ot mean you are a legitimate agency or accomplishing anything in your endeavors, both the franchising regulatory issues and the SPAM issue seem to show a similar trend at the commission and it is not very becoming of the Justice Department or regulatory agencies in general. If this is what is meant by the FTC’s law enforcement experience, then such catastrophic failure to protect the consumer is unworthy of mention and a different phrase should be used. “The Federal Trade Commission’s failure in law enforcement indicates that….” Perhaps that would be more appropriate in this report onRecently the FTC, Federal Trade Commission put forth a report on franchising. They want to further add to the franchise rule, even though they should be reducing regulation since there is not fraud to speak of. In our country we have identity theft and identity creation costing this country billions of dollars and destroying family credit, chances to own a home and allow them to join the ownership society. We have SPAM costs businesses some 30-57 estimated billions of dollars per year in lost productivity. In the last 24 hours I have received 2336 emails and only 120 were legitimate, the rest was SPAM. As far as Law Enforcement experience at the Federal Trade Commission, I think there is work that needs to be done and I would not call what has been done in franchising regulation enforcement; law enforcement experience. You can call it grandstanding with fancy meetings, press releases, PR events, case filings, but the fact is that the Federal Trade Commission has failed. The FTC failed. My SPAM has gone up 3000% since up started enforcing it? Identity theft has run ramped. On October 28, the FTC announced at a meeting of private investigators that they had filed now 63 cases against SPAM. Guess what it is not working, my SPAM is still increasing? So if filing lawsuits is considered a law enforcement experience, it is not any problems. Similarly the FTC’s failure to bring relevant and honest cases against disreputable franchisors show one of two things, either;

A.) There is no real fraud to be found

B.) The cases brought forth are all like my case with the FTC, totally bogus.

I believe judging from my experience with this purported noble agency of balance and justice that it in fact it is a combination of those two scenarios. Thus why do we have a franchise rule in this country at all? The industry would be better served and better controlled by consumer watchdog Blogs. If a good majority of the 63 SPAM cases filed by recently by the FTC are like those filed against reputable franchisors then many of these cases are indeed against innocent parties as well. Thus the only real reason for the cases is a “feel good” thing for consumers to think someone is watching out for them, when in fact those watching out for them cannot solve the problem at all. Simply filing cases or throwing money at a problem does not mean you are a legitimate agency or accomplishing anything in your endeavors, both the franchising regulatory issues and the SPAM issue seem to show a similar trend at the commission and it is not very becoming of the Justice Department or regulatory agencies in general. If this is what is meant by the FTC’s law enforcement experience, then such catastrophic failure to protect the consumer is unworthy of mention and a different phrase should be used. “The Federal Trade Commission’s failure in law enforcement indicates that….” Perhaps that would be more appropriate in this report on

the rest was SPAM. As far as Law Enforcement experience at the Federal Trade Commission, I think there is work that needs to be done and I would not call what has been done in franchising regulation enforcement; law enforcement experience. You can call it grandstanding with fancy meetings, press releases, PR events, case filings, but the fact is that the Federal Trade Commission has failed. The FTC failed. My SPAM has gone up 3000% since up started enforcing it? Identity theft has run ramped. On October 28, the FTC announced at a meeting of private investigators that they had filed now 63 cases against SPAM. Guess what it is not working, my SPAM is still increasing? So if filing lawsuits is considered a law enforcement experience, it is not any problems. Similarly the FTC’s failure to bring relevant and honest cases against disreputable franchisors show one of two things, either;

A.) There is no real fraud to be found

B.) The cases brought forth are all like my case with the FTC, totally bogus.

I believe judging from my experience with this purported noble agency of balance and justice that it in fact it is a combination of those two scenarios. Thus why do we have a franchise rule in this country at all? The industry would be better served and better controlled by consumer watchdog Blogs. If a good majority of the 63 SPAM cases filed by recently by the FTC are like those filed against reputable franchisors then many of these cases are indeed against innocent parties as well. Thus the only real reason for the cases is a “feel good” thing for consumers to think someone is watching out for them, when in fact those watching out for them cannot solve the problem at all. Simply filing cases or throwing money at a problem does not mean you are a legitimate agency or accomplishing anything in your endeavors, both the franchising regulatory issues and the SPAM issue seem to show a similar trend at the commission and it is not very becoming of the Justice Department or regulatory agencies in general. If this is what is meant by the FTC’s law enforcement experience, then such catastrophic failure to protect the consumer is unworthy of mention and a different phrase should be used. “The Federal Trade Commission’s failure in law enforcement indicates that….” Perhaps that would be more appropriate in this report on

now 63 cases against SPAM. Guess what it is not working, my SPAM is still increasing? So if filing lawsuits is considered a law enforcement experience, it is not any problems. Similarly the FTC’s failure to bring relevant and honest cases against disreputable franchisors show one of two things, either;

