« "...never say never on anything." | Main | Definition of Insanity »
August 10, 2006
Alticor Going Overboard for Dick DeVos?
By QBlog in Quixtar
I just received an email from Scott Larsen who runs the AmQuix.info website. The email addresses a recent entry Larsen posted on his "What's New" page that directed attention to a Grand Rapids Press article from July 14, 2006. The referenced article ran under the headline "Alticor leaders cheated investors, suit says" and it describes a lawsuit involving Alticor, former President Dick DeVos and $1 billion.
Larsen's original entry simply ran with the description, "Old news becomes news again for Dick DeVos running for governor in Michigan." (see Google cache screenshot). The email Larsen forwarded me was from Alticor's wonderfully competent lawyer James R. Sobieraj of Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione (a firm that I've had experience with in the past) and its threatening tone demands Larsen's compliance within 24 hours.
What's laughable is the assumptions Sobieraj makes about Larsen's intentions and lack of understanding of the First Amendment. All Larsen did was post a link to an article. He's under absolutely NO obligation to post any follow-up links or offer any clarification. Sure, it might be nice if he had followed up with an update when new information surfaced about the suit but nowhere in the Constitution does it demand that Larsen take any such action. What Larsen posted is true and even provides a method for readers to easily find out more information. Notice that Sobieraj's email doesn't specifically threaten legal action. It only implies such action but there's no clear "Do this or we'll sue you" phrasing because Sobieraj knows he doesn't have a bit of legal ground to stand on in this situation. It's a classic lawyer tactic.
Here's the email. Don't read while drinking milk or soda because you'll surely squirt it out your nose from laughing at Amway's Alticor's top lawyer.
jsobieraj@brinkshofer.com
To: scott.larsen@juno.com
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:49:33 -0500
Subject: RE: Alticor Inc.
Dear Mr. Larsen:
We serve as outside counsel for Alticor Inc. We have reviewed the July 14, 2006 posting you placed on your website entitled "Old news becomes news again for Dick DeVos running for governor in Michigan." Your hotlink for this posting redirects one to a web page on mlive.com, which contains the July 14th story from the Grand Rapids Press entitled, "Alticor leaders cheated investors, suit say." Unfortunately, once again, you seem to have deliberately omitted information which would completely change the conclusions made by someone visiting your site.
The title and text of this article suggests that this lawsuit against Alticor has merit. I am sure that you posted this article on your web site because you believe that it reflects negatively on Alticor. However, it is surprising that you, as someone who holds himself out as a careful and thorough researcher of Alticor, have not posted the July 22 Grand Rapids Press story about the lawsuit. That story, entitled "State appeals court sides with Alticor," reports how the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in Alticor's favor in a matter of days. This article also is available on mlive.com, and I have reproduced the text of the article below for your convenience. We can only conclude that you deliberately omitted this story because it reflects favorably on Alticor.
If you had researched this case with any diligence or sense of fairness, you also would have learned that the recent Court of Appeals decision was the fifth dismissal in a row for this lawsuit. It has been tossed out of federal court, two state courts and two appellate courts. If Alticor had pursued such a futile course of litigation, I am sure that you would have been extremely critical of them. Why is it that you are not even-handed in your analysis or criticism of Alticor's opponents?
This is the latest of a series of incidents in which it has been demonstrated that you have made postings without conducting a fair and reasonable investigation of the facts. Why do you want to continue deceiving your readers with misleading, incomplete and inaccurate statements about Alticor?
Please take immediate action to correct your website's misleading impression of the Wardrop lawsuit.
We look forward to receiving your response and evidence of your steps to correct your website within 24 hours.
Sincerely,
James R. Sobieraj
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive
NBC Tower - Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60611
Ph.: 312-321-4226
Fx.: 312-321-4299
E-Mail: jrs@usebrinks.com
Web Site: www.usebrinks.com
Why The Laughter?
The result of Sobieraj's email is that Larsen has revised his entry to include a link to the more recent Grand Rapids Press article. That's great. Now readers of his site have handy links to the original article and the update. Yet I can't stop laughing. Do you know why? I'll explain.
The First Amendment allows us to be biased. People may not like that but it's our right to be as biased and unfair in our coverage of public figures and corporate entities as we desire. As long as that coverage is true (and sometimes when it isn't) our speech is protected. There's absolutely nothing obligating us to be fair and balanced and communicate all sides of any given issue.
It's that very freedom that allows companies like Alticor and Quixtar to publish reams and reams of rosy reports and testimonials without sharing less rosy reports and complaints. No law requires Alticor, Quixtar or Dick DeVos to publish criticism or unfavorable reports in publications they control. It's their right to be biased. That's the American Way!
Yet what is very un-American is the way Sobieraj uses threatening language to try to force Larsen to remove the bias from his site. If Larsen wants to be biased, that's his right. If Sobieraj wants to eradicate bias from the Internet then maybe he should start with Quixtar.com. If I were Larsen I'd remove the link to the most recent update just to piss off Alticor. Give a metaphorical middle finger to Sobieraj for stooping to such tactics. But I'm not Larsen so I'll just settle for letting the world know the tactics Alticor is employing while I laugh and laugh.
There's one other reason I'm laughing. Sobieraj is basically functioning as a very, very expensive PR manager.
What Others Are Saying About This Post
- Michigan Liberal: Alticor lawyers lean on AmQuix critic
- Liberal Values: DeVos Goons Try To Silence Web Site
- MLM Facts: Eric Janssen supports unethical behaviour?
- Daily Kos: Alticor lawyers lean on AmQuix critic
Favorite comment on Daily Kos:
By middleroad
It amazes me that the Alticor lawyers actually took the time to threaten Larson. I did laugh out loud when I read the letter. Once again, the "man" is trying to stomp on the little guy. This only reflects how Dick DeVos will "lead" Michigan into oblivion. DeVos's solution of, if you can't fix it, eliminate it, will not bode well with Michigan voters.
What's your favorite comment from another blog?
Comments
Does this mean that Sobieraj will be willing to write a letter to Victor, Woodward, Florence et al, requiring them to carry on their websites the experiences of the IBOs that finally figured out how bad they were getting screwed?
Alticor/Quixtar/Amway/whatever sure likes threatening folks. They should go to another continent and run a dictatorship.
At least Scott added the update like they "suggested." As biased as he may be, he is much more open than they could ever hope to be. I wonder if they or their IBOAI have ever corrected misinformation that was pointed out to them.
To the lawyer and the company (and of course, our beloved kingpins), I roll my beautiful :D eyes and say, "Whatever."
This is really funny for me - because I tend to read the Grand Rapids Press every day - and I SAW the original article that Scott posted (I think it might have been on a front page??) - and the newer article must have been buried somewhere underneath the sports scores because I never saw it, either!!
It IS funny because they're wanting Scott to show a "balanced" view of Quixtar. Since when did Quixtar ever show "The Slimy Side of the AMOs" on THEIR website?? LOL!!!
And yes, it makes me wonder if DeVos' watchdogs are making sure his squeaky-clean image remains that way....
Deb
hey, I was on vacation with my mtn bike in the Alps when the new article came out. There was not TV, radio, or internet where I was. You have to love Mr. Sobieraj. He can always up his billing to Alticor by writing a letter to me. He still hasn't told me what was false with my page on Eric Scheibeler's arbitration case.
It's funny how quixtar supporters always want a fair and balanced view of quixtar on various websites. But I guess the truth hurts and is viewed as "negative" by quixtar and their LOSs.
I have read both, the article by QBlog and the replies given by the readers in regard to the article. I am still baffled by the stupidity displayed by nearly all people here since I started to observe their kind of attitude and language being consistently made use of.rea After all, you and Scott Larsen are pretty much brothers in every respect of failure and frustration.
"He's under absolutely NO obligation to post any follow-up links or offer any clarification."
Yes and no. If his intention is to mislead then, he is under moral obligation to reflect upon his attitude and its consequences to others thus, he should make the appropriate corrections. Else, he is absolved from guilt given that there is enough proof beyond resonable doubt to clear him of intentional harm.
"Notice that Sobieraj's email doesn't specifically threaten legal action. It only implies such action but there's no clear "Do this or we'll sue you" phrasing because Sobieraj knows he doesn't have a bit of legal ground to stand on in this situation. It's a classic lawyer tactic."
Are you a lawyer? I saw a lawyer who replied in the past to another article posted here and his view was not quite favorable towards your conduct. Hence, you are not a lawyer or if you are, you are an irresponsible one which still implies that you are absolved of your duties on behalf of the integrity of the justice system.
"The First Amendment allows us to be biased...There's absolutely nothing obligating us to be fair and balanced and communicate all sides of any given issue...but it's our right to be as biased and unfair in our coverage of public figures and corporate entities as we desire...That's the American Way!...
Yet what is very un-American is the way Sobieraj uses threatening language to try to force Larsen to remove the bias from his site."
True and false. Being biased is part of human nature but so is the part of moral values. Thus, the question to be asked is: what do I value more, bias or integrity? If you value bias, you have a low self image. Hence, the frustration and negativity. This state of mind is quite visible on this blog. On the other hand, if you value integrity, you have a great self image together with a positive attitude. As a quick note, you state that you are biased and that you love it by necessity but so is M. Sobieraj out of his own necessity! Hence, a paradox is being created at a first sight. This paradox implies that after all there is some truth in allowing bias to operate on behalf of two entities thus, absolving both of them of any guilt including any exterior party directly or indirectly implicated in the matter shall there be proof beyond reasonable doubt that such is the case. Yet, carefully rereading M. Sobieraj's letter, I do not acknowledge the use any threatening language on the part of M. Sobieraj. In the end, the paradox is being ruled out and you are left as the only party actively being biased with related accomplices.
"I'll just settle for letting the world know the tactics Alticor is employing while I laugh and laugh."
And laugh still untill I will die of old age. Be my guest.
Cristian Anton,
You watch too much Perry Mason.
Yes and no. If his intention is to mislead then, he is under moral obligation to reflect upon his attitude and its consequences to others thus, he should make the appropriate corrections. Else, he is absolved from guilt given that there is enough proof beyond resonable doubt to clear him of intentional harm.
How about Diamonds who claim they've made a fortune from being an IBO, but fail to mention that most of their money comes from tool sales?
Are you a lawyer? I saw a lawyer who replied in the past to another article posted here and his view was not quite favorable towards your conduct. Hence, you are not a lawyer or if you are, you are an irresponsible one which still implies that you are absolved of your duties on behalf of the integrity of the justice system.
This blog has a search functin, perhaps you could point us out to the anonymous lawyer who said this.
Some people would believe that we have a responsibility to reflect the truth. QBlog apparently believes that convincing others of your opinion, truth be damned, is far more important. Disappointing.
Christian writes: "Are you a lawyer? I saw a lawyer who replied in the past to another article posted here and his view was not quite favorable towards your conduct. Hence, you are not a lawyer or if you are, you are an irresponsible one which still implies that you are absolved of your duties on behalf of the integrity of the justice system."
So, to clarify, an alleged lawyer allegedly agreed with your point of view, and that makes him correct, whereas other alleged lawyers (LawDawg and LadyTW spring to mind) do NOT agree with your point of view, and this proves that they are 'irresponsible ones'.
Stunning logic.
insider> Some people would believe that we have a responsibility to reflect the truth. [QBlog apparently believes that convincing others of your opinion, truth be damned, is far more important.] Disappointing.
Joe> Anyone see the irony in this statement coming from insider?
Why is it that everyone can see the clear point that was being made by Qblog except for Insider and Cristian?
I wonder if Cristian has ever looked into the words spoken by those Diamonds on stage with the same critical thinking that he applied to Qblog's words.
My guess is no, my guess is Cristian stood there and clapped and hollered with the rest of the sheep. I think that is proven by the astounding poor logic that CK pointed out.
Insider, it is amazing how much you like to pretend you are stupid when it is convienent for you. Or maybe you really didn't get the point of the post. For someone who consistently does not present facts to back up their claims who are in no position to judge on reflection of the truth.
Insider,
There's a difference between having a moral responsibility to reflect the "truth" and legal obligation to post updates to a factual post.
Draw whatever conclusions you wish but I will always vigorously defend the right of any freedom loving person to express themselves. That includes Larsen's freedom to post links to critical articles and Quixtar's freedom to not post those links.
And I also defend your right to distort the truth to serve your own agenda.
Insider,
Scott linked to a freaking newspaper article. Isn't it the newspaper's responsibility to "reflect the truth"?
