 |
Welcome to The Anti-MLM and Anti-Amway Webring Home Page |
|
|
Welcome to The Anti-MLM and Anti-Amway Webring Home Page |
|
Our mission is to help organize the informational material regarding the MLM industry and its leader, Amway. To achieve that mission, the webring will increase traffic and awareness of each members' sites as well as serve as a "research jump-on point" for anyone looking for more information.
Many sites on the webring present material that is "negative" towards the MLM industry, but it is all very educational. We believe people should get "the whole story" (as many distributors tell new prospects to do).
All anti-MLM and anti-Amway pages are welcome to join the ring. To submit your site for consideration in the webring, simply e-mail your site's URL, title, and a brief description, as well as your real name (if you wish) to the webring administrator.
This morning (February 6, 1999), Amway once again has set out to attack website owners. At last count, I, and four website authors (and the number is probably rising), have received subpoenas "for the production and copying of documents... which is relevant to [Amway's] civil action." (see complete text below) It is my opinion that Amway is once again under the belief that us "negative" website owners are being paid by Proctor & Gamble to spread "vicious lies" about Amway. The truth is, I have NEVER been paid one cent from P&G. Now, I'm no legal expert, but what "probable cause" does Amway have that leads them to believe I am being paid by P&G? Is this enough evidence to allow Amway to search my ENTIRE hard drive, floppy/ zip disks, and "parts of files which may have been deleted by the user"? Wouldn't this be in violation of my 4th amendment right to unreasonable search " seizure?
On side note, I really wish Amway would stop whining about a so-called "P&G conspiracy to [wreck] Amway" and start concentrating on fixing their own business. During the time I was a distributor, I learned how the Corporation does nothing to enforce its "10-customer rule"- everyone received their bonus checks despite the fact that no-one had "sold" any products or had any customers. But, I suppose Amway doesn't care about its downward-sliding reputation. Already too many people have a poor image of Amway, and these subpoenas will only further harm their reputation. As a matter of fact, of all the e-mails I have received, a few people still support the Amway business, but not a single person has written to say they support Amway's use of subpoenas. In almost every e-mail, the sender believes the subpoenas are Amway's method of either abusing the legal system or intimidating critics into silence. (Realize, though, that none of the people who have written are "legal experts" and their statements are only their opinions.)
And on a final note, it seems rather "underhanded" for a large corporation to attack people who are critical of their own business practices. After all, none of us website owners are "creating" information- we are merely making it more available than before. Much of the information has been seen before in newspapers, magazines, or on television shows. But, with the Internet, the information does not "go away" the next month- it is there for the world to see. Also, most of us have been Amway distributors and have learned first-hand about the "negative" information. And yet, when we share the information (however "negative"), we find ourselves the targets of subpoenas.
My editorial comments to the subpoena are in green.
|
AMWAY CORPORATION
|
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
|
|
YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):
|
|
|
PLACE: Litchford & Christopher
|
DATE AND TIME:
|
|
SERVING OFFICER & NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER
|
|
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS TO BE PRODUCED FOR
INSPECTION AND COPYING
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE RECIPIENT OF THIS SUBPOENA:
Amway Corporation believes that you are in possession, custody, and control of documents and other tangible things, including recordings, disks, tapes, and other electronic data compilations from which evidence can be obtained, which is relevant to the civil action pursuant to which this subpoena has been issued. ALL DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION OR RETENTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND ELECTRONIC FILE DELETION OR DISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, POLICIES OR PROTOCOLS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REFORMATTING OR DEFRAGMENTING PRACTICES) WHICH COULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALTERING OR DESTROYING INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE SUBPOENA WHICH IS ELECTRONICALLY STORED SHOULD BE SUSPENDED UNTIL YOU ARE EXCUSED FROM THIS SUBPOENA.
Failure without adequate excuse to obey this subpoena may be punished as a contempt of the United States District Court from which this subpoena is issued.
DEFINITIONS:
Sunday, February 7, 1999 (morning)
I notify all the members of this WebRing to make sure they are aware of Amway's subpoena and to alert them to the possibility that they too could be served a subpoena.
Monday, February 8, 1999 (morning)
I contact the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Miami, Florida. They are sending me "official" paperwork so I can file a complaint.
Monday, February 8, 1999 (evening)
I re-submit this website to the major Internet search engines to generate publicity for this situation.
