mr. 'IBOFB' Steadson, is really puffing himself up. In fact, he now puts me in mind of the Wizard of Oz (Brisbane, to be precise).
I believe the last time I received an empty threat of legal action from a puffed-up creature representing the 'Amway' mob, was in 1997. On that occasion, it came from an (unnamed) attorney working for Baileys Shaw Gillette LLP - a (now defunct) international law firm that was being paid by 'Amway UK Ltd.' However, we now know that (since its creation in 1973) 'Amway UK Ltd.' was always an insolvent corporate structure (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars). The real purpose of the fake direct selling company known as 'Amway UK Ltd.' was to lure victims into a closed-market swindle and related advance fee fraud. This begs the rather obvious question: Who was really paying this attorney to try to intimidate me?
Mr. Steadson repeatedly claims to be an entrepreneur. However, if his commercial judgement is so lacking that he has signed a series of financially-suicidal 'Independent Business Owner Contracts' with 'Amway,' then it is very difficult to believe that the poor lad has the capacity to recognise, let alone run, any form of traditonal (profit-making) business. Indeed, as a so-called 'Amway Independent Business Owner', Mr. Steadson's chances of making a profit have been (effectivey) zero. This begs the rather obvious question: How would this kamikaze of commerce be able to afford (by himself) to pay for the expensive international legal action with which he is now emptily threatening me? During the course of such dangerous litigation, if it turned out that Mr. Steadson has been receiving cash from any source, or sources, remotely connected to the 'Amway' mob, then he risks a long prison term.
The US federal Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organizations Act, 1970 (which has been clarified by various US Supreme Court judgements), makes it perfectly clear that any malicious attempt by de facto agents of a US-based organized crime group to intimidate witnesses, including the filing of malicious civil and criminal complaints in an attempt to obstruct justice, is considered to be part of a pattern of racketeering activity. Under this hard-hitting legislation, even the attorneys of US-based organized crime groups risk long prison sentences.
David Brear (copyright 2010)


IBOFB said...

Yes Brear, legal action would be expensive. That's why I'm wondering what you do for a living to see if there's any chance it would cover the costs after I win.

I believe you live in France, right? France has some of the most liberal libel laws in the world. It would be an easy win for me, but doubtful worth anything more than the joy of doing it.

On the hand I get plenty of joy reading your hilarious rants here! :-D

But I will say this. I have many times stated that, apart from my role and earnings as an ABO, I am not paid by Amway or any related organisation to defend them on the internet. This is stated clearly on my website and I am confirming it again here.

As such, consider this a formal request to cease and desist from stating or otherwise implying that I am paid or otherwise financially compensated by Amway for publishing information about Amway online or otherwise engaging with critics of Amway on the internet or elsewhere.

Shyam - as you are the host of this blog you should be aware that you are also considered liable if you knowingly contribute to the posting of defamatory statements.

Now, having got the formalities out of the way, I have no intention of suing either of you. For now at least I'm quite happy for you to continue to hang yourself with your intellectually and morally bankrupt rants.

rocket said...

There's more than a few people who believe David Steadson is compensated for his on-line Amway defence.

I believe it to be true, however, I'm not prepared at this time to present evidence to support the suspicion.

There are over a dozen websites that he started, and his "The Truth About Amway" website has a lot of effort put into it.

Couple that with the amount of trolling he does saving the Amway name whenever it comes up in a forum conversation, and you have fairly reasonable grounds to suspect that this is more than a passing hobby.

Not to mention the effort and thought that goes into his posts and damage control.

I would be very surprised if the truth ever became known, and I would be incredibly surprised if the truth was what Steadson said.

But heck, I've been wrong about stuff before. Maybe Steadson isn't compensated for his online defence of Amway. I don't know.

But I know what I believe.

Tex said...

Who cares?

IBOFB said...


JoeCool actively operates more websites than I do, who do you believe is paying him?

Kind of flattering that you think I'm a "pro" though. In fact you're making me seriously consider doing that.

I'll be sure to let you know.

rocket said...

Do what you want Dave. As far as being a pro at defending Amway, I never stated nor implied that. I don't think you're good at it, I just think you're compensated for it in some way.

So now you throw out the word "active" to obfuscate the issue. You have over a dozen sites, you have a forum, and run the Amway wiki. You also troll other sites where there's talk of Amway, and you post on forums such as this.

What would any reasonable person think based on that alone? That is not normal behaviour.

I won't ask you to think about it, because I know you won't.

Nice talking to you again.

Joecool said...

IBOFB lying again.

Care to show proof that I operate (actively) more websites than you? I only have two.

Unless you prove it, shut up.

corporate frauds watch said...

Again verbal constipation Tex, the idiot!

Tex said...


You are too stupid to understand this court ruling is VERY big news.

Joecool said...

So Tex, what exactly will happen as a result of the recent ruling?

Tex said...

The original lawsuit goes to court, and the judge will decide how much information is publicly available. Regardless, it will provide FAR more useful information than arbitration would have, which is nearly zero.