Comment Number: 522418-07984
Received: 7/12/2006 9:22:39 AM
Organization: Quixtar
Commenter: Jeremy Drielick
State: MI
Subject: Business Opportunity Rule
Title: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Citation: 16 CFR Part 437
No Attachments

Comments:

Hi, My name is Jeremy Drielick, I would like to applaud you for looking out for illegal business being done. I personally know that since I have been in business for my self, I have heard more about pyramids and paunsie schemes than I care to ever hear again. Just keep in mind, that there are people out here who do run honest up front operations and your decisions will effect the good as well as the bad. I also know that having a legit opportunity offered to me 18 months ago has made me a better person and a contributor instead of a taker. I do understand that there are some pretty bad opportunities out there that hurt people with there deceptive practices, believe me I hear about them all the time. So while making decisions for us please keep in mind that to many restrictions will devastate us good people too. My request is that you focus on the major problems, unlike waiting the days, we ensure our people have all there questions answered before we allow them to proceed with us.Having to be required to give every prospect a list of "references" – the names, addresses, and phone numbers of 10 other IBOs in the area – seven days before the prospect registers seems to me to be a bit of a privacy infringement, also we have no ceiling or floor in our business meaning people can fail and succeed at there own will. So to talk to 10 people who were all kicking but and working hard and seeing success would be a slanted view. As would talking to 10 people who are looking for a get rich quick scheme. This will not accomplish any thing, we have public business briefings where prospects have a choice of 25-100 people who they can chose to speak with. You would have to give every prospect a list of all lawsuits, arbitrations, and other legal claims for the past 10 years involving Quixtar and its IBOs where the plaintiff alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or unfair trade practices – regardless of whether or not the accusation was true. Among other problems, this requirement would open up Quixtar and other legitimate companies to false accusations. Meanwhile, dishonest companies would simply ignore the rule. Come on who made this up, the theory is great, but only lawsuits that have judgments or actually found something wrong should be used. You would have to make a different disclosure for every income claim. I feel this is a good one, but who is going to follow it if it is complicated like this? You would be required to provide prospects with personal financial documents to back up ("substantiate") any income claim. This I believe is the best one of all, This would give people the real answer they want. Well that's it for me, once again thank you for looking out for us. Jeremy D Drielick