Tuesday, February 9, 1999 (morning)
I meet with a private attorney in downtown Orlando: [Jim Lussier of Mateer & Harbert, P.A; Landmark Center Two - Suite 600; 225 E. Robinson Street; P O Box 2854; Orlando, FL 32802; 407-425-9044]. He explained what the subpoena meant in "layman's terms." He also pointed out that as long as Amway could prove a "thread" between myself and P&G, then the subpoena is acceptable. In this case, Amway probably considers Sidney Schwartz a "consultant" (of some sort), and since Amway can prove(?) I had e-mail communications with Sidney, Amway is within their rights to serve me a subpoena. Because of this, my attorney and I decided that the best course of action is to comply with the subpoena.
It is now official- I am spending my OWN money to defend myself against Amway, in a lawsuit that I am not even a "material party." As I start to spend money to keep Amway and their attorneys "at bay," when do I decide that I've spent enough? As it is, I don't really have the money available to put up the best defense possible for 2 reasons: 1) I am still paying back the credit card debts that I created while I was in the business, and 2) Amway has the resources to almost continually file new legal motions. Unfortunately, there is no "legal defense fund" to assist individuals in their defense against corporations' legal filings.
Tuesday, February 9, 1999 (evening)
I cash the $63.00 check that came attached to the subpoena. My attorney had explained that this was a $60.00 "deposition" fee and $3.00 for mileage. The check isn't a "payment" for any of my "services," but is legally required to accompany the subpoena.
Thursday, February 11, 1999
I learn that the P&G attorneys have filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. A court date to hear the motion has been set for some time in April. I also learn that they have filed a "Motion to Delay/ Disallow Discovery" (including any information that could be gathered from subpoenas) while the motion to dismiss is under effect.
Saturday, February 13, 1999
I send out e-mails to companies whose products are found in Amway's catalogs. I ask them to "reconsider [their] business relations with the Amway Corporation."
Thursday, February 18, 1999
I finish completing the ACLU complaint paperwork and mail it back to the Miami, Florida office.
Friday, February 19, 1999 (morning)
Jim Lussier (my attorney) offers a "compromise"- we will provide Amway with a ZIP disk with the "relevant" material (e-mail folder, website folder, and website "support" folders) and all the paperwork from the time when I was a distributor. Later in the day, my attorney tells me that Amway's local attorneys (Litchford & Christopher, PA; Barnett Bank Center, Suite 2200; 390 N. Orange Ave.; Orlando, FL 32801) have not agreed to the compromise. My attorney explains that the only way I will be complying with the subpoena would be for Amway's attorneys to take a copy of my hard drive. I am told that Amway's attorneys will have an electronic company come to my house, hook something up to my computer, and copy the entire hard drive. This company will then run a search program on the data on my hard drive (existing, deleted, and fragmented data) to find anything that they consider "relevant" to the case. After that, I would be able to review the data they collected and could "veto" anything I don't want entered into the court record. Of course, Amway's attorneys have the power to override my "veto."
Friday, February 19, 1999 (evening)
I receive the following e-mail from Amway's attorney in Michigan. (I am assuming it is real, as e-mail headers can be easily faked.) I guess they're getting impatient to get everyone's hard drives!
|
From: Norbert F. Kugele
Mr. Hoagland, I am an attorney representing Amway Corporation. I apologize for resorting to email, but am not sure how else to get a hold of you or your attorney. I note from your website that you intend to comply with the subpoena. The date your records are to be produced is Monday, February 22. I am arranging for our technical consultant, Electronic Evidence Discovery, Inc., to come to Orlando to take an image of the records on your computer. Would you like to have this done at the offices of our local counsel in Orlando, or at your home? Also, I need some basic information about your computer to assure that we can do this properly the first time. Please have your attorney contact me at (616) 752-2186. Alternatively, your attorney can contact Amway's local counsel, Don Christopher, at 422-6600. Norbert Kugele
|
Friday, February 19, 1999 (evening)
I am forwarded the following e-mail sent from Amway's local attorney in Florida to my attorney. From the sound of the third paragraph, these attorneys are getting impatient as well. I suppose 2 weeks is too long for them to wait (from the time I was served on 2/6/99 to the date of this e-mail, 2/19/99). Or are they worried that P&G's "Motion to Dismiss/ Disallow Discovery" will be heard before any attorneys can copy any hard drives?
