Doc Bunkum wrote:Len Clements shows up to defend the Jungle Juice industry and begins with a long winded dissertation on his qualifications.
Vet Your Sources!
Stan,
Let me first say that as a consultant, consumer advocate, and court certified expert in the field of multilevel marketing
I actually addressed that very subject in one of my brief sojourns to scam.com. As I wrote there:
I'd really rather not talk about "Len Clements". I'd really rather discuss the merits of the topic instead. However, you insist on posting 10,000-word quotes from "Len Clements", and then addressing the merits by insisting that I read his site because he's such an "expert". I post about Mr. Clements for a single reason: to point out how much uncritical regurgitated nonsense appears here. Clements is far from the only instance.
ohein56 wrote:Do you actually believe that you are the center of the court system in America.
Of course not. However, I would predict that, if you looked for the remainder of your life, you would not find another lawyer who has the stick time - actual time litigating before juries and judges - that I do.
If you haven't heard of it it must not exist!?
Into strawmen, aren't you? Please point out where I said that. I just asked for proof, something that appears impolite around here.
Previous Requests and Designations as Expert Witness:
People vs. Gold Unlimited (via third party representative).
Declined for ethical reasons.
Action by Fresno District Attorney against representative of Marathon
Declined for ethical reasons.
Action by Dr. Joel Wallach against ex-partner.
Declined to participate.
Heritage Health Products (defendant) in action by Distributor.
Declined to participate.
It is unclear to me how he was an "expert" in a case in which he declined to participate. It is equally unclear to me how being asked and declining is evidence of any expertise in anything.
Various Distributors vs. Equinox International.
Illegal Pyramid.
Participated in three separate cases on behalf of the plaintiff.
The first of the cases in which he claims to have actually participated. However, in the absence of the names of all parties - and preferably the names of the courts and the docket/index numbers - verification is impossible. The CV of any true expert will not only have that information, but the date of testimony as well, because true experts want readers to be able to verify their expertise.
This case: insufficient information to verify.
Action by Longevity Network against ex-training director.
Wrongful Termination.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.
Insufficient information to verify. See above.
Action by distributor against Cell Tech
Damages.
Participated on behalf of defendant.
Insufficient information to verify. See above.
Action by Longevity Network against American Longevity
Trademark Infringement/Damages.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.
Well, whaddaya know - two parties! And the information that it was a trademark case means that it was federal court. Lets check PACER, the federal court database.
Got it. Docket 04-cv-2404, Central District of California. Clements did in fact testify - but the judge precluded him from testifying to 90% of what he did, including analyzing the likelihood of confusion (key in trademark cases), damages, and conducting market surveys. He was permitted to testify regarding the MLM industry. The order is
here. It's not very complimentary.
Before you wax rhapsodic over Clements having testified as an MLM expert, remember two things: (1) there are "experts" on everything imaginable, from current events to the use of guar in textile manufacture. (2) For every expert on one side, there is typically an expert saying the opposite on the other. People regularly disparaged here - like Jon Taylor and Robert Fitzpatrick - have also testified as experts on the MLM "industry". Does that mean that you accept what they say?
Action by distributor against Starlight International.
Wrongful Termination/Damages.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.
Action by distributor against Tahitian Noni International.
Damages.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.
Insufficient information to verify. See above.
Also see above for an example of proof.
Again, I highly recommend you spend some time at MarketWave inc.com, wserra.
Well, I know you do. If there is something relevant there, why don't you tell us what it is - without the cut-and-paste.
===========
Neither Clements nor Hein responded.