MLMSurvivor.com

Following this posting, on January 6,1998, Amway modified the content of "Amway Statements. . .". Words removed are enclosed in parentheses; added words are in bold face.

Paragraph 6:
"Mr. Schwartz falsely states that Amway has never tried to contact him when, in fact, Amway's attempts to initiate dialogue with Mr. Schwartz and discuss his concerns in person have been rebuffed."

Paragraph 7:
"The truth is that Mr. Schwartz (is) admits to being a consultant to Procter & Gamble and is being used in a commercial lawsuit P&G has brought against Amway. The truth is that Amway has the right to question Mr. Schwartz and P&G about their secret consulting relationship so Amway can prepare for trial. The truth is that Amway has been met with resistance from Mr. Schwartz and P&G every step of the way, and the court (has) ordered Mr. Schwartz to answer questions about his consulting relationship with P&G in a deposition."

Paragraph 8:
"The truth is that Mr. Schwartz, despite his trumpeted support of free speech, only believes in speech that he controls. He continues to refuse to meet with us to discuss the issues of which he has written. He refuses to support Amway's efforts to have the seal removed from his deposition in the P&G case so that Mr. Schwartz's sworn testimony would be publicly available."

Paragraph 9:
"(The truth is that Amway has tried to contact Mr. Schwartz, but he will not talk. The truth is that Amway prefers dialogue and has shown great restraint by not suing Mr. Schwartz.) Amway always has and continues to welcome open, honest discussion of any questions or concerns Mr. Schwartz or anyone else has about Amway or the Amway opportunity. Amway continues to show great restraint in our dealings with Mr. Schwartz - even at the expense of further criticism from Mr. Schwartz. We do this because we do believe in free speech. But the truth is that this is really not about free speech. This is about defending Amway in litigation brought by a competitor -- from someone who cloaks himself in free speech and under that guise attacks Amway and its millions of distributors."

Paragraph 10:
"(Amway always has and continues to welcome open, honest discussion of any questions or concerns Mr. Schwartz or anyone else has about Amway or the Amway opportunity.) Amway again urges Mr. Schwartz to meet with representatives of Amway, in a setting and manner of his choosing, to discuss the material he has posted on his web site."

After Amway amended its statement above, Mr. Schwartz posted a second response. Here he clarified the issues Amway brings up regarding his sealed deposition.

Neither I, my attorney, nor P&G's attorneys ever asked the court to seal my deposition. The judge in Oregon decided entirely on his own to do this. There was no attempt on my part to keep my testimony secret, as Amway has falsely and malicious implied.
Amway has twice now filed motions in the Utah court to have this deposition unsealed. Both times they have sought not only to be allowed to make the transcript public, but also to be allowed access to information that two judges have already ruled they are not entitled to have, and they wish to use this information for improper purposes that have nothing to do with the underlying case. Amway is not, as it falsely implies, simply attempting to make public the transcript of my deposition. It is Amway's further attempts to harass me and others, and not the unsealing of the transcript, that I object to (as I have a perfect legal right to do). The letter from my attorney to the Utah court clearly states our position. Amway's own words are an admission that they know full well that I have not tried to prevent them from making my testimony available to the public. Notice that Amway states "He refuses to support Amway's efforts...", and not "He opposes Amway's efforts...". Amway knows it would be a blatant lie to state that I'm opposing their efforts but, unable to pass up a chance to say something nasty about me anyway, they instead make the ludicrous assertion that I should actually be assisting the opposing party in a legal dispute in which I'm involved! If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I never would have believed it.
Contrary to what Amway is trying to imply, it is hardly within my power to unseal the transcript of the deposition. Procter & Gamble is also involved in this case, and they have a right to object (and have) even if I did not. And even if neither P&G or I objected, the judge in Utah could still decide for his own reasons not to unseal the deposition, just as the judge in Oregon decided for his own reasons to seal it in the first place. Amway falsely and maliciously implies that I am the only impediment to them making the transcript public.