What is "disappointing" is your blatant ignorance of the Amway/Alticor truth.
QBlog apparently believes that convincing others of your opinion, truth be damned, is far more important.
Now this is misleading too :) Btw isn't exactly what Quixtar business is all about? "convincing others of your opinion, truth be damned, is far more important."
:D
Good point Imran!
Imran,
Good joke, man :D
QBlah:
The practice that you defend scott larsen of doing is called "yellow journalism"
You of all people should know this - the sad thing is you probably already do.
Doug, and quixtar's failure to take action on the QMO's is "unethical" and the QMOs teaching system profit (My opinion) is unethical and illegal.
what's also sad is that progressive bloggers all over the state of Michigan jumped on that lawsuit article (including me) and I didn't see any who linked to or posted about the followup.I bet not one of them got a threatening letter from lawyer Sobieraj, or the blogs would have been all over him.
QBlog, I don't think the lawyers had a leg to stand on, but that's irrelevant to your clear support, indeed encouragement of Larsen deliberately trying to mislead people. At least we know where you stand.
Seriously, are you drunk?
I'm clearly supporting his RIGHT to be as biased as he wants to be. You have that same right. No stinking lawyer can come and tell you, me or Larsen that we can't be biased if we damn well choose to be biased.
If Larsen is biased, that's his right to be. Do I want anyone to mislead people? No. Which is why I'm responding to your nonsense.
Your lies are pretty clear and I'm happy that you're so willing to publicly expose your true character.
insider has character?
Doug, and quixtar's failure to take action on the QMO's is "unethical" and the QMOs teaching system profit (My opinion) is unethical and illegal.
What in god's name does that have to do with the issue of responsible journalism & fair reporting of the facts according to ethical standards?
When did journalism and fair reporting enter this conversation?
Nothing in this entry has to do with journalism or fair reporting. It has to do with the freedom of a person to express an opinion in public without receiving veiled threats from corporate lawyers.
If Scott has done something illegal, let the lawyer(s) say so and offer a suggestion for a remedy. It seems to me that Sobieraj suggests a remedy for no wrongdoing, but implies a threat.
We should all be concerned about that.
PW
I will also be sending a letter to Mr. Larsen:
Dear Mr. Larsen,
I notice you have a lot of flags on your web site. I also see that one flag is missing. Why do you hate America?
Sincerely,
The Disembodied Head of Dick Devos
PS: If someone could trot over to the Michigan Caucus (www.micaucus.com) and mail the box with my head in it to the offices of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, that would be appreciated.
Hey, somebody tell Sobieraj that these websites also linked to the first GP Press article but not the second.
He can write a couple more letters and bill Alticor a couple of hundred bucks for the work.
ps. Sobieraj is also guilty of not updating his website when they lost the 8th circuit court of appeals case in the Stewart case.
"Kenny J. Stewart et al. v. Quixtar Inc., et al. (W.D. Mo. 2005-): Mr. Sobieraj represents the defendants in a declaratory judgment action based an arbitration agreement. The case is pending."
Now that is the pot calling the kettle black......
btw. I was on vacation when the new article came out. Check out my video.
Your missing the point. The lawyer has, IMO, no leg to stand on. But to go out of you way to say it's OK to mislead people? Once upon a time this site actually had a pretext of something resembling impartiality. Or at least being interested in uncovering "the truth".
Now we see your position is clear - truth doesn't matter.
And you're (where?) a journalist? Gotta love journalism these days. Gimme a story - to hell with the facts!
1. Who is misleading anyone? Scott linked to a Grand Rapids Press article about DeVos and Alticor. Went out of town. Got a letter from a lawyer. No misleading there.
2. I've never said it's "ok" to mislead people in a moral sense but it is "ok" in a legal sense. Bias is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. Confusing the two is an attempt to mislead people about my intentions which is ethically questionable but I certainly won't have my lawyer draft a letter to demand you change it.
3. Who exactly are you anyway? Some anonymous hack in Northern Europe who gets his info from his Amway buddies back in the states? Check back in when you get some character and integrity.
And let's be honest here. The only reason you continue to comment on this post, distorting reality to attack my integrity, is because this story has traction. It's got some legs and it makes DeVos, Alticor and Quixtar look like litigious fools. You can't deny that this is a potential black eye for your comrades so you attack the messenger for pointing out that this is a low blow from your kind.
Good job insider! QBlog goes from defending Scott Larsen's actions to now admitting that those actions were ethically questionable when put on the spot - even going so far as to call you an anonymous hack and criticizing you for exactly the same thing he is doing towards you - attacking the messenger.
Nothing in this entry has to do with journalism or fair reporting.
Right, and this website has nothing to do with the quixtar business opportunity LOL.
It has to do with the freedom of a person to express an opinion in public without receiving veiled threats from corporate lawyers.
There's a big difference between expressing an opinion and misleading others, the latter of which is called libel.
Using your argument, we could call the bigshots in Quixtar - who push their fraudelent training systems onto unsuspecting others and swindle them out of millions - as folks who are just expressing their opinion about a person needing all of that crap to succeed in the Q business.
1. If you'd note, in my post I applaude Larsen for doing the right thing and that I disagree with the lawyers actions.
2. You now agree the behaviour is ethically questionable? Yet you admit, that if it was you, you would do it? At least you're "honest" about your lack of ethics
3. I get no info from "amway buddies" back in the US. I have zero contact with anybody from the corporation about any of my online activities, and the only other "amway buddies" from the US I have is chatting to people on your forum. I've told you this on numerous occasions. Who are you a lacky for? I have a reason for my activities - folk like you are damaging [i]my[/i] business with your misleading websites. What's your reason? Obviously not to expose "the truth".
4. The story has traction? Some folk try for the fifth time to sue DeVos and co, and for the fifth time it gets thrown out of court! Sounds more like sliding in to oblivion - or it would if folk like you didn't keep trying to plug it.
Good job Mr. Sobieraj! You gave this 'negativity' much more publicity and make it look much worse on Dick Devos than Scott Larsen. For few more billable hours.
IMO quixtarBlog gets more traffic than amquix.info (see google ranking), so... good job.
Doug, insider, have you commented other blogs that linked to only one article? How come they did not recieve any letter from Sobieraj?
QBlog goes from defending Scott Larsen's actions to now admitting that those actions were ethically questionable
He didn't say that.
Who is misleading who? If I link an article published anywhere, am I misleading if I don't publish all other related articles? If that's so, whole world wide web is misleading, including Quixtar.com. They haven't linked to most popular blog about Quixtar ;)
amquix.info promotes itself as -
"The Web's largest public collection of Quixtar and Amway information"
Withholding information that does not support the view you are trying to give is deliberately misleading.
Give me a few months though, and then that statement on amquix will be false.
http://www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com
You guys are too funny. How could I be deliberately be withholding information when I never knew it existed? I was in the middle of Alps with no contact to the real world when the article came out.
I guess Quixtar is also deliberately misleading people by withholding information not positive to the business, but that is ok to the pro's here, right?
oops...I copied the wrong case. It is not Kenny J. Stewart et al. v. Quixtar Inc., et al. (W.D. Mo. 2005-)
It should be this case:
"Nitro Distributing et al. v. Alticor Inc., et al. (W.D. Mo. 2003-): Mr. Sobieraj represents the defendants in an antritrust case. The case is pending."
Maybe he can add "they tried to force the case to arbitration but the 8th circuit court of appeals confirmed the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs were never bound by the arbitration agreement since they never singed it."
Nothing in this entry has to do with journalism or fair reporting.
Right, and this website has nothing to do with the quixtar business opportunity LOL.
Well Doug, please show us in the article where QBlog mentioned journalism.
There's a big difference between expressing an opinion and misleading others, the latter of which is called libel.
When did the exclusion of information become libel? Nothing in Larsen's original post is false.
Quote"Doug, insider, have you commented other blogs that linked to only one article? How come they did not recieve any letter from Sobieraj?"
Perhaps because scott has publicly set out to defame quixtar and all affiliates... Intent is the difference.
It's ironic to me, because Qblog and Scott's website was set up to help people like "Brad".
JoeCool: you're right, it has.
Drew> Insider, it is amazing how much you like to pretend you are stupid
Joe> Who says he’s pretending? :)
------------------------------------
insider> OK to mislead people?
Joe> It’s what you do everytime you promote quixtar as a viable business opportunity.
