<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>THE BIZOP NEWS</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2/1</id>
    <link rel="service.post" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1" title="THE BIZOP NEWS" />
    <updated>2008-05-14T01:02:36Z</updated>
    <subtitle>Misleading Advertising Law: Due Diligence for 
Franchisees, Distributors, Business Opportunities, 
and  Income Earning Opportunities</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.1</generator>
 

<entry>
    <title>How to Make Better Choices - Demand for Real Laws</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/how-to-make-better-choices-dem.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1320" title="How to Make Better Choices - Demand for Real Laws" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1320</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-14T01:02:36Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-14T01:02:36Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The WSJ Blog has an encouraging story about the interaction between law, psychology and practical choice. Thaler and Sunstein favour regulation that takes into account...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Due Diligence" />
    
        <category term="How Would You Play That?" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The WSJ Blog has an encouraging story about the interaction between law, psychology and practical choice.  Thaler and Sunstein favour regulation that takes into account how people actually make choices.</p>

<p>Listen to their discussion about laws requiring disclosure from credit card providers.</p>

<p><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/05/13/thaler-on-nudging-people-to-make-better-choices/?mod=WSJBlog#comments">Thaler on Nudging People to Make Better Choices</a>: "<p><em><strong>University of Chicago </strong>Graduate School of Business economist <strong>Richard Thaler </strong>has spent his career arguing that people are less-than-rational when they make economic decisions. As a leading figure in behaviorist economics, he&#146;s long argued that policymakers need to guide people where they&rsquo;re prone to fail.</em></p>
<div style="width: 70px; float: left; padding-right: 8px; margin-right: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px">
<img src="http://s.wsj.net/media/thaler_blog_v_20080513140247.jpg" width="70" height="100" style="margin: 0px" alt="thaler_blog_v_20080513140247.jpg"/><br clear="all" /></p>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 5px; font-size:11px;color:#990000; padding:0px 0px 0px 0px">Thaler<br clear="all" /></div>
</div>
<p><em>In his new book, &#147;Nudge,&#148; written with University of Chicago Law School professor <strong>Cass Sunstein</strong>, he looks at how policymakers might go about doing that. He and Mr. Sunstein make an argument for policies that guide people toward making optimal decisions while not depriving them of their ability to make a choice. They call this idea &#147;libertarian paternalism.&#148; (&#147;Why not paternal libertarianism?&#148; asked Nobel laureate <strong>Daniel Kahneman </strong>at a recent event. &lsquo;It&rsquo;s no worse,&rsquo; Mr. Thaler replied.)</p>
<p>Mr. Thaler discussed his work with the Journal&#146;s Justin Lahart.</em></p>
<p><strong>WSJ: We&rsquo;re all familiar with how marketers, advertisers and, especially these days, vote-hungry politicians use framing to influence our choices. In your book, you argue that policymakers might use framing and other behavioral methods to get us to make better choices. Automatically signing employees up for their 401(k), with the option of dropping it, might serve them better than having 401(k) participation depend on their signing up. But at the same time, isn&rsquo;t using &lsquo;nudges&rsquo; to modify people&rsquo;s behavior manipulative?</strong></p>

<p><strong>Thaler: </strong>Nudges do alter behavior but calling them manipulative is unfairly pejorative (perhaps even manipulative!). As we stress in the book it is impossible to avoid some nudging. Much as we might wish for it these days, we cannot expect politicians to stop speaking. So they choose their words carefully. One is either pro choice or pro life. No one is anti-choice or life!  Once we accept the fact that some nudging is inevitable, we can move on to the question of how nudges can be used to improve people&rsquo;s lives, as judged by themselves.</p>
<p><strong>WSJ: If you could put just one nudge into place in the U.S., what would it be?</strong></p>

<p><strong>Thaler:</strong> Picking your favorite nudge is a bit like picking your favorite child, however, if I have to pick just one I would go with our idea for electronic disclosure, what we call RECAP. The basic idea is that many aspects of our lives have gotten so complicated that it is no longer feasible for sellers to comply with &#147;plain English disclosure.&#148; This is certainly the case for mortgages, which have become very complex, but it is even true for cell phone plans and credit cards. </p>

<p>Traditionally regulators have put into place rules to prevent &#147;sharp&#148; practices, but these rules are often a bad idea for two reasons.  First, they can prevent innovation. Second, as soon as you abolish one shady strategy, sellers think of a new one. So, instead of bans and mandates, we propose that sellers be required to simply disclose what they are doing electronically. </p>

<p>Here is how it would work for credit cards. Once a year your credit card provider would have to send you two electronic files. The first would be essentially a spread sheet that characterized every way in which the provider can charge you for something, from late payments, to interest rate changes, to charges for currency exchanges. </p>

<p>The second file would just be a list of everything you did in the past year that incurred a charge. We predict that Web sites would quickly emerge to translate and evaluate these files so consumers would understand how they were being charged and what they did to incur charges. The web sites would also provide information on alternative suppliers that would be better given the customer&#146;s usage.  </p>

<p>We think this idea would work very well in many domains, from mortgages, to cellphone plans, to the Medicare prescription drug program.  </p>

<p>(Via <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics">WSJ.com: Economics Blog</a>.)</p>

<p>Can you think of a suitable analogue for franchising regulation?  </p>

<p>Why not simply get rid of the disclosure requirements, and disclose yearly how much the trademark license actually cost, with links to alternative approved suppliers?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Scam Classic: The Enron Implosion</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/ponzi-schemes/scam-classic-the-enron-implosi.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1319" title="Scam Classic: The Enron Implosion" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1319</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-13T01:04:02Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-13T01:04:02Z</updated>
    
    <summary> I am a fan of the modern version of the Yellow Kid con criminal schemes, as recounted over at the Con Man&apos;s Blog. I...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Ponzi Schemes" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thbine00-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0767917375&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="2" align="left"></iframe> I am a fan of the modern version of the Yellow Kid con criminal schemes, as recounted over at the Con Man's Blog.  I am going to reprint the entire post, in an effort to get my readers to subscribe to the blog.</p>

<p><a href="http://legalthriller.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-thriller-style-scam-classic-enron.html">Legal Thriller Style Scam Classic: The Enron Implosion</a>: 

<blockquote>An extroverted accountant looks at your shoes while talking to you instead of his own.  