|
From: Jim Lussier
--------Original Message------- From: Donald E. Christopher
Attached is a proposed form of protective order. We are agreeable to modifying this as necessary in order to satisfy your client's privacy concerns. Amway has no interest in reviewing his Quicken files or other personal financial records. My co-counsel, Norbert Kugele is endeavoring to determine from Electronic Evidence Discovery, Inc., the independent vendor who will copy an image of Hoagland's hard drive, if there is some work-around to the problem you identified and if their search can somehow be designed to avoid your client's Quicken files altogether. In the meantime, however, Amway is anxious to have EED get the image of your client's hard drive as soon as possible. We are presently determining if arrangements can be made to do it first thing on Tuesday morning, February 23, 1999. Once the image has been obtained, then we can proceed in a more leisurely fashion to work out the details of the search and address your client's privacy concerns. EED will hold the image and will not disclose its contents to Amway or anyone else until further joint direction from us. Your client will be free to change or delete anything on his computer after the image is taken. Before that time however we do not believe it would be appropriate for him to do anything which might cause the loss of relevant data. As I told you, EED is prepared to come to his home or whatever other location he may have his computer. They will need to remove the case to access the hard drive, but the imaging process will not alter or destroy any information on the machine. They will also need a free electrical outlet to power their equipment. In order for EED to have the proper equipment on hand to quickly make the image, I ask that you provide me with the following information concerning Mr. Hoagland's system: the make of his computer, the processor type and speed, the operating software in use on the machine, the type and size of the hard drive(s), the type and size of any ZIP drives or other storage devices, and specifications for any back-up devices and back-up software. We look forward to working with you cooperatively to complete this discovery. We insist that adequate arrangements be made by Monday morning for EED to secure an image of Mr. Hoagland's hard drive no later than Tuesday morning. If we are not able to do so, then I will be constrained to file a motion to compel with the court. Based on our conversation, I do not think that will become necessary, but I nevertheless want you to emphasize to your client the urgency with which Amway views this matter.
Donald E. Christopher
|
Monday, February 22, 1999 (morning)
After talking to my attorney, we decide that the best (actually, the least expensive) course of action would be to allow Amway to copy my hard drive. However, their attorneys (and EED) would have to sign a very strict confidentiality agreement. The agreement states that Amway's attorneys, my attorney, and I would all have to agree on what the search terms will be, before the search is run. Then, EED will do its search and report their findings to both Amway and my attorney. I then have the right to disallow certain folders and files (such as my "Quicken" and "business" files).
I ask my attorney how much this situation would cost me if I had decided to completely fight the subpoena. He said the costs could range anywhere from $500 to $3,000. His advice was to "let someone with deeper pockets fight it out." I still believe this subpoena is both morally and ethically wrong, as well as legally questionable. But, as I am quickly learning, the legal party with the most money will get his way.
Thursday, February 25, 1999 (morning)
I receive a copy of the final, executed Stipulated Protective Order (via fax) from my attorney. Amway's attorney (Norbert Kugele) my attorney (Jim Lussier), and a representative from EED (Rae Collier) all sign this agreement.
|
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
|
Thursday, February 25, 1999 (evening)
A technician from EED arrives at my place to "image" my hard drive. Unlike what the attorneys have been saying (including: the process will take 12 to 16 hours, the "machine" will have to left on overnight, the technician will have to finish the job the next day at 6am, etc.) the technician was here for about an hour and a half. He connected a large-capacity SCSI drive and ZIP drive to my computer's SCSI port, rebooted, and made a "disk image" of my hard drive. The "image" contains all of the physical data on the drive- everything from the files in use to the "unallocated" blocks. He then checked the image to be sure it was accurate and then disconnected his equipment. I then check my computer to make sure everything works fine. (The technician said that, in a great majority of the time, no "damage" is done to the drive.) After he was sure the image was good and I was sure my computer was fine, he packed up his equipment and left.
Wednesday, March 3, 1999 (morning)
I receive the following fax from my attorney (which he received from Amway's attorneys):
|
(letterhead) Mr. James Lussier
Re: Subpoena of John Hoagland Dear Mr. Lussier: Per the Stipulated Protective Order of February 24, 1999, I am proposing the following search terms to be run on the image of Mr. Hoagland's hard drive:
These terms constitute either variations on the names of Amway and Procter & Gamble, the names of attorneys representing Procter & Gamble, the names and addresses of various individuals that Mr. Hoagland may have been in contact with regarding Amway, and the names of various web sites that relate to Amway. EED will use these search terms to identify files to be extracted from the image for production to Amway. Please let me know by March 8, 1999, whether you have any objection to the use of these search terms so that I may file an appropriate motion with the court. Otherwise, I will schedule EED to run the searches. A copy of the extracted files will also be sent to you, per our Stipulated Protective Order. (By the time they updated their search list on March 30, I still did not know if EED had been "schedule[d] to run the searches" or not. Nor had I received a "copy of the extracted files!") Very truly yours Norbert F. Kugele Via facsimile c: Donald Christopher (via fax)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, March 3, 1999 (afternoon)
My attorney contacts me to make sure I had received the fax he had sent. He also tells me that he is close to completing my bill. So far, he estimates that his services will cost me just over $1,900!! His original estimate was around $500. He said that, due to his many telephone conversations and e-mails with Amway's attorneys, he has spent more time on my case than he had originally thought he would. I ask him if there is any way we can ask a court to order Amway to re-coop my costs, but he says that there has to be "proof" of legal abuse on Amway's part. And, since proving any kind of abuse would cost me much more than $1,900, he recommends against seeking such a court order. He did not apologize for his fees and also reiterated that the costs are "part of the U.S. legal system."
