AL QAEDA = DioGuardi + TAXMAN-CRA TERRORISTS-EXTORTIONISTS

[b***@hotmail.com]

Interesting that Paul DIOGUARDI, QC on ReportOnBusiness Television
[ROBtv for short] has some running commercials about TAX AMNESTY and
that HIS company are best suited to "PROTECT" you against from the CRA
[ugly bitch of a sister of the IRS]...since, according to him in one
of his many commercials HE STATES:

"Your accountant can be forced to testify against you."

Now...WHY is it that THIS lawyer IS IMPLYING that HE will NOT be
forced to TESTIFY AGAINST YOU -- YET an ACCOUNTANT IS?? WHAT KIND OF
DEAL DO LAWYERS HAVE WITH THE CRA...hmmmm? I thought ALL people ARE
EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. So what $WEET DEAL does DioGuardi have
that OTHERS are NOT allowed to have?

Here's some bio on Paul DioGuardi and his connection to the CRA:

http://www.fundmoremerchantbank.com/team/team.htm
PAUL DIOGUARDI, Q.C.
Senior General Legal Counsel

Queen's Counsel, Canadian citizen, for over 26 years Paul has acted as
Senior Legal Advisor to Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Limited and to
FICC, a graduate of St Patrick's College, Ottawa University, Queen's
University and Osgoode Hall Law School, called to the Bar of Ontario
Canada in 1966 and of the Turks& Caicos Islands bar in1983, named a
Queen's Counsel in 1984. His training and experience includes having
formerly been, for several years, Tax Counsel for Revenue Canada (the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) and the Federal Department of
Justice. He has acted for over 22 years as Chief Legal Counsel of the
Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders' Association, in private practice for 36
years from offices in Ottawa Canada and the Turks & Caicos Islands in
all tax matters, real estate and development projects, estate planning
and trusts, international tax law, business and corporate law. He is a
member in good standing of the Carleton County Law Association, the
Law Society of Upper Canada, the Turks & Caicos Bar Association, the
Canadian Tax Foundation and the International Fiscal Association. Paul
is involved in providing guidance and advice to the Fundmore group of
companies.
-----




PRIVILEGE. A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a
person, company, or class beyond the common advantage of other
citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A right,
power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class against or
beyond the course of the law.........

[page 1359 of BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY - FOURTH EDITION]


Interesting also that the DioGuardi site states "AMNESTY"
http://www.taxamnesty.ca/ -- yet at the end of their telephone #
before they had the word "2PARDON"[1-877-2-PARDON].
"PARDON' implies GUILT -- but "AMNESTY' means AMNESIA --
forgetfullness of the offence. Interesting this SCAM DioGuardi has
going.LOL ..Trust a lawyer to come up with the word AMNESTY for their
site and then they fuck their clients with PARDON!!! This is one of
many posts I posted re DioGuardi DECEITFUL advertising in 2005 at
Yahoo's NT forum --
...and now I see that DioGuardi changed their phone # now to 1-877-
TaxRx-02.LOL

Here's one of the posts:

[ < Previous | Next > [ First | Last | Msg List ] Msg #: Reply
Recommend this Post Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Tax AMNESTY vs. Tax PARDON
by: buddiebuddiee
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 09/21/05 03:19 pm
Msg: 728235 of 728271

DioGuardi and their commercials -- ALL LIES and the FCC ALLOWS them to
be aired. Go figure. The FUCKING ASSHOLE DIMWITS!!!

The LYING laywer does NOT define the TRUE MEANING of the word
"AMNESTY" -- which does NOT mean GUILT like PARDON does, according to
THEIR OWN BLOODY LAW dictionary --

"Legally, amnesty differs from pardon in that pardon implies guilt,
whereas amnesty does not. Amnesty is the abolition and forgetfullness
of the offence."

[Page 18 of Canadian LAW Dictionary - BARRON's]


And here's this f'ing lawyer LYING through his teeth RIGHT ON TV --
using the word "AMNESTY" -- and then has the phone # as
"-2PARDON"...HIS SITE SHOULD BE

taxPARDON.ca and NOT taxAMNESTY.ca

FUCKING PRICKS!!!! ]

----------


AMNESTY An act of oblivion for past acts, granted by a government to
persons accused of crimes generally of a political nature, e.g.,
treason, sedition, desertion. Legally, amnesty differs from pardon in
that pardon implies guilt, whereas amnesty does not. Amnesty is the
abolition and forgetfullness of the offence.