<p>This is the kind of  tame 'accountant joke' that Enron blew right out of the water with its scandal, the classic corporate con job of all time that pulled down its accounting firm right along with it.</p>

<p>Shots will ring out as shots are wont to do. Didn't Enron's Execs hear them?  The infectious sludge of their financial hanky-panky was so thick it was not even cleanable with flea and tick soap.  This mess came out in the wash as  such a monumental assault on logical though that it  put all similar legal thriller fictional plots to shame.Built entirely around deceptive accounting practices, the extent of this paper-Mache empire creation was awesome. </p>

<p>It included not only the shrouded concealment of debt, but the outright production of pulled-from-a-hat earnings, and the manufacture, from thin air, of cash flow.  Twenty three individuals have been convicted, or pled guilty.  Leading the parade were CFO, Andrew Fastow, who got 6 years in a Federal slammer, and CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, who checked in for an extended stay of 24 years, longest stretch of the bunch.  (Ample time to pray for forgiveness of his sins.)</p>

<p>When your wild oats turn to shredded wheat, what solace do you have left?  Jesus loves me; it's everybody else who thinks I'm an ass?  What kind of looney bin thinking ruled the day?  It's crazy.</p>

<p>Dummy corporations so dotted Enron's landscape that even now fraud experts, analysts, and investigators are still trying to piece together and trace just how this master Bobby Fischer-style chess game was played out.  Bouncing money from one offshore entity to another, adding paper profits along the way at every turn, Fastow and Skilling created a magician's dream:  A dynasty which was simply not there.</p>

<p>Now?  Poof!  Sha-zam!  Gone!  And, along with it, the life's savings and pension funds of employees, numbering in the 10,000s, and the disappearance of shareholders' equity holdings numbering in the 100,000s.</p>

<p>Is a workable falsehood more useful than a complex set of lies?  Or, somewhere along the line, did the two meld?  That seemed to be the case.</p>

<p>Principle legacy of this debacle was little more than this bewildering stretch of a (sick) joke--titled, The Enron View of Capitalism--which, as re-constructed, goes something like this:</p>

<p>You have 2 cows.  </p>

<p>You sell all 3 of them to yourself through letters of credit to your brother-in-law.  </p>

<p>You then execute a debt / equity swap to get all 4 cows back.  </p>

<p>Next you claim a tax exempt;tion for 5 cows, and transfer the milk rights of the 6 cows via an intermediary to a Cayman Islands holding company owned by a majority shareholder who sells the rights to all 7 cows back to your listed company.</p>

<p>With this sale you add an option to buy an 8th cow, leaving you with 9 cows to appear on your balance sheet.  </p>

<p>You end all of these transactions when the public buys your bull.<br /><br />Will we ever see another Enron?"</p></blockquote></p>

<p>(Via <a href="http://legalthriller.blogspot.com/">Con Man's Blog</a>.)</p>

<p>Of course we will see another Enron, or didn't that just happen with the credit crunch based on triple AAA bonds that were actually a pile of poo.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Gold-Quest International Ponzi</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/ponzi-schemes/goldquest-international-ponzi.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1318" title="Gold-Quest International Ponzi" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1318</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-08T01:57:31Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-08T01:57:31Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Gold-Quest International, et al.: &quot;SEC stops multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.&quot; &quot;The Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday obtained a court order halting a $27 million fraudulent...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Ponzi Schemes" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2008/lr20557.htm">Gold-Quest International, et al.</a>: "SEC stops multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme."</p>

<p>"The Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday obtained a court order halting a $27 million fraudulent scheme involving investors in the United States and Canada.</p>

<p>The SEC sued Las Vegas-based Gold-Quest International and its principals, David M. Greene, age 54, John Jenkins, age 62, and Michael McGee, age 52, all residents of Las Vegas, NV, for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme and misappropriating investor funds. </p>

<p>The Honorable Lloyd D. George, United States District Court Judge for the District of Nevada, issued an order freezing assets and appointing a temporary receiver over Gold-Quest and its affiliates.</p>

<p>The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Las Vegas, alleges that since May 2006, the defendants have raised and misappropriated more than $27.9 million from more than 2,100 investors in the United States and Canada. </p>

<p>The complaint further alleges that, undisclosed to investors, the defendants paid more than $19.1 million as returns to other investors in this Ponzi scheme.</p>

<p>According to the SEC's complaint, Gold-Quest and its owners claim they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or Canada because they are members of the Little Shell Nation Indian tribe, purportedly headquartered in North Dakota. </p>

<p>However, the Little Shell Nation is not in fact recognized as a sovereign tribe or nation."</p>

<p>(Via <a href="http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.shtml">SEC.gov Updates: Litigation Releases</a>.)</p>

<p>Little Shell Nation!  That is very good.  Somebody has a cruel sense of humour.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Is PrePaid Legal a Scam?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/home.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1317" title="Is PrePaid Legal a Scam?" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1317</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-01T16:14:24Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-02T03:08:42Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Barry Minkow certainly thinks so. He has set up this website, explaining why he thinks that PrePaid Legal is a scam. Robert Fitzpatrick writes: &quot;To...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Complaints and Investigations" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Barry Minkow certainly thinks so.</p>

<p>He has set up this website, explaining why he thinks that <a href="http://www.prepaidillegal.com">PrePaid Legal is a scam.</a></p>

<p>Robert Fitzpatrick writes:</p>

<p>"To examine this trend of financial decline, the report focuses primarily on data of Pre-Paid's "sales" force, which is the driver of its marketing. Pre-Paid does no national advertising. </p>

<p>Marketing is ultimately borne by the sales people individually.</p>

<p>The sales force is also the core of the company's revenue. Their own purchases alone constitute about a third of all company revenue. </p>

<p>Each "Associate", on average, recruits only a handful (less than four) actual "customers" (called Members). </p>

<p>The "Members" are directly connected to the salespeople as family, friends or neighbors, as the "one-to-one" model dictates. </p>

