Wednesday, 7 September 2011

So where exactly in the US government can we find this famous morality of which Mr. Chang speaks?

After Mr. Chang's latest thoughtless comments, I think it is probably about time that we give up trying to encourage him to do some thinking. Mr. Chang's mind still just does not accept the accurate, deconstructed words I have written. Thus, my own thoughts remain completely beyond his current thinking. Unfortunately, in order for this evidently-patriotic American fellow to understand my position, he is going to have to abandon many of the self-deceptions which support his own view of himself. 
Given the wider evidence, Mr. Chang's alleged factual statement that 'MLM is legal in the USA' remains simplistic drivel, and his contention that fraud (which is a form of theft) can be legal (i.e. permitted by law), remains an absurd oxymoron. Again, Mr. Chang has misrepresented Robert FitzPatrick (who, incidentally, does not hold the title of Dr.).
It would have been far more accurate for Mr. Chang to have said that what has been most-commonly referred to as 'Multi-Level Marketing,' has never been specifically prohibited by law in the USA. However, that doesn't make 'MLM' legal in the USA.
What I and others have said, is that US criminal law already prohibits fraud, but the bosses of 'MLM' gangs have escaped being held to account by hiding their criminal objectives behind mystifying labyrinths of corporate structures. These structures have, so far, done their job and prevented, and/or diverted, investigation, and isolated the bosses of the largest 'MLM' gangs from liability. This type of organized criminal activity is already defined in the USA by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. Apart from a few private civil prosecutions under RICO (which have usually been halted, without admitting liability, by offering the plaintiffs cash), to date, 'MLM' racketeers have only risked low-level, civil investigation, and prosecution, in the USA by poorly-paid, legally-qualified, federal trade regulators who, unfortunately, then have often gone on to represent 'MLM' racketeers in return for multi-million dollar salaries. This fatally-flawed policy has been the equivalent of tasking a troop of greedy, lazy and morally-bankrupt boy/girl scouts to tackle the'Nazi' party.
With a level of (unconscious) irony bordering on the exquisite, Mr. Chang has now partly-reproduced an unoriginal philosophical text about the difference between morality and legality, whilst excluding from his patriotic thinking the painful reality that various thoroughly-immoral individuals within the US government and justice system have been bought by 'MLM' racketeers. This has made the US government and justice system a significant part of the 'MLM' problem and not the solution to it, as Mr. Chang has naively imagined.
Again, given the wider evidence, there is no need to write a new law in the USA specifically prohibiting 'MLM' fraud, because 'MLM' is only the latest title for an age-old criminogenic phenomenon. I would refer Mr. Chang to my article .
Perhaps one day, Mr. Chang will be able to face the challenging fact that the USA has become an effectively-ungovernable monster where fraud has long-since triumphed and where many US citizens prefer live like children in a mass-delusion of their nation's absolute moral and intellectual authority, rather than face up to the adult world of quantifiable reality.
David Brear (copyright 2011)


corporate frauds watch said...

Mr. Chang.

This particularly childish comment has been removed because it contains a statement (in quotation marks) which you attribute to Mr. Brear, but which he most certainly has never made. Furthermore, your inflexible insistance that 'MLM is legal in the USA,' even though you also state that it is your belief that 'MLM is a fraud,' is self-contradicting nonsense.

In respect of what has been most-commonly referred to as 'MLM':

For decades, Ill-informed, and/or corrupt, senior American law enforcement agents have failed to enforce existing federal legislation which prohibits fraud, and, particularly fraud which forms part of an overall pattern of major racketeering activity. Thus, 'MLM income opportunity' fraud (which is undoubtedly one of the largest rackets the world has ever failed to spot ) has been effectively authorized in the USA, but most certainly this major crime has not been legalized in the USA or elsewhere, as your dangerously-simplistic statements have continued to imply.

Kasey Chang said...

Dear Shyam,

What exactly IS childish about my comment that Mr. Brear was EXTREMELY wordy in expressing his opinion?

He takes DOZENS sentence to object to me saying "MLM is legal", when he could have wrote exactly ONE sentence, "You should have wrote 'MLM has not been declared illegal'." Which, eventually, he did, except he took his time about it!

And it is a statement I agree with, since I said ALMOST the same thing!

He may not have wrote those exact words, but he DID write, correcting me: "'Multi-Level Marketing,' has never been specifically prohibited by law in the USA."

That is "MLM has not been declared illegal"

Where as "MLM is fraud, and thus illegal" was long established on this blog, and in fact, in virtually every blogpost.

So how can you state that "he [Brear] most certainly has never made [statement]"? He may not have uttered those exact words, but his meaning was clear.

If you meant to say I misquoted or misunderstood Mr. Brear, then please correct me, or let Mr. Brear do so.

As for the "MLM is legal" and "MLM is fraud" together is "self-contradicting nonsense" I believe, is what you wrote, this is where we disagree.

First of all, I agree with Mr. Brear that it can be corrected that "MLM is legal" to "MLM has not been declared illegal". This was the essence of the comment you deleted as "particularly childish". I AGREE with the correction, and I remarked that it took Mr. Brear a dozen sentences to get to the point. And you DELETED that comment.

Why is admitting my mistake and agreeing with Mr. Brear "particular childish"?

You and I simply are using the term "legal" in different ways, which is what I said BEFORE, in the PREVIOUS comment (the one you did NOT delete!) You are using "illegal" in the sense of "amoral / fraudulent". I am using "illegal" as "breaking the law". Or in other words, there is this gap between when fraudulent behavior is documented, and when law is passed against it and enforced. During which time, something can be both fraudulent, AND legal (speaking of law).

It just happens that in this particular case, this fraudulent behavior called MLM had been tolerated by narrowing its focus (with various restrictions with the so-called "Amway Safeguard Rules"), instead of being outlawed altogether, and has been over the past several decades!

We AGREE on the issues! So what exactly are we arguing about?

As for whether "legal fraud" exist or not, I'd like to share an email conversation I had with Mr. Robert Fitzpatrick :

KC: I guess what I am asking then is, which is more "evil", a barely-disguised-surely-illegal pyramid scheme such as TVI Express (with no product), or a legal-for-now MLM business like Amway (that has some products)? While MLM is legal, it's mostly NOT good for the participants despite all the promises of secondary income. However, is a scam pretending to be a legal MLM just as bad, or even worse, than MLM, which at least has SOME legal recognition? Or is that just splitting hair?

RP: Start with the word, "legal". Since we already discussed that illegal frauds can and do operate as "legal", e.g., liar-loans, no-doc mortgages, and so many more in the financial sector, health care industry, government contracting, etc., the distinction is not very useful for understanding MLM.

Thus, "legal fraud" does exist, and it is NOT "self-contradictory nonsense". It is simply when laws are inadequate or inadequately enforced. And I did NOT misquote Robert Fitzpatrick this time.

Why the heck are we arguing over this any way?



garry said...

We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a marvelous job!

Herbalife Canada

Kasey Chang said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
corporate frauds watch said...

Mr. Chang

Your comment has been removed because it contained an absurd lie:

'THEN in his latest blogpost, he (mr. Brear) changed his mind and conceded that a fraud can be legal if the law and enforcement had not caught up with it'.

Until you learn to read and digest what has actually been written, and not what you imagine has been written, your presence on this Blog will remain unwelcome.

Corporate Frauds Watch