Thursday, March 4, 1999 (afternoon)
My attorney and I decide Amway's search terms are "acceptable." Of course, if they decide to look for my own last name on my own hard drive, they'll find all kinds of irrelevant information (such as software licenses, etc.).
My attorney (Jim Lussier) agrees to reduce his fees- I will now be billed $1,068.50 for his services, which includes almost $45.00 in fax and copying charges (for a total bill of $1,318.50). This is in addition to the $250.00 I have already paid him as a retainer. He claims that this price is a "$500 - $600 savings [on his regular fee]," but, again, this is an expense that I should never have had to incur. It is one matter to spend money to defend yourself in a legal case, but it is an entirely different matter when you are a "side-line" in a corporation versus corporation lawsuit.
Friday, March 5, 1999
I discover that P&G's "Motion to Dismiss/ Disallow Discovery" has been rejected by the courts. This means that Amway is still legally entitled to file subpoenas and collect evidence to support their arguments.
I also discover that at least one other subpoenaed-person has "lost" his "fight" and has allowed Amway (or EED?) to take a copy of his hard drive.
Monday, March 15, 1999
I receive an e-mail from a local newspaper reporter (Susan Strother of the Orlando Sentinel) who is looking to do a story on this situation.
Wednesday, March 17, 1999
I have a lengthy phone interview with Susan Strother and give her my story.
Monday, March 22, 1999
I mail a letter to Amway attorney Norbert Kugele "request[ing a] reimbursement for my attorney fees involved in [this] case." My reasoning is: "Since a subpoena is a legal matter, I felt it necessary to have legal representation. Amway is the plaintiff in this case and should, therefore, reimburse me for my legal expenses associated with the collection of evidence for their case." Now, it is only a matter of time until I learn if Kugele will be a "decent guy" and reimburse me, or he won't.
Sunday, March 29, 1999
The Orlando Sentinel publishes Susan Strother's/ my story (and a full-color photograph of me ) on the front page of the Business section. Click here to see the online version of this story.
Tuesday, March 30, 1999
I receive an e-mail from Amway's attorneys, forwarded by my attorney, about my request for a reimbursement for my legal costs. Kugele's response is:
| I have gotten a letter from Mr. Hoagland requesting reimbursement of his legal fees. I am forwarding this request to Amway for Amway's determination, but quite honestly I think Amway will deny his request. I will forward the response once I hear from Amway. |
Attached to that e-mail is an updated list of search terms (in 'Word' format). Most of the terms have already been agreed upon, but the entire last section, "Parties in other litigation" is brand-new. It should be interesting to see how Amway can prove how the terms in "Parties in other litigation" can be relevant to this case. (They're not, but don't tell Amway or they may come up with more search terms to further violate the privacy of my hard drive.)
I have tried to identify as many terms as I could, but there are some names I have never heard before.
| Variations on party names
Amway (Amway Corporation's legal name) Scamway (name variation found on many sites) KGBway (name variation found on Sidney Schwartz's website, created after the subpoenas were issued) P&G (Procter & Gamble's legal abbreviation) Procter (Procter & Gamble's legal name) Proctor (name variation) Gamble (Procter & Gamble's legal name) Gambel (name variation) |
Names of P&G attorneys/law firms
(as I have had no contact with any of these people, I assume that they actually P&G attorneys) Hueck Hamilton Dinsmore Shohl Stephenson Farrell Dykema Gossett Chesley Stilz Waite Schneider Bayless |
Names of individuals/groups thought to be in contact with
(at least they removed my own name from this list!) BLC (a private listserv) STC (a private listserv) Schwartz (last name of a critical-website owner) Sidney (first name of a critical-website owner) Saggio (last name of an Amway critic) Wilkes (last name of a critical-website owner) Brunjes (last name of an Amway critic) Lowndes (last name of a critical-website owner) Midgett (last name of a critical-website owner) Roberts (last name of an Amway critic) Tosp (I don't recognize this name) Conrad (last name of an Amway critic) Carter (last name of a critical-website owner) |
Names of websites
(All of these sites are critical of the Amway business. Of course, Amway doesn't care if I've been "in contact" with any "positive" sites.) The Other Side of The Plan Amway: The Untold Story The Nightmare Builders MLM Survivors Home Page Lowndes for US Congress An Insider's Perspective Welcome to Amway, The Continuing Story (this is my own site) Welcome To The Anti-MLM and Anti-Amway Webring Homepage (This is my own site, also. So, they want to search my hard drive for my own website files? In my opinion, that's absurd!) Ask an Emerald (This site was created by active Emerald-level distributor, who, apparently, was too critical of the business.) |
| Email addresses
(All of these terms are the e-mail addresses of people critical of Amway. I have removed the full e-mail address.) heuck@ aismidgett@ ECZQ78A@ smw358@ legend@ schwartz@ gsaxton@ wilke001@ jackie@ (as far as I know, this person has been "retired" from criticizing Amway... for at least a year- long before this lawsuit was filed.) dcmdg@ blc-l@ stc-l@ Midgett@ nomore.scams@ |
Parties in other litigation
Allen Anderson Arista (I believe that this term is "Arista Records," one of the plaintiffs in the "RIAA vs. Amway Corp." lawsuit. This case was settled in early 1998, long before Amway's lawsuit against P&G. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Baker Barr Bausch Bohrer Burroughs Christian Cutaia Delcamp Dorman Doucet Drummond |
| Parties in other litigation (cont.)
Faulkner Finnie Franklin Griffith (An Amway Diamond-level distributor. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Hallmark Hamilton Hanrahan Haugen (Randy Haugen- an Amway Diamond-level distributor. He was a defendant in the recent P&G vs Amway case in Utah, which was recently dismissed.) Hayden (This person is one of the plaintiffs in the "Hayden vs. Amway Corp." lawsuit. This case is still being heard in Connecticut. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Helbichuck Holguin Kaufmann Ketay Kuntz May Mazzola McDaniel Mensack Michaels (An Amway Diamond-level distributor. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Morrison (This person is one of the plaintiffs in the "Morrison vs. Amway Corp." lawsuit. This case is still being heard in Texas. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Musgrove Neely Phillips |
Parties in other litigation (cont.)
Powell Price Pruitt Pultman RIAA (I believe that this term is the abbreviation for "Recording Industry Association of America," one of the plaintiffs in the "RIAA vs. Amway Corp." lawsuit. This case was settled in early 1998, long before Amway's lawsuit against P&G. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Richburg Rogers Schumacher Schmanski Sharp Sheldon Silvestri Sotelo Stewart (Kenny Stewart- an Amway Diamond-level distributor. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Taylor Tobias (An Amway Diamond-level distributor. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Touchton (This person is one of the plaintiffs in the "Touchton vs. Amway Corp." lawsuit. This case is still being heard in Utah (I believe). How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Vazquez Watchel Wead (Doug Wead- a diamond in Yager's organization and erstwhile candidate for the US House of Representatives from Arizona (he lost on the last go round). He also was part of the Bush campaign in 1988. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Weintraub (Sidney Weintraub- an EDC who built his business entirely on MCI signups. His brother, Seth, is also a Diamond. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Woods (An Amway Diamond-level distributor. How does this term have any relevance to this lawsuit?) Young |
Thursday, April 1, 1999
My attorney and I agree that Amway is in violation of the Stipulated Protection Order that everyone has signed, including: Amway's attorney (Norbert Kugele) my attorney (Jim Lussier), and a representative from EED (Rae Collier). In this Order, we agreed that Amway and I would come to a final decision about the search terms by March 8. In fact, Amway's attorneys threatened to get a court order if I did not agree to their search terms by this deadline! Now, March 30th, Amway wants to add to their list of terms.
My attorney's response is:
| Amway's request to revise the search terms list is in violation of the Stipulated Protective Order. In the interest of completing this exercise, my client will agree to this one-time-only modification. If any more changes are sought, file a motion. |
Sunday, April 3, 1999 (evening)
I add a section to my main website asking people to consider donating money to help create a legal defense fund. This fund would assist people who need help with their legal costs. Click here to go to read more about it.