[Page 18 of Canadian LAW Dictionary - BARRON's ]

Amnesty (Page: 49)
Am"nes*ty (#), n. [L. amnestia, Gr. , a forgetting, fr. forgotten,
forgetful; priv. + to remember: cf. F. amnistie, earlier amnestie. See
Mean, v.]

1. Forgetfulness; cessation of remembrance of wrong; oblivion.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=amnesty&use1913=on


-------------

And then here's a chartared accountant who calls DioGuardi & compnay
LIARS...LOL

Voluntary Disclosure
One Canadian law firm runs a 51/2" by 31/2"
advertisement in the newspaper six times a week.
Each ad is addressed to individual taxpayers who
presumably have earned income over the years and
have failed to report it on their personal income tax
returns. Should this fact ever come to the attention
of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), they face a
large income tax liability for sure and perhaps equal
or greater amounts in penalties and/or interest.

The lawyers promise to "clean up your (income)
tax problem with no criminal prosecution, no financial
penalties, interest relief, and (a) possible waiver
of tax for some years". They term this package
to be an Income Tax Amnesty and refer the reader
to their website where he is advised to "come
clean" sooner rather than later and fess up to the
undeclared income through the services of their
firm.

While it may be in the taxpayer's best interest to
approach the income tax authorities via
experienced professionals who can negotiate on their
behalf, the reference to this process as an amnesty is
somewhat misleading. The dictionary definition of
"amnesty" defines the term as "official pardon" or
"forgiveness" or "reprieve". These words imply that
the taxpayer will disclose his dealings to the CRA
and they will permit him to escape any income tax
liability that would normally be associated with these
earnings.

Nothing is further from the truth!! The fact of the
matter is that they are leading their clients to CRA's
"Voluntary Disclosure" program, a reporting
mechanism that has been in existence for over thirty
years. Under this program, taxpayers come forward
to the income tax authorities and provide full and
accurate information, including complete
documentation, concerning income that has not
been disclosed or has been under-reported on at
least one personal income tax return.

The only caveat is that the taxpayer must not have
been previously notified that his affairs were under
investigation by the CRA or any other authority
with which they have an information exchange
agreement, such as the RCMP or a regional police
department.

If these conditions apply, the taxpayer then declares
his previously un- or under reported income and
becomes liable for the taxes. The savings, as
correctly pointed out in the advertisement, are in the
penalties and interest that have been waived through
prior negotiation with the Agency. And these can
often be equal or greater than the actual income
taxes themselves.

Compliments of Campbell Lawless
Professional Corporation
Chartered Accountants
8 King Street East, Suite 900
Toronto, Ontario M5C 1B9
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

http://www.canadianmoneysaver.ca/resource_center/homepg_articles/Voluntary%20Disclosure.htm

-----

BUT...wait!!! The legalese pricks have made ANOTHER word up to PROTECT
their assholes!!

...the word is Advertising 'PUFFERY"




http://www.dcpress.com/jmb/page60.htm


Marketing Implications of the FTC's View of Puffery and Vulnerable
Consumers



Authors: Perry Haan: ***@wilmington.edu

Cal Berkey: ***@embanet.com

Introduction

Puffery is a tool marketers use in advertising and sales to enhance
their products. Despite recent threats to regulate puffery by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), puffery continues to be practiced by
advertisers and salespeople. Because of the characteristics of the
marketplace, vulnerable consumers are a group that may be harmed by
the use of puffery. In this non-empirical paper, the authors will
examine past research concerning puffery and consumers' perceptions of
its use. The authors will then review past research regarding
vulnerable consumers and how they may be harmed by puffery. The
authors will make recommendations to marketers concerning the use of
puffery relative to vulnerable consumers. Finally, the limitations of
this paper and opportunities for future research will be explored.

Puffery

The roots of puffery are generally traced back to the sixteenth
century when caveat emptor (buyer beware) became the rule of business.
The consumerism movement of the twentieth century has helped protect
consumers in many areas, but puffery for the most part has proceeded
unabated (Preston, 1996).