<p>Therefore, as the trend of recruiting salespeople goes, so goes the company. That trend is clearly negative now. The reasons are fundamental, not cyclical, and therefore not reversible.</p>

<p>This report presents the mathematical and demographic basis for Pre-Paid Legal's inevitable and fully anticipated slide toward saturation and decline. </p>

<p>It details and explains the flawed and fraudulent business model - an endless chain recruitment scheme - that the Pre-Paid employs, which leads to this inexorable status.<br />
This business model propagates, as all such pyramid schemes.</p>

<p>Read more from the <a href="http://www.prepaidillegal.com/FitzPatrick_Report_2008.pdf">Robert FitzPatrick's report on PrePaid Legal,</a> is he right?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The Danger of a Promissory Note in the Purchase of Franchise</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/lawsuits/franchise-review-may-2008-fran.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1316" title="The Danger of a Promissory Note in the Purchase of Franchise" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1316</id>
    
    <published>2008-05-01T16:10:52Z</published>
    <updated>2008-05-02T03:05:32Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Osler, a leading Canadian law firm, has an article on a recent case mine, entitled &quot;Does the Arthur Wishart Act Change the Law of Set-off...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Franchise" />
    
        <category term="Lawsuits" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Osler, a leading Canadian law firm, has an article on a recent case mine, entitled <a href="http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=14852&tracklink=em#14852B"> "Does the Arthur Wishart Act Change the Law of Set-off in Ontario?"</a></p>

<p>"This case  could also potentially change the manner in which franchisors must allocate funds received from franchisees to various categories of debt. </p>

<p>Additionally, while not mentioned in the decision, the plaintiffs can be expected to raise the issue of whether the two-year rescission period had expired, as the note was dated July 31, 2002 and the notice of rescission delivered on August 13, 2004."</p>

<p>The Osler case brief unfortunately misses the key facts, and the grounds upon which the Judge denied summary judgment on promissory note.</p>

<p>Tupperware purported to revoke the franchise, and then calculated how much good will was owing according to a formula.</p>

<p>The good will was then allocated to the trade debt and not the promissory note.</p>

<p>The argument was that Tupperware never explained to the Court, for almost 3 years, why they set-off of the good will payment against the trade debt rather than the promissory note.</p>

<p>The legal issue in question was whether the promissory note had been paid - since a franchisor owes a duty of good faith in the performance of the contract to the franchisee.</p>

<p>That statutory duty might have required them to pay off the promissory note with the proceeds from the good will payment.</p>

<p>But there was no evidence before the Court about how and why Tupperware exercised their discretion.</p>

<p>No evidence - no summary judgment.</p>

<p>Tupperware has sought leave to appeal, will keep you posted.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Tracy and I need Your Help </title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/adsense-and-fraud/update-on-working-with-the-goo.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1313" title="Tracy and I need Your Help " />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1313</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-24T13:56:36Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-24T14:12:24Z</updated>
    
    <summary> The promise of interactive ads, delivered by Adsense, is: &quot;AdSense for content automatically crawls the content of your pages and delivers ads (you can...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Adsense and Fraud" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="interactive ads.jpg" src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/interactive%20ads.jpg" width="67" height="124" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></span><br />
The promise of interactive ads, delivered by Adsense, is:</p>

<blockquote>"AdSense for content automatically crawls the content of your pages and delivers ads (you can choose both text or image ads) that are relevant to your audience and your site content--ads so well-matched, in fact, that <strong>your readers will actually find them useful</strong>.."</blockquote>

<p>Your readers will actually find them useful - that is the pitch that keeps the Google money machine running.</p>

<p>The problem for any consumer/business protection site is that the ads are "not useful" but rather examples of the various scams and frauds that exist.  (This is one way I keep up with what is going on -since the vast majority of frauds no longer appear in the print newspapers' classified section.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sequence-inc.com/fraudfiles/2008/04/22/update-on-working-with-the-google-ad-review-center/">Tracy Coenen details her frustration with this type of adsense fraud.</a></p>

<blockquote>"A few weeks ago, I wrote about my experience with Google's new Ad Review Center. This tool enables you to block advertisements from certain advertisers. When you use this feature, advertisers who want to bid on your ad space must be approved first.

<p>But it's not quite that easy. There are a lot of advertisers who aren't going through the bidding process, so they can still end up on your site without your approval. To block them, you need to use the competitive ad filter.</p>

<p>Initially, this whole process was appealing to me, because I had advertisements for a lot of scam "business opportunities" showing up on my sites. This process helped me eliminate many of them. It's not a foolproof process, and there are still plenty of scams that can easily pop up on my sites."</blockquote></p>

<p>So what would you recommend?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Canadian House of Cards Continues to Fall</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/lawsuits/canadian-house-of-cards-contin.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1312" title="Canadian House of Cards Continues to Fall" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1312</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-24T13:39:01Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-24T13:55:09Z</updated>
    
    <summary>According to the the FTC, Canadian House of Cards Continues to Fall, as Bogus Biller Settles FTC Charges: &quot;Ex-wife of Ringleader Was One of Only...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Lawsuits" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="house of cards.jpg" src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/house%20of%20cards.jpg" width="106" height="132" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></span>According to the the FTC, <p><a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/04/industrialtrade.shtm">Canadian House of Cards Continues to Fall, as Bogus Biller Settles FTC Charges</a>: "Ex-wife of Ringleader Was One of Only Two Remaining Defendants in Case"</p></p>

<blockquote>"The Federal Trade Commission today announced the issuance of a stipulated final court order against Emma G. Wanjiku, a Kenyan citizen and Canadian resident who participated in a wide-ranging scheme to trick U.S. consumers into paying for bogus business and travel directory advertisements and listings, office supplies, and consulting services they never authorized, ordered, or received.

