Monday, 12 September 2011

Politicians who live in glass houses do not throw stones

Shyam

'MLM income opportunity' fraud is a shameful phenomenon which originated in the USA, but which, due to a chronic failure of the US justice system, has been allowed to spread around the world. However, imagine if this pernicious hoax had been the invention of non-American racketeers who first dodged rigorous investigation in their own land in order to rob billions of dollars from their fellow citizens whilst corrupting their own government. Imagine, if these dangerous charlatans had then exported their criminal activities to other countries including the USA. Yet, amazingly, there are foreign-based racketeers who have done the equivalent of this. Various people, including Robert Fitzpatrick and myself, have described 'MLM income opportunity' fraud as the American version of the Nigerian Bank scam. Interestingly, in the USA, the Secret Service has been the federal agency tasked with combating foreign-based advance fee frauds like the Nigerian Bank scam. 

The thought-provoking question that I have posed in the past, is:
Given that tens of millions of individuals (including, legislators, law enforcement agents, judges, journalists, etc.) continue to be deceived by 'MLM income opportunity' fraud, and that this titanic, US-based, reality-inverting racket has infiltrated, and poisoned, traditional culture to a degree almost without precedent in the sordid pantheon of organized crime, what would it be appropriate to charge the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob, and their de facto criminal associates, with?
However, this question could be re-phrased:
What would have been the attitude of the founding-fathers of the American Republic to the bunch of otherwise-mediocre, narcissistic liars who instigated 'MLM income opportunity' fraud?
The US Constitution says that: 
'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court' .... 'there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.'
Interestingly, the wise authors of the US Constitution did not attempt to define, or to limit, the term: 'levying War.' However, for decades the US government has included agencies which are supposedly specialist in prosecuting, and combating, psychological and economic warfare tactics. Thus, unless these agencies are a fraud themselves, the US government already accepts that war can be levied psychologically and financially; making it technically possible to bring a charge of treason against the bosses of a major US-based 'MLM' mob - on the grounds that they have conspired to levy an extensive war which has caused immense damage to the US economy, to the fabric of American society and to the reputation of the USA internationally. I genuinely believe that if the USA had been governed in recent years by individuals of the same, high, intellectual and moral calibre as the founding fathers of the Republic, then this radical course of action would have already been taken. 
Unfortunately, for decades the USA has been governed by an intellectually, and morally, bankrupt class of professional politicians who have represented two quasi-identical, political factions, both of which have been under financial obligation to bankers and racketeers. This makes the possibility of a morally and intellectually rigorous federal investigation, and prosecution, of the bosses of a major US-based 'MLM' mob, highly-unlikely; for people (and, particularly, politicians) who live in glass houses, never want to throw stones. 
Mr. Chang is now trying to remain on CFW by being polite and denying reality. Despite what he has recently pretended, he has not yet given us a frank explanation of exactly what sparked his own interest in 'MLM' fraud and cultism. In fact, he's given us a rather evasive reply on that subject. Obviously, we all know he's looked at 'TVI Express', but why?
Contrary to what Mr. Chang has recently claimed, what the bosses of 'Amway' have been doing in the USA, and elsewhere, for decades, is obviously prohibited by federal anti-racketeering legislation.
The 'Amway' labyrinth itself is fundamentally fraudulent, because it was designed to obstruct justice by preventing, and diverting, a federal investigation and prosecution of related, global frauds, whilst isolating the beneficiaries of these related global frauds from liability in the USA. Thus, the individuals who registered the companies with the US federal and State governments, which comprise the criminogenic 'Amway' labyrinth in the USA, have all submitted false declarations to federal and State government agencies as to the actual underlying function of these corporate structures. As Professor Blakey observed in his remarkable report on'Amway,' exactly like the bosses of the Mafia, the bosses of 'Amway' have often installed family members as officers of their organization's constituent corporate structures, because these persons have had little, or no, idea how'Amway' really functions.
The medium by which the pernicious 'Amway' hoax has infected traditional US culture (by wire, mail, etc.) is central to US federal law, although this curious method of categorizing fraud is particular to the USA. However, the bosses of  the 'Amway' mob at one time owned a radio station in the USA which was licensed by the federal government, they have also regularly broadcast reality-inverting propaganda on US television networks and in US newspapers and magazines, which are licensed by the federal government. For years, these same thieves have been using the Internet in an attempt to maintain an absolute monopoly of information about their clandestine criminal objectives.
In reality, there is no end to list of racketeering counts with which the bosses of the 'Amway' mob, and their de facto criminal associates, could have been charged by US federal prosecutors.
It, therefore, beggars belief that Mr. Chang, if he really is the independent observer he claims to be, has not seen this.
David Brear (copyright 2011)

1 comment:

Kasey Chang said...

Mr. Brear,

As I've explained before, I agree with your OVERALL view but I have doubts about SOME of the individual evidence and supporting logic.

Thus, I wonder why the continued hostility. Is it because I refuse to accept EVERYTHING you say at face value until it is adequately proven? Or are you going to insist your evidence or logic is "self-evident"?

I have remained quite polite, but you clearly have not, as you insist on attributing various negative descriptions upon me based on your assumptions. However, if this provides some entertainment to the readers, so be it. As least, we ARE discussing the issues, instead of Shyam deleting them at his whim.

While you can cite the the definition of mail fraud and wire fraud, the problem is proving such in court will be quite difficult, just playing devil's advocate here.

I believe I have read the Amway magazine once or twice, and I found it to be mostly cheerleading articles, "news" about accomplishments of uplines, some "tips", announcement of new products and and corporate developments, and so on. Most corporate mags are that way.

The problem here is linking these individual articles and the OVERALL FRAUDULENT NATURE OF MLM.

Every one of those individual articles are likely true, to the extent that they contains fact and no obvious misleading statements.

It is the INHERENT NATURE of MLM that makes it fraudulent. Thus, claiming the PERIPHERAL ACTIVITIES, such as announcing "XXX has achieved rank of YYY" or "Product ZZZ is now available..." constitutes "mail fraud" or "wire fraud" would be a hard sell in court, because to do so, you're getting into a pit called 'free speech', esp. on something that had NOT been declared illegal YET.

I believe I understand your viewpoint: ANY attempt to "promote" a fraudulent activity *should* be considered fraud (wire and mail), but when you throw in "free speech" in the mix the water gets VERY muddy indeed, esp. when the stuff presented are factually true, AND the company itself had not been convicted of fraud yet.

Thus lies the difficulty.

That privately sued RICO case has yet to be resolved, AFAIK.

--KC