CA Court rules Quixtar not a illegal Pyramid Scheme!

David implied on the Forbes website comments section in a recent article about Team and Quixtar that there were recent court rulings, which actually ruled on the legitimacy of the Quixtar business model.   That got my attention.

David wrote to Forbes about their article: 

"In your poorly written and unfortunately ignorant article, you have accused millions of American's of running illegal businesses. Is this what you intended? Do you believe that the FTC, the SEC, and various courts over the years, as recently as last year with regards Quixtar, are all wrong and you are right?"

I was indeed curious as to which courts had ruled in Quixtar's favor since that was completely new to me. 

David responded:

"..in California, TEAM, the very group mentioned in the article, attempted to have the Quixtar IBO contract declared void on the basis Quixtar is a pyramid. The judge declined their petition."

I guess since the court declined to hear their petition, David believed the court had made a ruling on the pyramid issue.  I posted as a reply that there was no such decision:

"In the CA case you mentioned, the court only ruled that the parties should work out their differences in arbitration."

"The Court agrees with the Michigan court and believes the parties arbitration agreement is valid and binding."

David then posts and accuses me of spinning the topic:

"Typical whozwhoz spin. If a plaintiff claims the contract isn't valid because it's an illegal pyramid, then if it is an illegal pyramid, the contract requirements to arbitrate are not enforceable. The judge enforced the arbitration clause (yes, there's been different results on that elsewhere) so clearly he must have judged it not to be an illegal pyramid."

A pro MLM attorney from Texas Mike McCormick, then posted to clear the air and confirm there was no actual ruling about illegal pyramiding. 

"First, the California case referred to by a reader was filed just hours before Amway/Quixtar filed its own suit in Michigan state court-its own backyard. There Judge Sullivan referred that case to arbitration. The CA court never reached the issue of pyramid. The federal judge in CA chose to abstain from ruling on such issues since Judge Sullivan had already referred the MI case to arbitration."

I guess that takes care of the issue of Quixtar being recently ruled by a court as not being a illegal pyramid scheme.   Maybe Steadson should stick to his google bombing with his 14 websites and leave the legal interpretations to the lawyers and judges. 

Btw.  David appears to get upset when I identify him by name.  On the other hand he doesn't seem to have a problem with identifying me by name.    He doesn't seem to be able to recognize any of his hypocritical complaining.  First it was with copyrights, now it is with using his real name.   I guess it is just another one of David's double standards.    He was obsessed with using my name far before his name got thrown around on the internet.  Go figure.