<p>Under the terms of the order, Wanjiku, the ex-wife of the now-jailed ringleader of the Canadian defendants, has been barred from making the claims alleged in the Commission's complaint and is subject to a $4 million judgment that will become due if she is found to have misrepresented her financial condition.</p>

<p>The Commission previously settled similar charges against another individual and corporate defendant in the case, with the court imposing similarly strong injunctive and monetary relief.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<p>(Via <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/rss/text/prbcp.xml">Federal Trade Commission (FTC) - Consumer Protection Press Releases</a>.)</p></p>

<p>Hmm, one more case in which the FTC will chalk up a win for consumers, but there is actually no money recovered.</p>

<blockquote>" The order also requires her to cooperate with the FTC in its ongoing case against her ex-husband and contains standard monitoring and record keeping provisions to ensure her compliance with its terms.

<p>Finally, while Wanjiku lacks the funds to provide for consumer redress, the order contains a $4 million judgment against her that would become due if she is found to have misrepresented her financial condition.</p>

<p>The order settles the FTC's case against Wanjiku, one of the final defendants in this matter. </p>

<p>The last defendant, Wanjiku's ex-husband, Michael Robert Petreikis, was arrested by the Toronto Police Service in August 2006 and pleaded guilty to Canadian criminal charges. </p>

<p><strong>Petreikis was recently released from jail in Canada and is currently incarcerated in the United States for violation of an earlier probation order. </strong></p>

<p>The FTC's litigation against him continues."</blockquote></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Fooling Some of the People All of the Time</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/books/fooling-some-of-the-people-all.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1311" title="Fooling Some of the People All of the Time" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1311</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-23T14:49:55Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-23T15:10:06Z</updated>
    
    <summary> Very interesting story from the Wall Street Journal about David Einhorn&apos;s dealing as a short seller of Allied Capital. It is a surprisingly dark...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Books" />
    
        <category term="Due Diligence" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thbine00-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0470073942&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" align=left></iframe> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120891268398036495.html?mod=djemITP">Very interesting story from the Wall Street Journal about David Einhorn's dealing as a short seller of Allied Capital</a>.</p>

<blockquote>It is a surprisingly dark story, in which Mr. Einhorn's usual winning touch vanishes for most of the narrative.

<p>As he struggles to figure out why, he appears naïve at certain times, petulant at others. But he presses on anyway, confident that vindication will come. It never really does.</p>

<p>The story starts in 2002, with Mr. Einhorn rightly proud of his ability to spot companies with shoddy accounting practices. He sells their shares short, betting on a stock-price collapse. </p>

<p>Generally he wins big within months. Convinced that he has found another juicy target, he zeroes in on Allied Capital, a business- financing company that seems to dawdle when it comes to marking down the value of its troubled loans.</blockquote></p>

<p>This book appears to be well worth reading, for its discussion of how the market for accounting fraud - short selling- doesn't work.</p>

<p>This might be bad news for <a href="http://www.frauddiscovery.net/Herbalife/WallStreetFooled.pdf">Barry Minkow, who is currently shortselling Herbal Life</a> arguing that their business model is based on a fraud.</p>

<p>The forward to the book is written by Joel Greenblatt - a <a href="http://www.magicformulainvesting.com/">noted investor who has his own fascinating no brainer or lounge chair investment strategy.</a></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>How to Find Quality Information about Franchise Systems</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/how-to-find-quality-informatio.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1310" title="How to Find Quality Information about Franchise Systems" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1310</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-23T14:13:17Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-23T14:30:24Z</updated>
    
    <summary> In this seven minute video from Businessweek, the founder of Blue Mau Mau, Don Sniegowski, and frequent contributer Paul Steinberg, franchise attorney, are interviewed....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Due Diligence" />
    
        <category term="Franchise" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><iframe src='http://feedroom.businessweek.com/linking/index.jsp?skin=oneclip&fr_story=2d3b1735a0854925f6b3501018bf3939a8021f38&rf=ev&hl=true' width=302 height=263 scrolling='no' frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 align="left"></iframe> In this seven minute video from Businessweek, the founder of Blue Mau Mau, Don Sniegowski, and frequent contributer Paul Steinberg, franchise attorney, are interviewed.</p>

<p>Don explains the origin of the name "Blue Mau Mau" as referring to a species of small fish which travels in large groups - a reference to small fish franchisee investors.</p>

<p>Paul correctly notes that many franchisees are bewildered <strong>after the purchase</strong> to learn of all the relevant and material information that  they did not know about.  </p>

<p>Don thinks that the new trade magazines will be more interactive.  <a href="http://www.bluemaumau.org/">BMM </a> has a combination of hard news and volunteer blogs.  </p>

<p>So far, Don's dream of having prospective franchisees share and learn information seems just that.  The comments on the site are still largely from disgruntled ex-franchisees who bitterly regret how they went about their due diligence.</p>

<p>Until large franchise systems start demanding evidence of franchisee due diligence, I fear we will never get anywhere. </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Bakers Delight franchise off the ACCC hook -</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/lawsuits/bakers-delight-franchise-off-t.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1309" title="Bakers Delight franchise off the ACCC hook -" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1309</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-23T13:27:56Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-23T14:40:26Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced yesterday that it had concluded its investigations into allegations that Bakers Delight engaged in misleading and deceptive and...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Franchise" />
    
        <category term="Lawsuits" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="bakers delight.jpg" src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/bakers%20delight.jpg" width="150" height="86" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></span>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced yesterday that it had concluded its investigations into allegations that Bakers Delight engaged in misleading and deceptive and unconscionable conduct towards franchisees in operating its franchise system. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080423-Bakers-Delight-franchise-off-the-ACCC-hook.html">Jaqui Walker </a>reports that</p>

<blockquote>"However, the ACCC is holding "continuing discussions with Bakers Delight with a view to ensuring its trade practices law compliance procedures and complaint handling processes are best placed to deal with issues that might arise in the future".

