Monday, September 12, 2011

Truce with DB did not hold

As expected, DB and partner have decided to interpret my question on how applicable RICO act is to MLM in the most negatively light possible.

An observation about a large MLM had tried to settle the civil RICO suit was construed as I am somehow supporting this MLM, as the partner claiming that I showed my true colors, when I cited the case to prove that the case had not been resolved, therefore this "private prosecution" doesn't mean anything YET.

Again, my position was misinterpreted. I don't disagree with the opinion that MLM industry has organized and entrenched itself to mount a vigorous defense for its right to exist. I agree that MLM fundamentally is flawed and causes losses for most of its partcipants based on available historical data. I simply question whether it had risen to the point where it should be considered "organized crime" in the style of Mafia and need to be prosecuted with the RICO act, and furthermore whether RICO act even applies to a "business model", even a fundamentally flawed one such as MLM.

(BTW, you should read a report written by an organized crime specialist G. Robert Blakey, it's fascinating stuff, about how much similarity there is between Amway and Mafia. Just keep in mind this guy was retained by an opponent of Amway to write this report, so it ain't exactly one-sided third-party objective opinion, but rather, expert testimony presented by one side. )

Yet DB and partner chose to interpret my skepticism to the RICO act application as opposition to their view "MLM is fraud", when it is not.

This shows the exact same pattern as before. Previously, DB chose to interpret my statement "MLM is legal (under certain circumstance)" (NOT an exact quote) as conflicting with their dogma "MLM is fraud (and therefore illegal)" (NOT an exact quote). It doesn't matter how many qualifiers I add, he takes personal offense at that expression, even after he corrected it to say "MLM has not been declared illegal". He simply refuse to even CONSIDER the notion that a fraud is legal UNTIL specifically outlawed, esp. if it's a new form (and once entrenched, it will defend itself to the death).  He chose to interpret "MLM is legal, but fraud" as a DEFENSE of MLM, instead of a statement of fact as the way things are.  Though he eventually conceded the point (by lamenting how law makers failed the public).

Same here. I asked if RICO act even applies to MLM (and a certain MLM company), and DB chose to interpret that as a defense of this particular MLM company (and thus, to his viewpoint). He had simply again, refuse to consider the possibility that RICO Act may not apply to the situation he had envisioned. His view is that MLM is a racket, thus racketeering law automatically applies, even though RICO act specified 35 specific offenses as "racketeering activity" that warrants application of the RICO act. Of the 35 offenses listed, maybe two activities are the most likely to apply: wire fraud and mail fraud, but both are a bit of a stretch, as explained before.

So, is it an attack on the fundamental view "MLM is a racket"? Or just  skepticism on "Does RICO Law apply to MLM?" Again, a matter of degree. If one's mind is only black and white, then perhaps skepticism at a PART of the claim can be construed as opposition. But that's not much of "free-thinking", is it?
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: