🚀 go-pugleaf

After having read this rather lengthy post, I have a few thoughts which
I'd like the poster of this message to reply to:

1) If the information presented is correct, are you expecting the
   FTC to suddenly drop their case?

Please note, that with the high visibility they've brought on
themselves, suddenly dropping the case would have the same effect
as allowing the evidentiary hearing.

2) If the FTC doesn't have sufficient evidence to demonstrate it's
   position, there may be legal problems caused by their actions.
   Do you think ANY regulatory agency would be ignorant enough to
   leap that far before looking? And leave themselves open to
   negative response by businesses in general?

I'll admit mistakes are made, and often. But the Fed generally isn't
going to make a move whereby it's actions would produce an assertive
response by entire industries. What has been suggested would have far
more reaching ramifications than you have considered, and would probably
result in industries using their considerable resources to defeat such
"aggressive" regulators.

Intra and Interstate commerce would be so adversely affected, it would
be imperative for businesses to assist in finding persons less disposed
to false actions. Forget the little guy for a moment. According to your
post, Fortuna had 45,000 members. Not exactly a small company...

3) As the Plaintiff (or Prosecution), the FTC bears the burden of proof.
   Period. End of statement. If they cannot meet the requirements of
   such proof, the defendant effectively is found to be not guilty.
   Does enough evidence exist, in your opinoin, in the possession of the
   Trade Commission to prove their allegations?

A basic tenet of our legal system is that as a defendant, there's no
requirement to prove innocence. And to this day, it still applies.
If the FTC doesn't have sufficient evidence to prove their case, then
the organization must be found not guilty of the specific charge.
There's no alternative. It's not like you can be found a "little
guilty", at least, not in this case.

Either there was misrepresentation, or their wasn't. And the Federal
agencies aren't in the habit of going after "little" charges. If they're
giving you the "once over", they're playing for keeps.

See if you agree with this example:

The EPA, doesn't break down your front door after being notified you
spilled a 50 ml beaker of H2SO4 on the plant floor. They'll drop by,
however, when there's complaints of 100,000 gallons of the stuff being
dumped in your backyard. And I can safely say, it won't take too
many complaints.

Agree or disagree?

Also, consider the "class action". If a sufficient number of persons
level a complaint, an entire class of persons (who may wish to
complain), can be considered as plaintiffs. I am not an attorney, but
there are a few things that make sense. Since the FTC is primarily
concerned with Interstate commerce, they're not likely to smash your
door because you were a month late shipping a product.

Of course, take your investors to the cleaners for 5 million dollars,
OR LEAVE THEM WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU HAVE, and you SHOULD be
expecting a visit.

The purpose of any investigation is to separate "impressions" from fact.
And until facts can be obtained, it's best to not allow any further
activity. They may have been a bit overzealous (they usually are), but
somebody had to complain. And, there had to be enough reason to believe
that something was wrong to proceed.

Another example: What is the purpose of a "sting"? To gather enough
credible evidence to proceed. Now, how many "stings" end in failure?
You'll never know. But I seriously doubt that any regulatory or
enforcement agency without some cause (other than it's Tuesday), will
just jump on you as something to do with themselves. Why not?

It's pretty damn embarrassing to admit when you're wrong. Think about
it. And where an accusation is concerned, there is always the
possibility of a countersuit, for defamation of character, libel,
slander, etc., especially where insufficient evidence is found to
justify the actions.  Consider the situation of the Philadelphia
Police Dept. where a lot of arrests and convictions are being
overturned because of false accusations, and manufactured evidence.

The only way the government can maintain what faith it has by the
citizenry, is to try to be correct more often than it is wrong. I'd
prefer to have the government as uninvolved in my affairs as possible.
But if they ARE breathing down my neck, I'll have to accept that
somewhere -- somehow -- I got their attention. So I join an MLM today.
Should I expect agents on my doorstep this afternoon?

Before you speak of how you're losing your rights, do yourself an
enormous favor: Read the US Constitution. Read it more than once.
Make sure that you not only understand the "Rights" it provides,
but also the RESPONSIBILITIES that go with them. You may need to read
between the lines to find this information, but you will find it.

You and I have rights to do many things; we also have a greater
responsibility to our society as a whole, to repect the rights of
others as well.

Now, if any of the parties to this will tell me when, where, and how
specific rights have been abriged, I will be more than happy to support
you. But be careful, I will FIRST make sure that the rights of others
have not been abridged.

That, is only fair...

Mark