<p>A number of franchisees had alleged Bakers Delight had been churning (selling franchises destined to fail and then reselling them to others) and collusion with banks, including that Bakers Delight shared information about a franchisee with a bank which led to losses being suffered. "</blockquote></p>

<p>Here is what the <a href="http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/824940/fromItemId/142?pageDefinitionItemId=16940">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> stated in their own press release:</p>

<blockquote>Having conducted an in-depth investigation, including analysing a large amount of documentary evidence and conducting a number of detailed interviews with various witnesses the ACCC has decided not to take any further action. This position has been informed by a number of conclusions:

<p>    * the evidence assessed - in the ACCC's view - did not demonstrate that Bakers Delight had engaged in unconscionable conduct or breached the Franchising Code.</p>

<p>    * although there is no suggestion that the allegations made by the franchisees were made with any improper intent, in many cases, it was difficult to substantiate claims and in some cases information given was directly contradicted by documents and other evidence.</p>

<p>    * there were a few circumstances where franchisees alleged that Bakers Delight representatives had made misleading verbal representations which investigations have neither substantiated nor dismissed. However in each of these cases, the ACCC considers steps taken by Bakers Delight to remedy the alleged wrongdoing were reasonable or other factors led to the losses suffered by the franchisees.</p>

<p>    * there was no evidence produced to or obtained by the ACCC that - in its view - evidenced widespread or systematic problem of compliance within the Bakers Delight franchise system.</blockquote></p>

<p>For an alternative view, please see the website <a href="http://www.bakersdelightlies.com/">Baker's Delight Lies</a>.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title> Google&apos;s AdSense Program Sparks Lawsuit </title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/adsense-and-fraud/mediapost-publications-googles.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1308" title=" Google's AdSense Program Sparks Lawsuit " />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1308</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-23T13:25:37Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-23T14:47:47Z</updated>
    
    <summary>A search marketer has sued Google for allegedly tricking him into paying for ads on its publisher network, when he only wanted to purchase ads...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Adsense and Fraud" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="adsense fraud.jpg" src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/adsense%20fraud.jpg" width="95" height="105" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;" /></span><a href="http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=81227">A search marketer has sued Google for allegedly tricking him into paying for ads </a>on its publisher network, when he only wanted to purchase ads that would run on the search results pages.</p>

<p>This is an interesting story, as the person complaining says that "Google instead charged him for pay-per-click ads on AdSense pages--which, he alleged, "are demonstrably inferior to ads appearing on search result pages."</p>

<p>I understand that Adsense can be confusing, but would you not have noticed after the first day that you were paying for something that you didn't want?</p>

<p>There is an interesting comment about the story at webmaster world:</p>

<blockquote>Google's pricing CPC boxes certainly should raise flags. 

<p>On adwords editor if you type in 015 I think it should safely be assumed that the person was trying to type in 0.15 but somehow missed the decimal point. </p>

<p>Adwords editor does not make you use a decimal point, as a result 015 is automatically $15 and not $0.15. </p>

<p>Do you know know how much money Google makes off simple decimal point mistakes that they know people will make? Why not just have all bids verify a decimal point?</p>

<p>Well I think it's pretty obvious why they don't verify for the decimal points anymore. </blockquote><br />
</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Fraud Link Tuesday</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/psychics-see-big-trouble-over.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1307" title="Fraud Link Tuesday" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1307</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-22T11:48:31Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-22T11:49:34Z</updated>
    
    <summary> Psychic Con GamePsychics say the new rules will shift the responsibility of proving they are not frauds from prosecutors and onto them. &quot;By repealing...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Due Diligence" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<table id=rp_picture_table style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-top: 10px; float: left; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; border-bottom: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0">
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px"><img class=picture height=73 src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/psychic%20con_1.jpg" width=116 border=0></td></tr>
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td class=caption style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 116px; padding-top: 0px">
<p class=caption-text style="font-size: 80%; margin: 3px 5px; line-height: 110%">Psychic Con Game</p></td></tr></table><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL18258720080418?feedType=nl&feedName=usoddlyenough&sp=true">Psychics say the new rules will shift the responsibility of proving they are not frauds</a> from prosecutors and onto them.
<p></p>
<p>"By repealing the Act, the onus will go round the other way and we will have to prove we are genuine," McEntee-Taylor told Reuters. "No other religion has to do that."</p>
<p>Is it too much to ask for a proof of miracles?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
<table id=rp_picture_table style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-top: 10px; float: left; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; border-bottom: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0">
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px"><img class=picture height=99 src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/cell%20phone%20spam_1.jpg" width=99 border=0></td></tr>
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td class=caption style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 99px; padding-top: 0px">
<p class=caption-text style="font-size: 80%; margin: 3px 5px; line-height: 110%">Cell Phone Spam</p></td></tr></table>Attorney General Tom Corbett urged consumers to be alert for scam and "spam" text messages on their personal cell phones and urged consumers to never divulge personal information in response to an unsolicited text message.</p>
<p>
<p>Corbett explained that the Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection has been receiving a steadily<a href="http://subscriptions.attorneygeneral.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=1999903543.19822.5&gen=1"> increasing number of complaints about unwanted cell phone text messages</a> - primarily involving advertisements for prescription drugs and pornography. 
<p>I ran into this phishing scam several months ago, when someone left me a text message to call their number.  Stupid cell phone almost did so by itself.
<p> 
<p>
<table id=rp_picture_table style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-top: 10px; float: left; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; border-bottom: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0">
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px"><img class=picture height=124 src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/ritz%20hotel_1.jpg" width=82 border=0></td></tr>
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td class=caption style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 82px; padding-top: 0px">
<p class=caption-text style="font-size: 80%; margin: 3px 5px; line-height: 110%">The Ritz Hotel in London</p></td></tr></table>When businessman Terry Collins was offered the chance to buy the Ritz Hotel for a knockdown price of £250million it was an opportunity that sounded too good to be true.
<p>And it was indeed too good to be true. The hotel, with an estimated market value of around £600million, was not on the market.
<p>Yet two <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23478980-details/Jobless+lorry+driver+'sold'+The+Ritz+hotel+to+businessman+in+%C2%A3250million+con/article.do">conmen</a></a></a></a> managed to persuade Mr Collins, co-founder of a large and reputable property company, that the hotel's owners, the Barclay brothers, were prepared to sell it at a bargain price. </a>
<p>Once again proof that that being a successful business man or woman is no protection against the lure of something for nothing.
<p> 
<p>
<table id=rp_picture_table style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-top: 10px; float: left; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; border-bottom: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0">
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px"><img class=picture height=47 src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/lawyer%20fraud_1.jpg" width=107 border=0></td></tr>
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td class=caption style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 107px; padding-top: 0px">
<p class=caption-text style="font-size: 80%; margin: 3px 5px; line-height: 110%">Lawyer Fraud</p></td></tr></table></p>
<p>On Friday afternoon, as the  <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/31/samuel-fishman-and-lawyer-fraud-why-risk-so-much-for-so-little/?mod=WSJBlog">WSJ Law Blog was reporting the unfortunate tale of Samuel Fishman</a>, the former Latham partner who defrauded his firm and his clients out of more than $300,000, one major question of human psychology seemed to hang unanswered over the story. </p>
<p>Why, given the annual take-home of a Latham partner and the long period of time over which Fishman's fraud played out, would he risk so much for so little?</p>
<p>A good start to this question would be to review <a href="http://www.predictablyirrational.com/pdfs/dishonesty.pdf">Dan Ariely's work on Dishonesty</a><a href="http://www.predictablyirrational.com/pdfs/dishonesty.pdf"><img style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; align: absmiddle" src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/pdficon.gif"></a>, he suggests that the farther removed from cash we become the easier it is to cheat.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
<table id=rp_picture_table style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-top: 10px; float: left; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; border-bottom: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0">
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px"><img class=picture height=101 src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/charity%20fraud_2.jpg" width=113 border=0></td></tr>
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td class=caption style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 113px; padding-top: 0px">
<p class=caption-text style="font-size: 80%; margin: 3px 5px; line-height: 110%">Charity Fraud</p></td></tr></table>Robert Eugene Cheney had a charity, too, called HARP -- "Helping All Races of People."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08102/872345-85.stm">He said it provided funding and services "to the poor throughout the world."</a>
<p>But his enterprise was no more real than George's, according to federal agents, who say he and a partner invented it as part of a scheme to rip off investors in Crawford County and across the country of some $2 million from 2003 through March 2007.
<p>The FTC has a <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/charityfraud/">new webpage on charity fraud.</a></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Are You Smarter than a Monkey?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/how-would-you-play-that/are-you-smarter-than-a-monkey.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1306" title="Are You Smarter than a Monkey?" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1306</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-21T14:15:43Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-21T14:18:53Z</updated>
    
