Trivedi limply insists on merits of Amway business strategy

Shyam
There is an ancient Chinese proverb which says:
'When a wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at his finger.'
It's no wonder the sanctimonious bosses of criminogenic groups like 'Amway' and 'Scientology' thrive, when there are inflexible fools like Trivedi in the world for them to prey on. The poor little lad still limply insists that he is discussing the merits of an authentic business strategy, when it has been clearly explained to him that, without sufficient external revenue (from a majority of authentic retail sales to persons who are not agents of 'Amway'), the entirety of the so-called 'Amway Compensation Plan' is merely complex pseudo-economic hocus-pocus - maliciously designed shut down the critical and evaluative faculties all less-than-intellectually-rigorous observers (including: journalists, law-enforcement agents, judges and legislators).
Sadly, the rather obvious comparison which I made between Bernie Madoff's miraculous (but demonstrably fake) 'Split Strike' strategy and 'Amway's' own miraculous (but demonstrably fake) 'Multilevel Marketing' strategy, has passed completely over Trivedi's unquestioning head.
Whilst virtually every observer was bedazzled by multi-billion dollar figures and reams of hypnotic jargon in Madoff's fake 'hedge fund's' fake 'offering memorandums', his deluded victims were completely incapable of confronting the more simple truth that the only money Madoff controlled was their own. Although the 'Amway' fraud has a different external presentation, and its many deluded core-victims are persons without vast capital assets tied up in it, essentially there is no difference between it and the absurd closed-market swindle perpetrated for more than a decade by Madoff.
No matter what their external presentation, in all closed-market swindles the one vital question that should be asked of their perpetrators to determine exactly what is occurring, remains the same :
Since its creation, exactly what percentage (by value) of the capital assets which you control (and have controlled) has actually come from a source, or sources, other than the pockets of participants in your scheme?
Until this concept (fundamental to the understanding of the 'Amway' swindle of which he is a victim) sinks into Trivedi's castrated mind, all further discussion with the poor little lad is a pointless excercise.
David Brear

Trivedi only regurgitating thought-stopping Amway mantra

Shyam
We are now witnessing the rather unedifying spectacle of young Trivedi regurgitating his thought-stopping 'Amway' mantra on your Blog. Unfortunately, the systematic reaction of all deeply-deluded cult adherents (when challenged over the authenticity of their beliefs) is to retreat behind a wall of their group's complex, pseudo-scientific hocus-pocus, and then steadfastly pretend that anyone who can't understand it, must be stupid.
Interestingly, Bernie Madoff used essentially the same tactic when challenged by free-thinking journalists.
At the beginning of 2001, Madoff had acquired absolute control over 6 - 7 billions dollars. Most financial journalists believed Madoff to be managing these capital assets on behalf of wealthy individuals. Indeed, this part of his operation was (then) officially listed as 'being amongst the world's three largest hedge funds.'
According to a May 2001 report in MAR Hedge (a respected trade publication). 'What's more, these private accounts, have produced compound average annual returns of 15% for more than a decade. Remarkably, some of the larger, billion-dollar Madoff-run funds have never had a down year.' When, in 2001, Madoff was asked by a free-thinking Journalist exactly how he accomplished these 'remarkable' returns, he smiled knowingly and said:
'It's a proprietary strategy. I can't go into it in great detail.'
Jeffrey Tucker, partner and co-founder of Fairfield Greenwich (a New York City-based firm that marketed Madoff's funds) was equally evasive:
'It's a private fund. And so our inclination has been not to discuss its returns.'
One of Fairfield Greenwich's most sought-after funds was 'Fairfield Sentry Ltd.' (managed by Bernie Madoff). 'Fairfield Sentry' declared assets of '$3.3 billion.' One of its glossy 'offering memorandums' described Madoff's strategy this way:
'Typically, a position will consist of the ownership of 30-35 S&P 100 stocks, most correlated to that index, the sale of out-of-the-money calls on the index and the purchase of out-of-the-money puts on the index. The sale of the calls is designed to increase the rate of return, while allowing upward movement of the stock portfolio to the strike price of the calls. The puts, funded in large part by the sale of the calls, limit the portfolio's downside.'To options traders, that is what is known as the 'split-strike conversion' strategy. In simple terms, it means Madoff claimed to be investing primarily in the largest stocks on the S&P 100 index (like General Electric , Intel and Coca-Cola). At the same time, he claimed to be buying and selling options against those stocks. For example, Madoff would claim to have purchased shares of GE and to have sold a call option on a comparable number of shares (i.e. an option to buy the shares at a fixed price at a future date). At the same time, Madoff would claim to have bought a put option on the stock, which gave him the right to sell shares at a fixed price at a future date. Madoff's 'remarkable' strategy, in effect, claimed to build a protective boundary around a stock, limiting its upside while at the same time protecting against a sharp decline in the share price. This so-called 'market-neutral strategy' was supposed to produce positive returns no matter which way the market went. In 2001, using this 'split-strike conversion strategy', 'Fairfield Sentry Ltd' claimed only to have had four down months since its creation in 1989. In 1990, 'Fairfield Sentry' claimed to be up 27%. In the following decade, the fund was supposed to have returned no less than 11% in any year, and sometimes as high as 18%.
In the adult world of quantifiable reality, Madoff wasn't actually buying any shares at all. He was merely selling his victims 'infinite shares' in what could only be their own finite cash. The glossy 'offering memorandums' of 'Fairfield Sentry Ltd. ', which fooled almost everyone (including some of the world's most-respected financial journalists), were complex pseudo-economic hocus-pocus.
David Brear

