In yesterday’s LuLaRoe Home Office pre-recorded webinar, Mark Stidham of LuLaRoe states “we’ve not been served” with ANY of the current retailer class action suits. They HAVE been summoned. You can find the actual court document that proves that the RICO suit summons, right here.
Now before all the drunkards start throwing pitchers at me, I am WELL AWARE that these webinars are pre-recorded. Unfortunately, the Stidham’s have shown time and time again that they have great expertise in placing their collective feet in their mouths (stale pigs, anyone?) so they switched to the pre-recorded drivel between 6-8 weeks ago. That being said, if they are pre-recorded, they can be edited.
The summons was filed on 10/24/2017. That was five mailing days before the webinar. Is it possible that they had not yet received the mailing? Sure it is. But Mark’s statements in the webinar are exactly this:
“We have not been served. We know about them (the suits) through social media and the press. They haven’t bothered to serve us yet. That tells me something about their lawsuit(s) and what I’m thinking right now is that they would rather try it in a court of public opinion and make up stories….”
It does not matter whether you have been served yet or not: the suits are still moving forward. The RICO suit, filed on 10/23/2017 already has had the judge assigned to it. You can peruse that document here.
Retailers, in their drunken wisdom, will take Mark’s statements as “Oh, they have not been served and this is all being done by some salty people who failed and did not work their business. These are not legitimate suits”. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
These suits WILL come to fruition. It will be up to a judge to decide whether they have merit as a “class”.
A class action, class suit, or representative action is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member of that group.
In my opinion, due to the preponderance of evidence that this happened to thousands of retailers, I do not see how it couldn’t be a “class”.
Mark also stated that they “have budgeted” for legal costs. While that may be the case, the RICO suits seeks damages of ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Honey, there’s no way you’ve set aside that amount of cash for litigation. And seeing as ONE BILLION DOLLARS is just from ONE suit, there’s no way in hell they’ve budgeted for them all.
While they can keep on the “LuLaRoe states “we’ve not been served”” mentality, that doesn’t mean a hill of beans. The alleged RICO charges are VERY serious and can land them in a world of hurt. Blowing off lawsuits, any lawsuit, is an ignorant move.
Now let’s suit back and see what happens next. I’m going to need more popcorn.
ALL CONTENT QUALIFIES UNDER FAIR USE POLICY.
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING, PYRAMID SCHEMES, AND TACTLESS AND INSENSITIVE SELLING METHODS, BLATANTLY HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A ‘FAIR USE’ OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML
IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND ‘FAIR USE’, YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.
THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES A “FAIR USE” OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT. SECTION 107 OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT STATES:
“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 106 AND 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES OR PHONORECORDS OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS SPECIFIED BY THAT SECTION, FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE), SCHOLARSHIP, OR RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.”
THIS BLOG AND MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL, IN GENERAL, MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN COPYRIGHTED WORKS THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S), BUT WHICH I BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.