    <summary> Monty Hall Game Recently, the New York Times John Tierney reported on a serious instance of the Monty Hall fallacy. &quot;The economist, M. Keith...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="How Would You Play That?" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<table id=rp_picture_table style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; margin-top: 10px; float: left; margin-bottom: 10px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 20px; border-bottom: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0">
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px"><img class=picture height=309 src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/monty%20hall%20image_1.jpg" width=407 border=0></td></tr>
<tr style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px">
<td class=caption style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; width: 407px; padding-top: 0px">
<p class=caption-text style="font-size: 80%; margin: 3px 5px; line-height: 110%">Monty Hall Game</p></td></tr></table>
<p></p>
<p>Recently, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html?scp=1&sq=gilbert++monty+hall&st=nyt">New York Times John Tierney reported on a serious instance of the Monty Hall fallacy.</a></p>
<blockquote>"The economist, M. Keith Chen, has challenged research into cognitive dissonance, including the 1956 experiment that first identified a remarkable ability of people to rationalize their choices. 
<p></p>
<p>Dr. Chen says that choice rationalization could still turn out to be a real phenomenon, but he maintains that there's a fatal flaw in the classic 1956 experiment and hundreds of similar ones. </p>
<p>He says researchers have fallen for a version of what mathematicians call the Monty Hall Problem, in honor of the host of the old television show, "Let's Make a Deal."</blockquote>
<p>Somewhat coincidentally, <a href="http://mediationchannel.com/2008/04/18/ill-take-door-3-monty-what-a-game-show-reveals-about-decision-making/#comments">Diane Levin at the Mediation Channel, also wrote a short article about the Monty Hall problem</a>, and she reference her<a href="http://7pproductions.com/blog/2008/04/14/are-you-smart-enough-to-change-your-mind/"> arti</span>cle from 7P productions</a>' article which started off asking "If you made the wrong choice, are you smart enough to change your mind?"</p>
<p>In this article, I want to point out the value of simple decision models and the scientific method -working from easy solutions to hard problems.</p>
<p>Here is the generic description of the Monty Hall problem from John Tierney.</p>
<blockquote>"Here's how Monty's deal works, in the math problem, anyway. (On the real show it was a bit messier.) He shows you three closed doors, with a car behind one and a goat behind each of the others. If you open the one with the car, you win it. You start by picking a door, but before it's opened Monty will always open another door to reveal a goat. Then he'll let you open either remaining door.
<p></p>
<p>Suppose you start by picking Door 1, and Monty opens Door 3 to reveal a goat. Now what should you do? Stick with Door 1 or switch to Door 2?"</blockquote>
<p>One argument, which is relatively attractive, for not switching points out that the odds that you were right initially can not have changed, so that there is no point in switching. The other argument, for switching, is more subtle and basically requires you to count the possible ways in which switching works and does not work. <a href="http://www.angrycrying.com/2006/02/monty-hall-problem-visualize-it-as.asp">There is a good diagram of this counting technique here.</a> 
<p>I want to focus on an easier solution, and one that is not limited to discovering the flaws in reasoning about Monty Hall. 
<p>It is clear that the problem doesn't have an obvious or easy answer. So let's turn it into an easy problem. We suppose that Monty Hall is lazy and only picks Door 2, when the prize is in fact behind your first choice Door 1. He never opens Door 3, if your first choice was correct. 
<p>What should you do if Monty Hall opens Door 3 to show a goat? Well, the prize has to be behind Door 1 and Door 2. But we know that Lazy Monty Hall never opens Door 3 if the prize is behind Door 1. Therefore, the prize must be behind Door 2 and switch guarantees you will win. (What should you do in the Lazy Monty Hall game if Monty Hall opens Door 2 is harder, but<a href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/how-would-you-play-that/what-is-the-difference-between.html"> I have detailed the calculations here -basically, it doesn't matter if you switch or not.)</a> 
<p>Suppose Monty Hall was just a little bit less lazy, and in only 1 out of 100 times opened Door 3, if the prize was behind Door 1. Then, while not a guarantee, it still makes sense to switch. We can imagine making Monty Hall progressively less lazy until he is indifferent between showing you Door 2 and Door 3. And is now Coin-Flipping Monty Hall. 
<p>It is harder to show that the Monty Hall game is just like the Lazy Monty Hall game, where Lazy has been replaced by Coin-Flipping. Coin Flipping Monty Hall chooses to reveal Door 2 or 3, when your first choice was right, based on a coin flip. 
<p>Now we have a new puzzle because John Tierney said: "If you switch, you'll win whenever your original choice was wrong, which happens 2 out of 3 times." And he invites you to play simulated game to prove his point. This is the accepted "right" answer. But in the Lazy Monty Hall problem, switching if shown Door 3 wins all the time, and switching if shown Door 2 is irrelevant. 
<p>This new puzzle dissolves quickly. All of the simulators running Monty Hall games, such as <a title="Monty Hall Simulator" href="http://www.grand-illusions.com/simulator/montysim.htm">this one</a> and <a title="Monty Hall Simulator" href="http://people.hofstra.edu/steven_r_costenoble/MontyHall/MontyHall.html">this one</a>, are all models of the Coin Flipping Monty Hall game. Only in the Coin Flipping Monty Hall game is John Tierney's mathematical point correct. Most mathematical commentators assume that we are playing the Coin Flipping Monty Hall game. 
<p>One commentator, at the New York Times, summarized my feelings exactly: 
<blockquote>"I am getting a bit tired of the media presenting versions of the Monty Hall problem without yet highlighting the basis for the issues that caused so much furor over the problem to begin with. 
<p>Like so many mathematical conundrums, the issue that causes people difficulties with the Monty Hall problem is that the assumptions specified in working out the solution are not made precise."</blockquote>
<p>
<p>Which is why we need simple models to spell out exactly the assumptions in our models of thinking about the world.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>How to Help Yourself</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/how-to-help-yourself-1.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=1304" title="How to Help Yourself" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2008:/blog2//1.1304</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-18T13:24:34Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-18T17:54:11Z</updated>
    