No racketeering law in the UK

Shyam
I observe that 'Amway's' masked, Internet Lord Haw Haw, Mr. 'IBOFB' Steadson,' has returned to your Blog.
Mr. Steadson and his fellow travellers know full-well that the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob, after maliciously obstructing all form of investigation in the UK for more than 30 years, succeeded in keeping the only enquiry (to date) into their UK activities limited to civil regulators (who are prohibited by the UK Companies Act from making criminal enquiries).
As part of an overall pattern of racketeering activity, two cult advice associations (registered as charities) in the UK, 'Catalyst' and the 'Cult Information Centre', have been co-opted by the 'Amway' mob. Since the early 1990s, the unqualified directors of these two organizations, Graham Baldwin and Ian Howarth, have been paid to act as 'consultants on cultism' by 'Amway UK Ltd.' This has comprised them persuading anyone complaining to their organizations, that 'Amway' is not a cult and that they should take any dispute with 'Amway' back to the organization for 'Internal Arbitration' rather than to law enforcement agents, jounalists, legislators, etc.
In 2007, after truck loads of damning company records were seized which proved 'Amway UK Ltd.' to be the perpetually-insolvent corporate-front for a mathematically-impossible money circulation scheme disguised as a 'business opportunity', which itself was merely the entrance to an extremely-profitable advanced fee fraud, the reluctant decision was taken by senior officials in the Company Investigation Branch of the UK Dept. of Trade and Industry (now the Ministry for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform), under the advice of the Treasury Solicitor, to attempt to have 'Amway UK Ltd.' closed down merely for being in breach of civil laws concerning trading schemes and lotteries. Off the record, at least one senior official at CIB described 'Amway' as a grotesque fraud and compared the organization to the 'Ku Klux Klan' in the 1920s. At the time, the best the UK government could do to protect UK citizens, was to file a civil bankruptcy petition on the premise that 'Amway UK Ltd.' should be made liable for decades of unlawful registration payments, thus, forcing the company into automatic closure, because it could not pay its multi-million pound debts. It was assumed that, after closure, a full criminal investigation of what lurked behind 'Amway' would ensue.
However, 'Amway' escaped closure in the UK by employing Eversheds LLP, including Peter Kiernen (former Deputy Director of the UK Serious Fraud Office). These slick attorneys first tried to persuade CIB officials to drop the bankruptcy petition against 'Amway' by pretending affinity. To this end, all manner of attractive promises were made to the UK government, including the full-declaration of 'Amway's' derisory average annual earnings (or rather lack of earnings) amongst its agents, the dropping of registration fees, the dropping of the term 'Independent Business Owner', the prohibition of the sale of publications, recordings and tickets to meetings, the lowering of prices, the expulsion of 'Diamond Distributors' Jerry Scriven and Patrick Gregory (who had been running the 'Tool scam' in the UK on behalf of Dexter Yager in the USA), the temporary suspension of 'Amway's' recruitment activities in the UK, etc.
For obvious reasons, CIB officials refused to drop their bankruptcy petition, and the civil case went to trial where again the same attractive promises were made to the Judge. Although UK government lawyers described insolvent 'Amway' adherents as deluded, at no stage, was any evidence shown to the Judge or, subsequently, to three Appeal Court Judges, that 'Amway UK Ltd.' is, in fact, just one, expendable corporate structure out of countless others which comprise a vast organized crime group. In isolation, 'Amway UK Ltd.', appeared to these Judges to be more absurd than dangerous, as it has never declared an annual trading profit - apparently losing many millions of pounds during the last 30+ years. Consequently, in total ignorance of the wider picture, the UK High Court, and Appeal court, took the blinkered view that 'Amway UK Ltd.' should be allowed to continue, because the undertakings its attorneys had made to the court (if maintained) would bring its activities within UK civil law. Amazingly, after more than 30 years flouting the law, no punishment was handed out and no independent mechanism was created to verify that 'Amway UK's' undertakings would be maintained. I presume that the UK Judges assumed that once 'Amway's laughable average earnings were declared, the organization would simply vanish for lack of recruits; and this (despite what Lord Haw Haw Steadson pretends) appears to have happened.
To add insult to injury, a company officer of 'Amway UK Ltd.' and one from the so-called 'UK Direct Selling Association' were allowed to get away with comitting perjury. They gave false declarations to the UK High Court in which they steadfastly pretended their respective organizations to have been completely unaware that any problems had existed with 'Amway UK Ltd.' Yet, more than 10 years previously, when I tried to draw the attention of the officers of both these corporate structures to very same problems which they subsequently pretended to be completely unaware of, the attorneys of 'Amway UK Ltd. ' maliciously attempted to discredit me in the eyes of UK government officials and threatened to take legal steps to silence my complaints. These acts, designed to obstruct justice so that US citizens can continue to commit fraud, were in breach of US federal anti-racketeering legislation.
UK law enforcement agents (at the Serious Fraud Office) have been informed of all these acts, but (mysteriously) no criminal investigation has been pursued. However, there is no anti-racketeering law in the UK.
David Brear