This paper will use the definition of puffery espoused by Preston
(1996),

...the marketplace term for what elsewhere would simply be called an
opinion statement, expressing the seller's evaluation of the
advertised item. However, it also involves an added feature that does
not apply outside the marketplace. By legal definition, puffery claims
praise the advertised item by using subjective terms, stating no facts
explicitly, and thus representing no factual content to consumers and
so creating no basis for them to believe anything about the item that
would affect their purchasing decision (p. 12).

The FTC Deception Policy Statement (1983) emphasizes that deception
must contain three elements. First, it, "must be a representation,
omission, or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer" (p. 4).

The concept of deception in advertising is generally thought to mean
anything that is false or misleading. More specifically, claims that
are misleading only need to encourage consumers, but not actually
cause consumers to act in ways that may hurt themselves. (Hyman,
1990). The FTC, however, defines deceptive advertising in terms of
whether or not potentially deceitful advertising advocates behavior in
which consumers would not otherwise engage (Nebenzahl & Jaffe, 1998).

Carson, Wokutch, and Cox (1985) examined the definitions of deception
as applied to advertising. They determined that advertising is
deceptive "if it causes a significant percentage of potential
consumers (i.e., those at whom it is directed or whose consumption
behavior is likely to be influenced by it) to have false beliefs about
the product" (p. 96). This definition still leaves open the question
of what makes up a significant percentage of potential consumers
(Carson, Wokutch, & Cox, 1985).

For the second element, the deceptive "act or practice must be
considered from the perspective of the reasonable consumer" (FTC
Deception Policy Statement, 1983). Puffery is generally defended by
suggesting that reasonable consumers will not believe puffery when
exposed to it. The theory is that a reasonable consumer is too savvy
or intelligent to believe a puff (Preston, 1996). The definition of a
reasonable consumer will be addressed later in the paper as it applies
to vulnerable consumers. The FTC's Commercial Code prohibits
advertisers from deceiving consumers in advertising. Historically the
FTC has ruled that puffery is not deceptive (Ross, 1996).

The third element for a statement to be considered deceptive is that
"the representation, omission or practice must be material" (FTC
Deception Policy Statement, 1983). Richards and Preston (1992) comment
that until 1991, the issue of materiality in deceptive advertising
cases had not been raised. If this material aspect of puffery is
pursued more often in legal proceedings it could be damaging for
advertisers, "Presumptions of materiality have the effect of shifting
the burden of proof to the advertiser. Because this shift entails
proving a negative, it is nearly impossible for advertisers to bear
that burden" (Richards & Preston, 1992, p. 55).

Recently the FTC has started to consider widening the definition of an
express warranty (Kent, 1996). This widening of the definition would
force advertisers to prove claims that they make. The Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) is being changed to make the definition of
warranty more inclusive of claims that are now considered puffery
(American Law Institute, 1996).

Often advertisers use clever literary devices to mislead or deceive
consumers. Metonymy associates the meanings of products with their
users (Stern, 1992). For example, alcohol advertisements that show the
consumers of these products surrounded by affluent people and things,
suggest that those who consume their product can also be these
beautiful people and have these things (Berger, 1989).

Irony is another literary tool that advertisers use to deceive
consumers. Words with more than one meaning can fool consumers into
believing something about a product that may not be true (Stern,
1992). Chanel skin crème used the line, "We don't say Lift Serum is a
miracle, but others may think so." The double meaning here is that the
product cannot perform miracles-or can it? The advertising is leading
the reader to believe that some who use the cream may think so (Stern,
1990).

Other advertising has used absurdism to attempt to persuade consumers.
Absurd language uses terms devoid of meaning and lets consumers
determine the meaning for themselves (Cohen, 1974; Ford & Calfee,
1986). The Joe Camel advertising is often cited as an example of this
absurd use of images. A cartoon animal smoking, surrounded by others
having a good time attracts people's attention because of its
absurdity (Stern, 1992).

Despite the fact that the FTC has not yet proclaimed puffery to be
deceitful, research indicates that puffery can be deceitful. A number
of studies suggest that large numbers of consumers do believe puffed
up claims made by advertisers (Bruskin Report, 1971; Preston 1996;
Rotfeld, 1997; Rotfeld & Rotzoll, 1980; Shimp, 1978).