    <summary> This is the final piece of a five part series on Arlan Galbraith Pigeon King scheme. The other four other posts were: What is...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Business Opportunities" />
    
        <category term="Complaints and Investigations" />
    
        <category term="Due Diligence" />
    
        <category term="Pigeon King" />
    
        <category term="Ponzi Schemes" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><IFRAME style="width: 120px; height: 240px" align=left marginWidth=2 marginHeight=0 src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thbine00-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0767914996&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" frameBorder=2 scrolling=no></IFRAME> <br />
<p>This is the final piece of a five part series on Arlan Galbraith Pigeon King scheme. The other four other posts were: <a title="Pigeons Kill Family Farms" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/what-is-new-in-family-farming.html" target=_blank>What is New in Family Farming?</a>, <a title="Why you are scammed" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/why-being-a-sucker-seems-so-ri.html" target=_blank>Why being a Sucker Seems So Right</a>, <a title="How to Avoid Shills" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/pigeon-king-and-testimonials.html" target=_blank>Pigeon King and Testimonials</a>, and <a href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/pigeon-king/how-will-the-pigeon-king-schem.html">How   Will Pigeon Scheme End?</a></p><br />
<p>We have learned that even when we see a Ponzi scheme for the <a href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/logic-of-misrep.html">illogical economic mess that it is, it still remains an attractive</a> - as Charles Ponzi said about his own scheme: Many people who would not gamble can be tricked into experiencing the same hedonistic delight by dressing the scheme up as an "investment". The narcotic of gambling made all the more toxic by its illicit masquerade as an "investment" drives all Ponzi schemes, and pyramid schemes.</p><br />
<p>If you have come to the conclusion, as many people have including the <a href="http://www.iowa.gov/government/ag/latest_news/releases/dec_2007/Pigeon_King_International.html">Attorney General of Iowa, that Arlan's PKI is an illegal Ponzi scheme</a> and you have a contract with Arlan what can you do?</p><br />
<p>What follows is general legal information and should not be taken as legal advice. Your own circumstances are different, and it would be unwise of you to rely upon an article even written by a lawyer as a substitute for purchasing legal services.</p><br />
<p>There are at least four legal methods you can use to try to get some of your money back from Arlan, before the whole scheme blows up.</p><br />
<p><strong>State Business Opportunity Laws</strong></p><br />
<p>In 26 States, there are Business Opportunity Laws - which regulate the relation between the seller of a business opportunity and the purchaser. Here is a helpful and <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/invest/inv02.shtm">short checklist from the FTC:</a></p><br />
<blockquote>Look at the ad carefully. If it claims buyers can earn a certain income, then it also must give the number and percentage of previous purchasers who achieved the earnings. <br />
<p></p><br />
<p>Get earnings claims in writing. If the business opportunity costs $500 or more, then the promoter must back up the earnings claim in a written document. It should include the earnings claim, as well as the number and percentage of recent clients who have earned at least as much as the promoter suggested. If it's a work-at-home or other business opportunity that involves an investment of under $500, ask the promoter to put the earnings information in writing.</p><br />
<p>Study the business opportunity's franchise disclosure document. Under the FTC Franchise Rule, most business opportunity promoters are required to provide this document to potential purchasers. It includes information about the company, including whether it has faced any lawsuits from previous purchasers or lawsuits alleging fraud. Look for a statement about previous purchasers. If the document says there haven't been any previous purchasers but the seller offers a list of references, be skeptical: the references probably are phonies.</blockquote><br />
<p>Arlan doesn't have a disclosure document, for either a franchise or business opportunity. He is likely violating many of the states Business Opportunity Laws, much in the same way <a href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/what-is-wrong-with-interlake-c.html">Interlake</a></a></a></a></a></a></a></a></a></a></a></a></a> Chemicals of Manitoba</a> did.</p><br />
<p>Here is the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/franchise/netbusop.shtm">list of the 26 regulatory agencies which control, in one way or another, Arlan's type of contract, the sale of a business opportunity.</a> (Don't be put off by the name, it is simply a technical legal term.)</p><br />
<p>A group of individuals from any state ought to make complaints to the correct regulatory authority: your complaint will be that Arlan didn't register and has no disclosure document. You should obtain counsel to help you draft the complaint so that you are not ignored. You also want to make a complaint to the FTC -the FTC routinely acts to shut down business opportunities which do not have or give out the required disclosure documents.</p><br />
<p><strong><a href="http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/epic/site/cb-bc.nsf/en/Home">Canadian Competition Bureau and Misleading Advertising</a></strong></p><br />
<p>Although several Canadian Provinces have similar business opportunity laws, embedded in their franchise laws, no Canadian Province has the equivalent of the US Regulatory schemes. </p><br />
<p>However, at a Federal level, misleading advertising is both a criminal and civil offense. Arlan has been advertising his scheme to the public for a number of years now. In particular, he represents both that his company is debt free and that PKI intends to repurchase the pigeons back from the farmers.</p><br />
<p>If the Arlan scheme is a Ponzi scheme, then both of those representations are false, and knowingly false.</p><br />
<p>Unlike the US regulatory world, in Canada a group of individuals can directly petition the Competition Bureau to investigate a scheme. But the petition must be done correctly and with affidavit evidence. Again, you will need to obtain counsel familiar with the Misleading Advertising provisions in the Competition Act to help you draft your complaints.</p><br />
<p>Good luck with all your efforts.</p><br />
<p>Related Posts: <a title="Pigeons Kill Family Farms" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/what-is-new-in-family-farming.html" target=_blank>What is New in Family Farming?</a>, <a title="Why you are scammed" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/why-being-a-sucker-seems-so-ri.html" target=_blank>Why being a Sucker Seems So Right</a>, <a title="How to Avoid Shills" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/pigeon-king-and-testimonials.html" target=_blank>Pigeon King and Testimonials</a>, and <a href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/pigeon-king/how-will-the-pigeon-king-schem.html">How Will the Pigeon Scheme End?</a></p><br />
<p></p></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Logic and Inference: How to avoid some Attractive but Bad Inferences</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/complaints-and-investigations/logic-of-misrep.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.bizop.ca/MTP-4.1-en/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=388" title="Logic and Inference: How to avoid some Attractive but Bad Inferences" />
    <id>tag:www.bizop.ca,2006:/blog2//1.388</id>
    