Friday, April 9, 1999
I receive two items from my attorney: 1) a bill for another $68.32 for dealing with the updated list of terms (for a total bill of $1,386.82), and 2) a response from Norbert Kuegele (to my attorney), which reads as follows:
|
Dear Mr. Lussier: I have received your e-mail approving the modification of the list of search terms. While I disagree that the request to revise the search terms was a violation of the Stipulated Protective Order, I nonetheless appreciate your agreement to the modification. (But if, around the 30th, I had asked to have some terms deleted from the list, would they have allowed it? I somehow doubt it very much.) I would also hope that if I propose any additional search terms in the future that we could work out an agreement without my first having to file a motion with the court. (Let me just say this, "for the record"- I believe that Amway's updated list terms is COMPLETELY in violation of the Stipulated Protective Order which stated that all parties must agree to finalize the search list by March 8. And now, Kugele thinks Amway may want to further update the terms again, even after they have ordered EED to run the search? And also, "for the record," if Amway wants to search my hard drive for more irrelevant terms, I will not be allowing it- they will have to convince a judge why they believe their new terms are, indeed, relevant to this case of Amway vs. P&G... and why they neglected to include these terms in their TWO previous lists.) Now that we have determined the search terms that will be run on the hard drive image, I have directed EED to perform the search per the Stipulated Protective Order. EED will provide to you a copy of the search results, which should be readable in Word 97. I have also had a chance to discuss with Amway Mr. Hoagland's request that Amway reimburse him for his attorney's fees. As I expected, Amway has decided that it will not reimburse Mr. Hoagland for these fees. (As I expected, neither Amway nor Kugele will be a "nice guy" and reimburse me for my costs to respond to this subpoena. But, then again, if they were "nice guys," they would not be issuing subpoenas grasping for evidence that supports their "'P&G is out to get us' conspiracy theory.") Please call if you have any questions. |
Saturday, May 1, 1999
I receive the list of search terms from EED. There is an index (in the form of an Excel spreadsheet) which lists which terms were found in which files. It is interesting to note that EED found 378 'documents' that contained the search terms- 377 of which are "deleted files." It is also interesting to note that the "people's last names" that EED found were in my comic book database... in other words, the names are not P&G employees, but comic book artists.
The bottom line is that EED found NOTHING that links me with P&G, their employees, or their attorneys. But, I suppose it's Amway's option to waste its own time and energy trying to prove their "conspiracy theory."
Monday, May 3, 1999
I learn that one of the subpoenaed people has had his court hearing on whether Amway should be able to search his hard drive. Ashley Wilkes brought a motion before the District Court to not let Amway search his hard drive. The judge ruled that Amway's search of Ashley's hard drive would be a "burden" as well as "irrelevant" to this case of Amway vs. P&G. So, even though I agreed to let Amway search my hard drive, it seems that I could have disallowed the search. Of course, I don't know what Ashley's legal bills are, but, in my opinion, he has "won."
Thursday, May 6, 1999
I receive another bill from my attorney for $84.25 (for a total bill of $1,471.07). This price is now going WAY beyond what I had ever expected to spend on this matter!
Tuesday, May 11, 1999
I receive the following letter from the ACLU of Florida, Miami office:
|
Dear Mr. Hoagland, Thank you for your recent letter. However, because your situation did not occur in the state of Florida, but in Michigan, we are sending your file to the ACLU of Michigan. They should respond to your complaint within six weeks. Please direct any further inquiries to the ACLU of Michigan at: ACLU of Michigan
Thank you, Sincerely, Eduardo Trocha
cc: ACLU of Michigan |
Friday, June 4, 1999
I receive the following letter from the ACLU of Michigan:
|
Dear Mr. Hoagland, This is in response to your recent request for ACLU assistance. The American Civil Liberties Union is a private, non-profit membership organization which seeks to preserve and extend constitutional rights through participation in legislation, litigation and public education. Our involvement in most cases (either through direct representation or amicus curiae intervention) usually results in a change in law or policy. You may know that the ACLU is a volunteer organization with extremely limited resources. This means we must be selective about the cases in which we choose to become involved. From our review of your correspondence, it does not appear that your case is one for which we can provide assistance. This is not to say that you do not have a legitimate complaint, but that it falls outside the scope of our activity. Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union. Very truly yours, (The rest of the letter is handwritten)
Your letter indicated that you are represented by counsel; if your attorney feels it is appropriate, please have him/her contact us directly. |
Thursday, August 20, 1999
Ruth Carter (the author of The MLM Survivor's Homepage) releases the book "AMWAY Motivational Organizations: Behind the Smoke and Mirrors" (Backstreet Publishing). From the book's 'home page':
|
Ruth Carter spent 15 years as an Amway distributor. During most of that time she was completely imersed in her upline's Motivational Organization. She also spent nearly five years working for her upline Diamond in his office. Only then did she witness the trickery, deception, and unethical behavior that pervades the Amway Motivational Organizations, or AMOs. This book reveals the truth behind the smoke and mirrors of the Amway motivational business. |
Click here to go to the book's home page where you can read a sample chapter or place an order.