1998: Amway and Sidney Schwartz (continued) Following this posting, on January 6,1998, Amway modified the content of "Amway Statements. . .". Words removed are enclosed in parentheses; added words are in bold face. Paragraph 6: "Mr. Schwartz falsely states that Amway has never tried to contact him when, in fact, Amway's attempts to initiate dialogue with Mr. Schwartz and discuss his concerns in person have been rebuffed." Paragraph 7: "The truth is that Mr. Schwartz (is) admits to being a consultant to Procter & Gamble and is being used in a commercial lawsuit P&G has brought against Amway. The truth is that Amway has the right to question Mr. Schwartz and P&G about their secret consulting relationship so Amway can prepare for trial. The truth is that Amway has been met with resistance from Mr. Schwartz and P&G every step of the way, and the court (has) ordered Mr. Schwartz to answer questions about his consulting relationship with P&G in a deposition." Paragraph 8: "The truth is that Mr. Schwartz, despite his trumpeted support of free speech, only believes in speech that he controls. He continues to refuse to meet with us to discuss the issues of which he has written. He refuses to support Amway's efforts to have the seal removed from his deposition in the P&G case so that Mr. Schwartz's sworn testimony would be publicly available." Paragraph 9: "(The truth is that Amway has tried to contact Mr. Schwartz, but he will not talk. The truth is that Amway prefers dialogue and has shown great restraint by not suing Mr. Schwartz.) Amway always has and continues to welcome open, honest discussion of any questions or concerns Mr. Schwartz or anyone else has about Amway or the Amway opportunity. Amway continues to show great restraint in our dealings with Mr. Schwartz - even at the expense of further criticism from Mr. Schwartz. We do this because we do believe in free speech. But the truth is that this is really not about free speech. This is about defending Amway in litigation brought by a competitor -- from someone who cloaks himself in free speech and under that guise attacks Amway and its millions of distributors." Paragraph 10: "(Amway always has and continues to welcome open, honest discussion of any questions or concerns Mr. Schwartz or anyone else has about Amway or the Amway opportunity.) Amway again urges Mr. Schwartz to meet with representatives of Amway, in a setting and manner of his choosing, to discuss the material he has posted on his web site." After Amway amended its statement above, Mr. Schwartz posted a second response. Here he clarified the issues Amway brings up regarding his sealed deposition. Neither I, my attorney, nor P&G's attorneys ever asked the court to seal my deposition. The judge in Oregon decided entirely on his own to do this. There was no attempt on my part to keep my testimony secret, as Amway has falsely and malicious implied. Amway has twice now filed motions in the Utah court to have this deposition unsealed. Both times they have sought not only to be allowed to make the transcript public, but also to be allowed access to information that two judges have already ruled they are not entitled to have, and they wish to use this information for improper purposes that have nothing to do with the underlying case. Amway is not, as it falsely implies, simply attempting to make public the transcript of my deposition. It is Amway's further attempts to harass me and others, and not the unsealing of the transcript, that I object to (as I have a perfect legal right to do). The letter from my attorney to the Utah court clearly states our position. Amway's own words are an admission that they know full well that I have not tried to prevent them from making my testimony available to the public. Notice that Amway states "He refuses to support Amway's efforts...", and not "He opposes Amway's efforts...". Amway knows it would be a blatant lie to state that I'm opposing their efforts but, unable to pass up a chance to say something nasty about me anyway, they instead make the ludicrous assertion that I should actually be assisting the opposing party in a legal dispute in which I'm involved! If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I never would have believed it. Contrary to what Amway is trying to imply, it is hardly within my power to unseal the transcript of the deposition. Procter & Gamble is also involved in this case, and they have a right to object (and have) even if I did not. And even if neither P&G or I objected, the judge in Utah could still decide for his own reasons not to unseal the deposition, just as the judge in Oregon decided for his own reasons to seal it in the first place. Amway falsely and maliciously implies that I am the only impediment to them making the transcript public.
Home Send E-Mail Read E-Mail Links Read Articles Visit Book Corner	This page was last updated on 5/10/2007
© Copyright 1998. This article may not be reproduced or distributed, in whole or in part, without the express permission of the author.

1998: Amway and Sidney Schwartz (continued)