« The Quixtar Web Initiative | Main | Blogging 101 Takes a Break »
October 14, 2004
Blakey Says!
By QBlog in
Last night Amway lawyer Richard E. Griffin gave me a call to discuss the Blakey Says! apparel for sale at the Quixtar BLOG Shop. Apparently Griffin believed the slogan on the apparel (quoted from Blakey) came from The Blakey Report. The quote actually comes from the opinion of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville and is available on a public Web site.
» Listen to the phone conversation with Richard E. Griffin (mp3)
What I can't really figure out is why Amway is so concerned with Blakey's opinions. That still baffles me. Anyway, here's the quote:
"The Amway business is run in a manner that is parallel to that of major organized crime groups, in particular the Mafia."It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens to Scoville's opinion. The Blakey Drama never seems to end.- G. Robert Blakey, author of the RICO Act
This post updated with new content Oct. 15
Comments
The thing that is interesting to me about the Blakey Report is that Blakey had nothing to gain by creating this report, and it seems to be created after sober study of the issue.
The other interesting thing is that Amquix had a real problem with it becoming public knowledge, eh QBlog?
Why would that be?
Is this still under protective seal? If I wanted to find out, how or where would I go? I also can't quite understand how, if it is sealed, it can still be found on many websites. Why haven't they removed it if it's sealed?
April 5, 2004
Dear Mr. Griffin,
Thank you for your letter of April 1, 2004 and for once again sending a copy of Judge Gilmore's order allowing discovery. I think is clear to me now after reading, it for the second time, that Judge Gilmore's order allows you discovery.
According to the protective order, only documents containing trade secrets or confidential commercial information are allowed coverage by the protective order. Paragraph 1 is quite clear on the items - financial, commercial, marketing, business, trade secrets, know-how or proprietary date relating to financial, commercial, marketing, business, and other related within the meaning of Rule 26(c)(7). Nowhere does it state than an opposing expert’s opinion is entitled to coverage of a protective order.
Would you mind detailing those areas of the Blakey report, which are trade secrets or of a confidential commercial nature fitting the classes highlighted in paragraph 1? You never answered from my first letter why this document would be granted protective order privileges in the first place. It fits none of the characteristics of definition defined in Paragraph 1 of the protective order.
I have never worked for the court, any of the attorneys in the case, and I was not a party to the case. I cannot knowingly have violated a protective order for a document, for which I've never had a legal obligation to protect, which doesn't fit the characteristics of documents customarily afforded such protection, and which had already been made public before I published it. With regard to your assertion that I knew the report was subject to a protective order because of the language from the Western District of Michigan opinion I read, I would remind you that it says no such thing. That opinion says that your client and P&G agreed to keep it under seal. It does not say that it was subject to a protective order. I find that interesting since I notice in the text of your letter to my site host that nowhere do you state that the report is actually covered by the protective order. Like the opinion from the Western District of Michigan court, you state that your client and P&G agreed to treat it as sealed. I find it curious that you would route copies of the protective order out to private non-parties to give the impression that this document is covered by a court order when it appears that it is covered by nothing more than an agreement between P&G and Amway – an agreement, by the way, you seem to have forgotten to include in the materials you sent to me.
I wrote my attorney, who is an expert in 1st Amendment law. She said, due to the doctrine of prior restraint, I have the right to publish any document that came to me legally. The document was found in a very public place and this is not an issue of national security. A second attorney also confirmed this. What actions the webmaster at webraw.com/quixtar took set no legal precedent for me. He is not an attorney and I do not know if he even has an attorney to advise him.
Since you saw fit not to include any precedents to support your case, I will go out of my way to supply you with a precedent, which supports my case. Please see attachment from the Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996).
Best Regards,
Scott Larsen
I'll give you an offer you can't refuse. Want to make money off your friends and family and have suckers working under you in delusion of working for them, come see my plan.
You have to wear a suit though.....
Posted by: Imran Aziz | October 14, 2004 8:55 PM