It is easy/quick money in the Amway business model: AP High Court

Trivedi innocently says that there is no compulsion to recruit people or purchase products in the Amway business model. And he also says that the High Court judgement did not say that Amway business model is illegal.

Let us look at the 28th and 29th para of the AP High Court judgement which goes like this...

28. As is evident......... Supposing the sponsor member at the top does not introduce any member and if he merely sells the products given to him, he gets an income of Rs. 12,420. If he sponsors only six people and they in turn do not sponsor any member, then he will get an additional income of Rs. 23, 760. If those six members who he sponsored again sponsor four members each, he will get a further income of Rs. 1,14,480 and if the 24 members sponsor three members each, and he will get a further sum of Rs. 6,83,300. Thus the money which the member at the top of the line gets depends upon the members whom he enrolls or the members enrolled by him enroll.

29. In Para 21 of the counter affidavit of respondent No 6, the example of Raja Naren is cited and the petitioner (Amway India) did not dispute the averment relating to the income he earned in a year. The said instance is illustrative of a person earning fabulous income without doing anything after he accomplishes his task of enrolling the required number of persons as members into the scheme.

30. From the aforementioned discussion, it is proved that the scheme provides for easy/quick money to its distributors.

Is it not sufficient inducement for any mortal to go for enrollment when such huge amount is offered as commission?

Clueless Tex pretends to be acting independently

Shyam
It is interesting to note some of the latest comments posted on your Blog by Mr. Scott 'Tex' Johnson.
Although Johnson steadfastly pretends to be acting independently of 'Amway,' his comments reflect the same pattern of racketeering activity which the 'Amway' mob has used to obstruct justice.
Back in the mid-1990s, when I first openly contacted both 'Amway UK Ltd' and the so-called 'UK Direct Selling Association' to inform their senior officers that 'Amway' was the front for a form of Ponzi scheme and a secondary advanced fee fraud, and that I would be making complaint to the UK government's Dept. of Trade and Industry, the reaction of the 'Amway' mob was to get their UK legal representatives (Baileys, Shaw Gillette LLP) to send me a threatening letter.
At this time, I was informed by an unnamed 'Amway' attorney that copies of a letter written by my brother (who was a core-adherent of 'Amway') had been sent to various individuals in the UK, including politicians and DTI officials. 'Amway's' unamed attorney falsely claimed that this letter proved all my accusations against 'Amway' to be 'foolish notions' invented as part of a 'vendetta' against my brother. I was warned that if I continued make my accusations to UK politicians and government regulators, legal steps would be taken to silence me.
Officers of 'Amway UK Ltd.' and those of the so-called 'UK DSA' managed to obstruct a UK DTI investigation of 'Amway' until 2007. When this investigation was finally launched, it was discovered that all my accusations were, in fact, true. Furthermore, 'AmwayUK Ltd.' had been a permanently insolvent corporate structure since its creation in 1973. However, hundreds of millions of dollars had been secretly syphoned out of the UK by churning at least 1 million persons through 'Amway's' sustainable closed-market swindle and peddling them exorbitantly-priced 'Tools' (i.e. books, recordings, tickets to meetings) using (apparently independent) corporate structures to dodge investigation and isolate the bosses of the 'Amway' mob from liability.
'Amway UK Ltd.' escaped closure under civil bankruptcy regulations (by promising the UK High Court that it would reform its activities) and (as a result) no criminal investigation of 'Amway' has ever been conducted in the UK.
David Brear

