www.facebook.com 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.
Wow. Just wow. So, LLR is now changing the Constitution to prohibit what people can say? Putting a person’s “personal, individual business” on hold & not paying the money that she was supposed to be paid pursuant to a written contract, based on her sales, sounds like perfect grounds for (another) lawsuit. LLR is always blabbing their mouths about consultants running their own “business” & that the consultants are not “employees”, however LLR’s actions are those of an employer, not a supplier of merchandise to a “small business”. In the contract, LLR repeats their statement that “CONSULTANTS ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF LLR” a few times. Even though they say that, there are legal requirements that differentiate an employee from an independent contractor or non-employee.
What she has to do is get something in writing from compliance stating the reason her account was placed on “hold” and her bonus check not sent to her. Doing ANYTHING on the phone is not good. Send a letter asking why her account was put on hold and her bonus check not sent, via certified, return receipt mail directly to M&D—don’t even bother with any “departments” under them. Letting them know that there are tax ramifications for LLR if they are claiming certain monies as “bonus” payments and “refunds” for consultants, even though they have not issued those bonus amounts or refunds, so they are not taxed on them…………..and I would be willing to bet there’s a whole lot of that stuff going on in the accounting department. Their tax returns are probably very interesting……….Notwithstanding all of that, and that I do believe LLR lied, cheated & deceived tens of thousands of people due to uncontrollable greed, I have to question the judgment of the people that were willing to sign the consultant contract that essentially says that LLR can do anything it wants to do, however & whenever it wants, without retribution from the consultant. It states that it can withhold bonuses & payments if any provision of the contract is violated. And the consultant can’t do a damned thing about it. I don’t think the contract would hold up in a court of law, though—claiming that consultants are not employees, stating that it is a multi level marketing agreement, saying that consultants are running their own “business” despite all of the provisions & regulations in that contract is definitely challengeable in court. You can’t say “You can do whatever you want, but you can’t do what we tell you that you can’t do”—can’t have it both ways, fellas. Signing an agreement based on a written bonus structure and then working to attain a certain level in order to receive the stated bonus, then being told that you won’t be getting the bonus is a major breach of contract, even if LLR thinks the consultant agreement allows them to do whatever they want to do. That’s called “unjust enrichment”, and that claim would hold up in a lawsuit. Dangling the possibility of a “bonus” if consultants meet certain sales goals & then not giving them the money they EARNED pursuant to the written bonus plan is breach of contract. Making promises about receiving bonuses if they meet certain sales goals that are written by LLR, consultants meeting those goals & therefore EARNING those bonuses, and withholding them for ANY reason is shitty business practice. In fact, recent court filings with respect to this very issue found that “discretionary” bonus payments do create a contractual obligation upon which they must be paid out. Withholding bonus payments despite a written bonus plan that financially benefits the company because consultants work harder to sell more, therefore purchase more from LLR resulting in more $$$ in LLR’s pocket, would be legally considered a “bad faith” action since LLR exercised their discretion capriciously after receiving their money from purchases that the consultant made due to meeting sales goals that would earn them bonuses. LLR made their money, PLUS they are keeping the bonus money despite a promise to the consultants that they would be paid—unjust enrichment, for sure. They can’t say “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine too.”