-----------------------------------
When did the exclusion of information become libel? Nothing in Larsen's original post is false.
Yep, you're correct, although they both accomplish the same exact thing (stating false info vs. purposely excluding news with the intention of inferring a misleading scope to a story) the latter is technically not illegal in the eyes of the law, a journalistic loophole of sorts.
Well Doug, please show us in the article where QBlog mentioned journalism.
Fritz, you gotta be kidding me on this one. Just because QBlog didn't mention the word 'journalism' that means it has nothing to do with the subject matter?
That's like me saying the following - Bill Britt runs an unscrupulous business where he connives others to purchase massive amounts of useless training materials in order to create an illegal pyramid scheme that purchases overpriced products that most of the participants don't even need in order to push their way up the bonus ladder. -
Now Fritz, what I just stated has nothing to do with the quixtar business opportunity, because I didn't mention the words 'quixtar business opportunity' in my above analysis LOL.
being a liberal, I frequent DailyKos on a well, daily basis. I'm not entering the fray there on the DeVos election campaign. What is interesting though, given what a "huge" image problem folk here think Amway/Quxitar has, is the almost complete lack of interest on DKos about the DeVos/Amway connection. At time of writing, the post that QBlog links to has just 9 comments from 7 posters and is recommended by 8 people. This on a site populated by over 100,000 registered users, nearly entirely people dedicated to winning campaigns against republicans, and with nearly half a million visitors every day. If America had such a huge problem with Amway and Quixtar, and huge numbers had "negative" experiences, wouldn't you think more than 7 people (6 excluding the author) would bother posting in an anti-amway article?
Food for thought.
Funny how you seem to have no issues with DailyKos's one-sided reporting of the news.
DailyKos: Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective
bias acknowledged upfront
AmQuix: "The Web's largest public collection of Quixtar and Amway information"
no bias acknowledged
insider> DailyKos: Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective
bias acknowledged upfront
Joe> Aren't you splitting hairs here insider?
What else is new?
Just for those interested, I have a new page showing Alticor's hypocrisy in this situation.
http://www.amquix.info/alticor_hypocrisy.html
Their opinion is that if I do not place a link on my site to a follow up story, that I did not know even existed, is some sort of a fault. Well here is one for them where they do the similar things they have accused me of.
Stunned, Simply Stunned
Two immediate and serious threats to the few basic freedoms that people have literally died obtaining over the past several centuries run all the way through these posts.
Threat One: Someone is trying to steal hard won basic freedoms and they're doing it right here right, now on this page.
Threat Two: The people under assault don't really understand what those basic rights are, so they become easy victims.
Falsely equating bias with opinion is one step in a rhetorical game meant to justify legally taking away the right of people to hold some opinions about the world they live in. It is a standard weapon in the new right's culture war and it is issued to every true son and true daughter who buys into the fourth reich.
Try it this way: What is the point of freespeech if speech cannot be used to advocate an opinion or a position? Why, it must be that you are free -- like the pod people in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- to point at people who are still free, who still hold the "wrong" opinions, and raise the alarm?!? After all, freedom is only found in obedience and we Americans do love freedom, right?
Take these opinions about the corporate fecal matter in question as examples of spoken and written opinion covered by the first amendment:
Amway is a crypto-christian cult created by corporate businessmen who thought that rivival-tent con-artists shouldn't have a corner on the god-to-money market.
Amway's actions in regards to Mr. Larsen's speech was just a business bully trying to shove their words down someone's else's throat so their basic con doesn't get exposed.
The Amway marketing scheme is completely immoral and it's denizens are motivated by the basest of emotions.
I don't have to prove it, you don't have to like it. I've got the right to say it. So do you.
Trying to prevent it from being said is a fundamental betrayal of the social contract spelled out in the form of the Constitution. Ah, Devos wouldn't dick around and break a contract, would he?
Freespeech: Use or loose it!
Please take immediate action to correct your website's misleading impression of the Wardrop lawsuit.
Or what?!
Although I think Larsen should present a balance of information, the fact that AmQuix sent out a somewhat threatening letter from their lawyer continues to show they know they're still operating a business that runs like a scam and they don't want consumers to know the entire truth.
Posted by: Fitz | August 10, 2006 2:20 PM