Unfortunately he passed away, (seven months after he sponsored David Nelson) but the good news is the check (kept) going to Shirley as long as she maintained the qualification, which she did.
ForMor owners would frequently talk about how great network marketing was in that Shirley could receive this residual income from the efforts of her husband.
It was truly a blessing to her.
(Several years later) ForMor decided it was not fair that she was getting all this money (and that she was not really doing anything for it) and transferred (a good portion of her) downline to under someone else and she no longer received the (substantial) check that (the distributorship was producing.) (When she inquired about where the downline had gone, she was just given no satisfactory answer.)
(Shirley hired David G. Eisenstein, an MLM attorney, to try to recover her lost downline. Eisenstein wrote a letter to ForMor. Here is part of the response that Michael Goss wrote back on February 17, 2006 as President of ForMor:
Gosses Quotes are in Blue.
Mr. Eisenstein,
“ForMor has acted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of our Distributor Agreement and our published Policies and Procedures. At no time have we deprived Mrs. Headley of any remunerations due her. In fact, we have allowed her to continue to draw income even though she is and has been, in violation of the Distributor Agreement since the death of Jack.”
This response from Mr. Goss demonstrates the arbitrary and capricious manner in which ForMor owners manage the company. If Mrs. Headley was in violation, then why did ForMor make the decision to continue to pay her from 1998 until 2006?
That’s 8 years! Do you think they liked the good “press” about how great ForMor was in helping this widow and how beautiful network marketing could be when one is able to inherit a distributorship?
Here’s more from Michael Goss: “Next, please understand that the organization from which Mrs. Headley benefits, is not due to her efforts, nor the efforts of her husband. When Jack died, there was only a small organization in place. Since his death, Mrs. Headley has seen fit to do nothing to build or sustain the organization. The organization was the result of the efforts of David Nelson and others, whose efforts caused Mrs. Headley tremendous benefit.”
What does this mean exactly, “not due to the efforts of her husband”? Didn’t Jack, through his efforts, sponsor David Nelson. Isn’t this how network marketing works? Jack died 7 months after he sponsored David Nelson.
At that time, David Nelson was earning over $25,000 per month from a very large organization. To say that there was “only a small organization in place” is simply not factual.
Mrs. Headley consistently contributed on a monthly basis to co-op advertising to support the building efforts of her downline. She worked in connection with her upline Ragon Moore to qualify and manage her inherited business.
For Michael Goss to write that “Mrs. Headley has seen fit to do nothing to build or sustain the organization” is clearly not factual.
Michael Goss also wrote: “Your client has benefited to the tune of just under $1,000,000. Roughly ninety-nine percent of that was received after the death of Jack. That was received, even though she was in breach of the agreement, because of our good will as a company. As you probably know, we have a right to recover that money, since she was in breach of the agreement at the time she earned it.”
If Mrs. Headley really was in breach of the agreement, why was she not terminated early on?
My Guess is ForMor simply let it go on long enough to benefit them.
Why would ForMor pay out almost $1,000,000 to a distributor who was in breach of the agreement? Does that make sense? Do you think that she truly was in breach of the agreement? Is Michael Goss inferring that ForMor is going to go after the money that this widow has received over the 8 year period? Is that how you read this?
Michael Goss closing to the letter: “Furthermore, at this time we have chosen not to pursue your client to pay back all bonus money paid since the breach. However, we reserve the right to pursue any and all potential legal remedies in the future.”
Do you read this as a warning to Mrs Headley that she should back off or . . . we are going to come after you? This is a widow who was living off the bonus money that she rightfully inherited from the efforts of her husband Jack.
Of course, on the bottom of the first page of the letter is the ForMor declaration: “The Lord demands fairness in every business deal. He established this principle. – Proverbs 16:11”
Fairness for whom?
Fairness for what?
Who determines the fairness? Do you want Michael Goss to determine the fairness of your network marketing residual income?
r
Not Me...
r
Crystal L. Cox..
Ex-ForMor Distributor
r
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.