The marketing research firm of R.H. Bruskin (Bruskin Report, 1971)
asked consumers to rank claims in advertising as "completely true,"
"partly true," or "not true at all." A sampling of the results
indicate that 64 percent of the consumers surveyed believed that Coca-
Cola's claim of "It's the Real Thing" is true or partly true. Minute
Rice's statement that it makes "Perfect rice everytime" was perceived
as being completely true by 43 percent of those asked and partly true
by another 30 percent of the participants in the survey (p. 17).

Another study (Shimp, 1978) examined whether consumers draw
implications about incomplete comparatives made concerning product
claims. In one example, when asked to analyze the claim, "Mennen E
goes on warmer and drier," over 50 percent said that this claim either
"directly stated" or "intended, but not stated" that "Mennen E goes on
warmer and drier than any other deodorant on the market" (p. 105).

The Rotfeld and Rotzoll (1980) study showed videotapes of five
commercials to over 100 consumers, 85 percent of whom had attended
college. Almost 70 percent of those in the study had undergraduate
degrees and 15 percent had post-graduate degrees. This would suggest
that this is a group of reasonable consumers, "A less well-educated
sample probably would believe puffery claims even more" (p. 20).

The participants were asked about the literal and implied messages in
the commercials. Of the group exposed to the video tapes, "puffery
claims for the five commercials were perceived and believed by 39.6
percent of the respondents while puffery implied claims averaged only
11.4 percent belief" (Rotfeld & Rotzoll, 1980, p. 19).

Sometimes advertisers argue that consumers know that advertising is
untrue as a legal defense. For years cigarette manufacturers have
routinely argued that the dangers of their product are not fully known
to them. Yet when challenged in recent liability cases, the cigarette
industry has claimed that reasonable consumers know that cigarettes
are harmful. They appear to be admitting to less than truthful claims
in their advertising (Rotfeld, 1997).

Of course if puffery did not work, marketers would not use it. Preston
(1996) argues this point,

Puffery is endemic in American salesmanship, practically the soul and
substance of the American way of selling. The industry's conviction
that puffery works is proof enough for me that it does, because I have
great admiration for the expertise of the advertising profession (p.
24, 25).

According to the sources cited above, puffery is a key component of
the American

way of selling and is believed by a substantial number of consumers
(including those with above average education). If this is the case,
what are the dangers for vulnerable consumers who are exposed to
advertising that contains puffery?

The following section will discuss vulnerable consumers and why they
present special problems for marketers. Specific vulnerable consumer
groups will be identified. In the following section vulnerable
consumers will be discussed, as well as why they may be deceived by
puffery.

Vulnerable Consumers

Some consumers are more likely than others to be harmed by deceitful
advertising. These consumers are often referred to as vulnerable
consumers. The vulnerability of consumers can be permanent or
temporary and may change with time (Goodin, 1985).

Society believes that vulnerable consumers need to be protected in the
marketplace. If vulnerable consumers are not protected, they may
possibly be cheated in market transactions. They are generally
vulnerable because of some condition that they cannot control, such as
age, race, or gender. These uncontrollable conditions may result in
vulnerable consumers making harmful choices in the marketplace
(Andreasen, 1993).

Because of the limited ability of the vulnerable to participate in
market activities, Brenkert (1998) argues that it is immoral for
marketers to aim their promotional efforts at these vulnerable
consumers. He classifies vulnerable consumers into four categories:
the physically vulnerable, cognitively vulnerable, motivationally
vulnerable, and socially vulnerable (Brenkert, 1998).

Physically vulnerable consumers are unable to use products on the
market because of the products' physical characteristics, such as an
allergic reaction (Brenkert, 1998). Physical vulnerability can also
include consumers with other types of disabilities that are covered by
the Americans with Disabilities Act. It may include the diminishing
visual, auditory, and motor skill functions often associated with the
aging process (Morgan & Schuller, 1985).

Motivationally vulnerable consumers are unable to resist certain
temptations because of their circumstances. A parent in a store with
an unruly child may find it difficult not to give in to the demands of
the child (Brenkert, 1998).

