Thursday, 19 January 2012

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. '

Shyam,
A particularly foolish Indian 'Amway' addict has left a comment on Corporate Frauds Watch under the name of 'Vikky1979.' 
This brainwashed commentator says:
'You can make fool to some of people for some time. But you can't make fool a lot of people for long time. Amway is running since 1959 in more than 90 countries. Also you are not having correct information how it works. Remember Direct Selling is future.
For 'Vikky1979's' information, the exact quote is:
'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. '
Another interesting quote which might kick-start 'Vikky1979's' critical faculties, is:
'If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, eventually people will accept it as the truth.'
From 1959 until the early 1970s, the big 'Amway' ('direct selling/MLM income opportunity') lie only existed in North America. 'Amway' was first challenged as a dissimulated fraud by US trade regulators during the 1970s. At this time, the big'Amway' lie began to spread around the world to countries where it wasn't yet being challenged. 
It is a matter of public record that, between 1973 and 2006, the big 'Amway'lie fooled around one million people in Britain. At one time, in the 1980s, the organization claimed approximately 100 thousands British 'Independent Business Owners,'  but declared an annual drop-out rate of more than 50%. By 2007, when the UK government finally took civil regulatory action against 'Amway UK Ltd.,' the organization claimed only around 35 thousands British followers, but still with an annual drop-out rate of more than 50%. Today, 'Amway UK Ltd.' claims just a few thousands British followers, who can no longer be falsely described as 'Independent Business Owners.'
There is absolutely no quantifiable evidence (in the form of audited accounts) which proves that any of the persons who signed contracts with 'Amway UK ltd.'between 1973 and 2006, received one penny of overall net-income as a result of regularly retailing 'Amway' wampum to the public for a profit. The actual failure/drop-out rate in the so-called 'Amway MLM income opportunity' in the UK was effectively 100%, because it was a dissimualted closed-market swindle and related advance fee fraud. This means that, since this vital information was deliberately withheld from the UK public, the so-called 'Amway MLM income opportunity' was fundamentally fraudulent in Britain during 34 years. However, in 2008, a UK High Court refused to close 'Amway UK Ltd.' when the organization's shyster-lawyers managed to fool him into believing that the 34 year old 'direct selling scheme,' which hadn't directly sold anything (except a fake income opportunity), had been completely reformed in Britain.
Perhaps 'Vikky1979' would like to explain to the free-thinking readers of CFW why it is that the US Internal Revenue Service does not consider 'Amway' participation to be a viable business activity from which it is possible to make a net-profit. No doubt this brainwashed fool will maintain that US tax officials also do not have correct information about how 'Amway' works.
In the adult world of quantifiable reality, US tax officials have access to the evidence proving that, during the previous 50+ years, effectively no one has ever declared an overall net-income as a result of regularly retailing 'Amway' wampum to the public for a profit. On the contray, countless American 'Amway' addicts have fraudulently tried to deduct their substantial 'Amway' costs from their income tax declarations by falsely describing them as 'legitmate business expenses.'  The US Internal Revenue Service has taken the extraordinary measure of issuing a document to its officials which instructs them to disallow all false 'business expense' claims from 'Amway' addicts. 
Tellingly, the US Internal Revenue Service classifies 'Amway' participation as being an expensive social activity (akin to attending a pay-to-enter Church or practising a pay to play sport).
David Brear (copyright 2012)