A.) There is no real fraud to be found

B.) The cases brought forth are all like my case with the FTC, totally bogus.

I believe judging from my experience with this purported noble agency of balance and justice that it in fact it is a combination of those two scenarios. Thus why do we have a franchise rule in this country at all? The industry would be better served and better controlled by consumer watchdog Blogs. If a good majority of the 63 SPAM cases filed by recently by the FTC are like those filed against reputable franchisors then many of these cases are indeed against innocent parties as well. Thus the only real reason for the cases is a “feel good” thing for consumers to think someone is watching out for them, when in fact those watching out for them cannot solve the problem at all. Simply filing cases or throwing money at a problem does not mean you are a legitimate agency or accomplishing anything in your endeavors, both the franchising regulatory issues and the SPAM issue seem to show a similar trend at the commission and it is not very becoming of the Justice Department or regulatory agencies in general. If this is what is meant by the FTC’s law enforcement experience, then such catastrophic failure to protect the consumer is unworthy of mention and a different phrase should be used. “The Federal Trade Commission’s failure in law enforcement indicates that….” Perhaps that would be more appropriate in this report on

Thus why do we have a franchise rule in this country at all? The industry would be better served and better controlled by consumer watchdog Blogs. If a good majority of the 63 SPAM cases filed by recently by the FTC are like those filed against reputable franchisors then many of these cases are indeed against innocent parties as well. Thus the only real reason for the cases is a “feel good” thing for consumers to think someone is watching out for them, when in fact those watching out for them cannot solve the problem at all. Simply filing cases or throwing money at a problem does not mean you are a legitimate agency or accomplishing anything in your endeavors, both the franchising regulatory issues and the SPAM issue seem to show a similar trend at the commission and it is not very becoming of the Justice Department or regulatory agencies in general. If this is what is meant by the FTC’s law enforcement experience, then such catastrophic failure to protect the consumer is unworthy of mention and a different phrase should be used. “The Federal Trade Commission’s failure in law enforcement indicates that….” Perhaps that would be more appropriate in this report onot mean you are a legitimate agency or accomplishing anything in your endeavors, both the franchising regulatory issues and the SPAM issue seem to show a similar trend at the commission and it is not very becoming of the Justice Department or regulatory agencies in general. If this is what is meant by the FTC’s law enforcement experience, then such catastrophic failure to protect the consumer is unworthy of mention and a different phrase should be used. “The Federal Trade Commission’s failure in law enforcement indicates that….” Perhaps that would be more appropriate in this report on the franchise rule? I therefore believe that the phrase “Law Enforcement Experience in the second page of this report in the background section is inappropriate and if this is the basis for allowing the Federal Trade Commission to supervise and continue in the rule making process then it must be stopped at once and barred from the franchising industry all together.

The FTC is a duplication of other agencies and always tooting it’s own horn, but in reality it does not do a whole lot of anything really. I speak mostly to the consumer protection division which overseas the Franchising Rule part of things; however if one were to review the break up of AT&T in hindsight or the Microsoft Case based on competitor complaints such as Oracle and AOL, both of which in the news for questionable activities within the last year, one has to wonder about the abilities of the FTC at all. What did the break up of AT&T accomplish. Have your folks ever read Ayn Rand? Can we trust the Federal Trade commission at all? I have an anti-trust towards the FTC these days.

Think on this, I’ll get back to you; no I am not done, yet just going to take a coffee break, surely the FTC knows what those are? After all they don’t do anything there, but file bogus cases and misrepresent their value to society, consumers and civilization. You folks are not wearing any clothes at the FTC. Fluff and puffery, while you destroy free enterprise and innovation in America. What a pathetic joke indeed.