    <published>2008-04-18T09:59:01Z</published>
    <updated>2008-04-18T12:40:48Z</updated>
    
    <summary> The majority of observations in this blog are: a) deception, or the tort of misrepresentation, deceives smart people who are none the less completely...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>michael webster</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Complaints and Investigations" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img class=picture height=150 hspace=20 src="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/images/due%20diligence_new.gif" width=150 align=left vspace=10 border=0></p>
<p>The majority of observations in this blog are:</p>

<p>a) deception, or the tort of misrepresentation, deceives smart people who are none the less completely aware of many of the warning signs of fraud, and that </p>

<p>b) public education aimed at giving more information to consumers to make their decisions is likely to fail or worse induce uncertainty at the wrong time which then pushes the decision maker to make the <a title="Robert Cialdini on Commitment and Consistency (2/16/2006)" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/000039.html">bad decision faster</a>, just in order to preserve internal consistency.  </p>

<p>None of these claims are novel in the world of social psychology, but they appear to be unknown among lawyers, regulators and judges.  </p>

<p>This leads to a large concern about what lawyers should know and learn from other disciplines that is relevant to tort law. </p>

<p>One obvious area is the study of valid inferences.  Over at  the<a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2006/08/nordberg_logic_.html"> Torts Prof Blog</a>, Peter Norberg writes:</p>

<p><blockquote>"As it happens, lawyers have no monopoly on the study of valid forms of inference. The issue has been investigated by philosophers and logicians for millennia, and they have made especially valuable progress over the last hundred years or so. </p>

<p>Law students should be given technical training in how to spot a valid or invalid syllogism, how to identify (and avoid committing) the standard logical fallacies, and how to disambiguate imprecise propositions. </p>

<p>They should know their way around modus ponens and elementary principles of quantification, and they should be equipped to battle the law's repeated attempts to seduce their minds with spurious invocations of the Law of the Excluded Middle. </p>

<p>I<p>f there's time left over, we might give law students some bonus units on statistics, epistemology, and the sociology of knowledge. </p></p>

<p>Statistics, because a nodding acquaintance with statistical modes of inference is increasingly an indispensable component of modern professional literacy. </p>

<p>Epistemology, because lawyers should be professionally preoccupied with the question of what constitutes justified true belief. </p>

<p>Sociology of knowledge, because lawyers should also be interested in how social forces shape the structure of knowledge and information, and should learn not to confuse the study and analysis of that topic with a simplistic relativism."</blockquote></p>

<p>While I am sympathetic with the results that Peter wishes to obtain,  I can reliably report that despite decades of teaching by Philosophy Departments  students the many forms of fallacies, the only result has been a small boom in the textbook department.</p>

<p>Few who survive a course on informal fallacies learn to think any better, they are able identify virtually every argument as both fallacious and attractive an inference form. </p>
 
<p>Part of the problem is that, until around 15 years ago, there was no systemic focus on particular types of bad inferences: <strong>fallacies which remain attractive, even when exposed as bad reasoning.</strong>  </p>

<p>Here are some examples:</p>

<p>a) well, I know that the chances of A are low, but if it happens the reward will be very high, so I will take a chance on A, a secular version of <a title="The Road from Foolishness to Fraud - Pascal's Wager (8/25/2006)" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/000370.html">Pascal's Wager</a>;</p>

<p>b) <a title="What does a 18th Century Philosopher have to Offer the 21st? (8/28/2006)" href="http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/000378.html">expert B</a> has testified that a rare event happened, so it seems reasonable to trust the report, an inference <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume">David Hume </a>throughly discredited in the 17<span style="font-size: xx-small; vertical-align: super">th</span> century.  </p>

<p>There are other bad, but hard to dislodge, inference patterns and if lawyers were going to taught something about inference, then they should learn how to identify and avoid variants of these bad but attractive inferences and not make a study of inference in general.</p>
]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>


</feed> 

