'MLM' lies are invariably precise

Shyam

I see that the perplexing Mr. Chang is still steadfastly pretending to be a fair-minded, independent observer - an innocent victim under attack. However, he now claims that he's only been playing the 'devil's advocate.' Unfortunately, the 'Amway' mob is a wealthy devil with many disguises that already has an echelon of morally-supine, intellectual prostitutes (some of whom have also worn disguises), from whom we have heard all of these tell-tale, precisely-worded sophisms before.

Despite his manners, Mr. Chang remains a blinkered nuisance whose latest, strangely-familiar, false argument (in apparently feigned defence of 'Amway') is that it would be impossible to prove in a US federal court that the bosses of the 'Amway' mob have been committing fraud, because they only make factual statements in their advertising material.

Given the wider evidence and by applying a bit of common-sense, it would be far more-accurate to have said that although 'Amway' propaganda is very precisely-worded, and can fool casual observers into believing that it contains only factual statements, it has been deliberately designed to withhold key-information from both the public and from law enforcement agents and is, therefore, fundamentally fraudulent. Indeed, the difference between the two English words, 'precise' and 'accurate,' is central to understanding how the 'MLM income opportunity' fraud functions; for if you look in a dictionary, these words are usually given as synonyms, but if you stop to think, they actually mean completely different things. i.e. If I say that 10.457 x 3.652 = 37.188964, then it is a factual statement to say that my answer is precise, but, at the same time, my answer it is not at all accurate. It is, in fact, a lie.

Contrary to what Mr. Chang says, it would be painfully easy to prove the organization most-commonly referred to as 'Amway' to be a fraud, because, for the previous 50+ years, the bosses of this organization have been steadfastly pretending that they offer individuals the opportunity to earn extra income from directly selling goods, and/or services, to the public for a profit. It, therefore, beggars belief that senior US law enforcement agents have never had the gumption to go to State and Federal Tax services to establish exactly how many so-called 'Independent Amway Business Owners' have actually earned some net-income from retailing to the public. Notice how, for obvious reasons, the 'Amway' bosses have never said that they offer anyone the opportunity to earn 'net-income,' but the implication has always been there. The clandestine criminal objective of the 'Amway' bosses has been to keep luring a never-ending chain of ill-informed individuals into a blame-the-victim, closed-market swindle, dissimulated as an 'income opportunity' in order that a significant percentage of these constantly-churning victims will then act as the bait in a related- advance fee fraud. This is where all the real money has been made, and it seems that a lot of it has been pocketed in cash. By using a 'mafia'-style labyrinth of (apparently independent) corporate structures to operate these related-rackets, the bosses of the 'Amway' mob have classically sought to obstruct justice and isolate themselves from liability. 

In the adult world of quantifiable reality, any so-called 'income opportunity' in which effectively every single participant has failed for more than half a century, whilst a handful of instigators of this so-called 'income opportunity' have become billionaires by witholding this key-information from the public and from law enforcement agents, is self-evidently a racket.

Given this common-sense road-map to a successful prosecution, if the individuals who run the US justice system are so morally, and intellectually, feeble that they still cannot manage to put a stop to the pernicious 'MLM income opportunity' hoax, then, to be brutally frank, I think that they all want their back-sides kicking. Personally, I don't know how they have the cheek to keep cashing their salary cheques, but then the same common-sense observations could have been made about the flock of SEC dunces with diplomas who refused to investigate Bernie Madoff.

David Brear (copyright 2011)