Thursday, May 18, 2000
I mail a letter to Ms. Judy Childs (Amway Corporation Legal Department) requesting that I be compensated for the time lost from work due to their subpoena. I am claiming that I lost 12.5 hours due to meetings with my attorney (both in his office and on the telephone), taken directly from his billing. The total charge for my lost time totals over $350.00.
Friday, May 26, 2000
I receive a letter from Ms. Catherine C. Lynem (on official Amway Legal Division letterhead):
|
Dear Mr. Hoagland: We received your letter requesting compensation for lost time related to the subpoena you received regarding the above-referenced matter. In order to process your request, we need either your social security number or employer I.D. number. Once we receive this information, your request can be processed. If you prefer to e-mail or fax the information so as not to hold up the check issuing process, you can fax it to the attention of my secretary, Judy Childs, at (616) 787-7813 or e-mail her at Judy_Childs@amway.com. Very truly yours, Catherine C. Lynem
|
I'm not really sure why they need my social security number to process my check, but I will send it to them so it won't "hold up the check issuing process." On the other hand, they were fairly speedy about answering my letter since I received a response approximately two weeks after I wrote to them.
Tuesday, May 30, 2000
I attempt to fax my social security number to Ms. Childs at (616) 787-7813. The phone rings once and then a voice message comes on the line: "You've reached Bob and Wendy's voice-mail. We can't come to phone right now, but if you'll leave your name and number and a brief message..."
When I get home from work, I send an e-mail to Ms. Childs (with my social security number) and tell her that the fax number is not working.
Friday, June 23, 2000
I receive a check, in the amount of $360.00 from the Amway Corporation for "compensation". Using their own logic, I suppose this means I am now a "paid consultant" for the Amway Corporation. After all, if Amway (and their attorneys) claim that Sidney Schwartz was a "consultant" for P&G since he was reimbursed for his troubles, I guess I could now be considered a "consultant" for Amway!
Wednesday, February 14, 2001... two years later...
I receive a call this afternoon from my attorney saying that Amway would like to take my deposition regarding the same case. This is the same case in which they issued me a subpoena, broke their own rules about reaching an agreement by a certain date, and took an image of my hard drive... and which they found NOTHING to support their claim that I was receiving information and/or funds from P&G. And yes, this is the same case that occurred two (2) years ago!
I will be talking with my attorney tomorrow and finding out what is going on (and posting the information here).
Thursday, February 15, 2001 and Friday, February 16, 2001
My attorney and I exchange voice messages with each other. Since he's out of the office when I call and I'm away from my desk when he calls, I have no new information about this deposition.
Wednesday, February 21, 2001
My attorney and I finally have a chance to talk about the latest developments, although at this point, he has about as much information as I do. We agree that he will continue to represent me in this case and he'll try to get as much information as he can (including contacting the P&G attorneys for possible representation from them).
Monday, February 26, 2001
My attorney and talk again. He has learned that this deposition is from the same case as before and that it will be going to trial in October. He also told me that a subpoena was issued, on Friday, February 23, 2001 for my deposition... and that I should expect the process server to arrive at any time.
He also tells me that, in most cases, depositions are very hard to fight- especially if the person is not a "material" witness. He also gives me a little more detail about what to expect at a deposition: he thinks that there will be a number of Amway's attorneys and some of P&G's attorneys who will (both) ask questions. He said that, legally, depositions can go as long as 7 hours in one sitting, but, depending on the questions asked, it could be significantly shorter. He also told me to think about having an attorney of my own at the deposition (but it not was "required"). Although a person can't "object" to a question (like in a trial), having an attorney there would be beneficial- both for his experience and for peace of mind. However, I would have to pay to have an attorney present.
What this really means is that I, once again, have to spend money for an attorney to advise me on these legal matters and I have to miss work to respond to this case. It makes me wonder if Amway's attorneys really want information from me or is this just a way to "wear me down"? Or is it a case of Amway's attorneys wanting more money from their client? After all, they could have taken my deposition two years ago (to go with the copy of my hard drive), when the information was fresh.
Tuesday, February 27, 2001
I send an e-mail to Susan Strother at The Orlando Sentinel to see if she would be interested in writing a "follow-up" to her previous article about my legal situation with Amway. If she does write another story, I will definitely link to the online version of the Sentinel so everyone can read the story.
