Saturday, June 7, 2014

News Update 07-JUN-2014: TelexFree trustee appointed; TelexFree Faith Sloan know NOTHING about fraud, SEC disagrees; Lyoness not a pyramid scheme in Norway now

Remember folks, when you read news, even ones provided here, you should check the links I provided to make sure I was representing the new properly, and you should do the same for ALL the "news" you come across, unless you encounter news such as those from major newspapers, which has readers to account for and has a reputation of telling the truth, rather than what you want to hear. Stop reading crap meme and spreading them.

Stephen B. Darr selected as US trustee to oversee TelexFree bankruptcy

As directed by the judge Hoffman, US trustees has appointed Stephen B. Darr of Merisow Financial Consulting as trustee to takeover the TelexFree bankruptcy.

Here's the actual court order making the appointment:  (Thanks to Attorney Tim Durken for the lead)

What exactly does a trustee do? Here's Cornell Law School's link to actual law on that:

You can find a short profile on Mr. Darr on the Merisow website:

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

NEWS UPDATE 03-JUN-2014: Burnlounge is a pyramid scheme (duh); Merrill about to flip on Wanzeler in TelexFree case? Rippln + Mannatech = ?!?!?!

Remember folks, get your news from REPUTABLE news sources (which I link to) so you can decide for yourself, rather than just one-sided narrative by unknown people.

Burnlounge appeal rejected by Federal Appeals Court

Burnlounge appeal of their 2012 judgement as a pyramid scheme was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming that they are indeed, a pyramid scheme.

My short profile on Burnlounge:

In their decision, the court stated that:
The district court found that because purchasing a package was required for participation as a Retailer or Mogul, and because Moguls earned cash for selling packages, “[Moguls] by default received compensation for recruiting others into the program.”
The 9th Court's decision can be read here:

The short of it is, if you claim you sold something and are getting paid for that, but in effect you recruited and the recruits are required to buy something, then  your claim of sales is invalid... You are getting paid for recruiting, not selling.

What is interesting is the court's decision reaffirmed Webster vs. Omnitrition as a precedent, but it's no surprise as it's also the Ninth Court that made the Omnitrition decision.

You can read my summary of Omnitrition case here:

This would have some profound impact on some very big players in network marketing that relies on recruiting 'self-consumers' who then recruit more self-consumers to make themselves rich. Those who emphasize retail sales by sales teams should not be affected.