Madoff also made large donations to charity like Amway

Shyam
Naive young Trivedi seems to think that giving money to good causes is a mark of honesty. The following is just part of a list of donations made by Bernie Madoff and his wife to numerous charities in the 10 years prior to his arrest.

Name of Donor ---- Minimum Confirmed Amount------ Recipient Name ----Year
Bernard L. Madoff------ $2,500-----American Liver Foundation-2003-2003
Ruth and Bernard L. Madoff $10,000 Brandeis University

National Women`s Committee 1999-2000
Bernard L. and Ruth
Madoff Foundation $10,000 Center for Jewish History 2006-2006
Ruth and Bernard L. Madoff $10,000 City Harvest 2005-2006
Bernard L. Madoff $10,000 Educational Broadcasting
Corporation 2006-2007
Mr. and Mrs. Bernard L. Madoff$10,000 Fountain House 2005-2006
Ruth and Bernard L. Madoff $25,000 Girls Inc. 2005-2006
Ruth and Bernard Madoff $2,500 Global Camps Africa 2007-2007
Mr. and Mrs. Bernard L.Madoff $5,000 God`s Love We Deliver 2004-2004
Ruth and Bernard Madoff $10,000 Hillel Foundation for
Jewish Campus Life 2006-2007
Ruth and Bernard Madoff $10,000 Hofstra University 2005-2006
Ruth and Bernard Madoff $1,000 Jewish Federation of
Palm Beach County 2006-2007
Ruth & Bernard L. Madoff $10,000 Learning Leaders 2004-2005
Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC $5,000 Lower East Side Name
Tenement Museum 2006-2006
The Madoff Family Foundation $1,000,000 Lymphoma Research
Foundation 2007-2007
Bernard L. Madoff $40,000 Metropolitan Museumof Art 2007-2008
Bernard L. Madoff $2,500 Museum of Name
ModernArt (MOMA) 2005-2006
The Bernard L. and Ruth
Madoff Foundation $25,000 New York Public Library 2002-2002
Ruth and Bernard L. Madoff $10,000 New York University,
Harris Obesity Prevention
Effort (HOPE) 2007-2007
Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Madoff $1,000 North Shore - Long Island
Jewish Health System 2003-2003
Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities $10,000 Pace University 2002-2003
Bernard Madoff $250 Police Athletic League
of New York 2001-2002 Bernard L. Madoff $25,000 Prostate Cancer Foundation 2007-2007 Bernard L. & Ruth
Alpern Madoff `61 $25,000 Queens College , City
University of New York 2006-2007
Bernard L. Madoff $5,000 Ronald McDonald House
of New York, Inc. 2007-2007
Ruth and Bernard Madoff $1,500 Wildlife Conservation Society 2006-2007

It is also interesting to note, that (exactly as in the case of Bernie Madoff) any money given by the 'Amway' mob to charity, has actually first come from the victims of a fraud.
David Brear

Why Amway is silent on CFW blog?

Shyam
It is highly revealing that no one officially representing the 'Amway' mob, has ever put in an appearance on your Blog or attempted to challenge the authenticity of what we have posted on it. Thus, the billionaire bosses of the organization do not openly seek to refute our analysis of their Indian operation as being part of an overall pattern of major racketeering activity. Indeed, any attempt to silence your Blog, would merely confirm our analysis.
In the face of another Indian State High Court ruling which recognises 'Amway India Enterprises' to be operating an illegal money circulation scheme disguised as a 'Business Opportunity,' currently, the only persons attempting, but failing miserably, to put up a defence of the organization on your Blog, are a puerile and abusive, middle-aged American (Scott 'Tex' Johnson) and a naive, young Indian (Trivedi). Neither of these unqualified persons officially represent 'Amway.'
For an organization which steadfastly pretends to be 'One of the Worlds Largest Direct Selling Companies,' the complete incapacity of 'Amway' itself to produce anyone who is prepared to speak on its behalf on your Blog, requires no further comment.
David Brear