Tuesday March 6, 2001
My attorney calls and tells me that I will no longer be needed for a deposition in this case. It seems that Amway's attorneys have too many (other) depositions and no enough time, so some people (including me) are released from the case. However, my attorney warned, there is a chance that a judge could extend the evidence-gathering time limit, so my deposition may be needed in the future.
Even though am I am "lucky" since I won't have to pay for the services of an attorney to go to a deposition, I will still have to pay my attorney for the work he has done so far... which just adds more money to the amount I have spent on this case!
From Amway's website (posted in the interest of "free speech")
In connection with a lawsuit filed against Procter & Gamble for its active support of a false and misleading anti-Amway web site, Amway Corporation has served subpoenas on six individuals and groups.[It seems I do have to say it yet again- could Amway PLEASE produce proof that there is ANY connection between myself and P&G?? In fact, P&G's own attorneys have verified that there has been NO communication between P&G and myself. Also, isn't Amway's use of the phrase "false and misleading" a bit like "calling the kettle black?" After all, there have been NUMEROUS lawsuits filed around the country (and some still in litigation) that allege Amway distributors use "false and misleading" methods to build the business. More legal documents are starting to show that higher-level distributors' incomes are "false and misleading"- instead of earning their large incomes from the sales of Amway products, these distributors make their money from the sale of motivational tools... a fact that they fail to tell their downline.
As far as I know, the 6 subpoenas were served to the following: Sidney Schwartz, David Midgett, Ashley Wilkes, The University of Michigan (Ashley's Internet provider), myself, and MPINet (my Internet provider).]
Amway believes those served with subpoenas have participated in or have been party to a coordinated anti-Amway attack subsidized by P&G on the Internet and that they may possess valuable evidence about P&G's dissemination of inflammatory and false information about Amway. [I suppose they are allowed to believe whatever ludicrous ideas they want, but I think the truth will speak for itself.]
These subpoenas are not about freedom of speech; rather, they are about the collection of evidence.[And I suppose "files or parts of files which may have been deleted..." are considered "evidence?" If they are truly looking for evidence, why did Amway's attorney (Norbert Kugele) agree to NOT search my Quicken files... the best place to look for records of payments!] The subpoenas call for all documents -- paper and electronic -- pertaining to P&G's anti-Amway activities. These include communications with P&G and its attorneys, information about various web sites, and communications between individuals engaged in anti-Amway activities. [First, again, I have NONE of these documents. And, second, "engaged in anti-Amway activities??" C'mon- Amway is a corporation, not a government agency! It's like people engaging in "anti-Ford" activities by creating websites that point out Ford cars' problems.] If these individuals and groups do not have information relevant to the lawsuit, these subpoenas should be of no concern. [I have no information "relevant" to this case (in my opinion, that is- I have no idea what Amway will believe is "relevant"), but to say people should not be "concerned" with a legal subpoena is fairly irresponsible. A subpoena is a legal document which has the power of a United States District Court behind it. Failure to answer it could have SERIOUS consequences. So, yes, people need to be "concerned" about a subpoena... especially ones that ask for "A complete "mirror" copy of each of your disks, tapes or other electronic storage media..."]
In November 1998, Amway filed its lawsuit against P&G to protect Amway's successful, multi-national business. Amway filed the lawsuit after learning that P&G was providing misleading information to the author of an anti-Amway web site and was supporting the author of that web site with free legal services and consulting payments.
The Complaint, filed in Michigan federal court, challenges P&G's once-secret consulting relationship with Mr. Schwartz, who has used the World Wide Web to spread false or misleading information about Amway. In an ironic twist, [An "ironic twist?" Hardly. The fact is, Amway has served TWO subpoenas on Sidney Schwartz. The first subpoena was during a P&G vs. Amway lawsuit, which P&G defended him (and he did not surrender his hard drive). The second subpoena came a few months ago, which he complied to to without a fight or legal representation.] Amway found out about P&G's relationship with Mr. Schwartz during the defense of another case in which P&G falsely claimed Amway was behind an old, false rumor that P&G subsidizes the Church of Satan.
Amway prefers to meet its competitors in the open marketplace, not cloaked behind a mask of false and misleading attacks. By collecting evidence about P&G's subsidy of false and misleading attacks on the Internet, Amway hopes to return to a level playing field with P&G and other manufacturers of household and personal care products. [I wonder what Amway considers "a level playing field?" I wonder if this lawsuit is merely their way of recovering market share after years of "illegal pyramid business," "price-fixing," and "restraint of trade" allegations.]
 |
|
 |
This Webring for Webring Managers
site
|