Social situations which make consumers more likely to purchase certain
products are included in the socially vulnerable category (Brenkert,
1998). Similar to this are vulnerable consumers who are not
sophisticated enough to avoid making purchase decisions that are
harmful, "These consumers may be gullible when encountering spurious
or questionable claims about products or services" (Morgan & Schuller,
1995).

The final category of vulnerable consumers according to Brenkert
(1998) is that of cognitively vulnerable consumers. These consumers do
not have the ability to understand the promotional information being
presented to them. Children, the elderly, and the uneducated are the
most obvious examples of this group (Brenkert, 1998). Morgan and
Schuler (1995) include those with information processing difficulties
such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder in this group.

The conditions surrounding vulnerable consumers can contribute to
their susceptibility to unscrupulous marketers. The nature of some
products may make them more dangerous for vulnerable consumers (Morgan
& Schuller, 1995). For example, alcohol and tobacco are products that
certain types of vulnerable consumers may be exposed to that could
hurt them in a number of ways (Patterson, Hunnicut, & Stutts, 1992).

How often the product is used is another issue for vulnerable
consumers. The more often a vulnerable consumer is exposed to a
product, the more likely (s)he is to suffer harm. Also the time
sensitivity of promotional efforts may confuse vulnerable consumers
(Morgan & Schuller, 1995). A salesperson who insists that a price
being offered for a product is only good for today may be dismissed by
a reasonable consumer as puffery, but may be believed by one who is
more vulnerable.

Finally, other temporary situations may occur when a vulnerable
consumer is forced to make a decision about a product without the help
of a trusted advisor or without the information needed to make a
rational choice on her/his own. Marketers need to be careful not to
take advantage of consumers in these situations (Morgan & Schuller,
1995).

All of these vulnerable consumers are less able to defend themselves
from misleading or deceitful attempts by marketers to influence their
purchase behavior. Often they are not aware that they are not able to
defend themselves. This makes them a very susceptible group of
consumers (Brenkert, 1998).

Andreasen (1993) comments that the characteristics of vulnerable
consumers and marketers' behavior towards them have changed in recent
years. More marketers are willing to take advantage of vulnerable
consumers than in the past, "...merchants who will take advantage of the
lack of mobility of the disadvantaged consumers ...charge exorbitant
prices for products...unconscionable interest rates and...trick the
elderly" have increased (p. 271).

The definition of vulnerable consumers has recently broadened to
include those who are physically handicapped and minorities who are
recent immigrants. Historically the vulnerable consumer group included
the poor, racial minorities, children and the elderly. This increase
in who is included complicates the issues involved in dealing with
vulnerable consumers (Andreasen, 1993).

It is the ethical duty of marketers to not take advantage of consumers
who are in these vulnerable groups. To do so would violate the ethical
principle of preventing harm to consumers and potential consumers
(American Marketing Association, 1998). Brenkert (1998) states, "...any
marketing to the vulnerable cannot morally be undertaken in a way
which trades upon their vulnerabilities" ( p. 522).

Lippke (1989) also argues that persuasive advertising can erode the
autonomy of the consumers' decision-making ability. He believes that
advertising suppresses the autonomy of the buyer. Persuasive
advertising discourages consumers from using their cognitive skills to
make a rational purchasing decision (Lippke, 1989).

The message that advertisers frequently send to consumers is that
their products can solve consumers' problems. Lippke (1989)
elaborates, "What could be more inviting than a life that demands so
little beyond ease and gratification (especially to children, who are
less attuned to the values of self-control and delayed
gratification)?" (p. 46).

Vulnerable Consumers and Reasonable Consumers

As the past research cited in this paper indicates, puffery is a
practice that has been for the most part left alone because the FTC
believes it does not deceive reasonable consumers (Preston, 1996). The
FTC, however, has not discussed the effects of puffery on those who
are not reasonable consumers.

Because consumers who are considered vulnerable are unable to protect
themselves as other consumers do against puffery (Andreasen, 1993), it
appears that vulnerable consumers are not considered to be reasonable
according to the standards set by the FTC (FTC Deception Policy,
1983). If vulnerable consumers are not considered reasonable, what
responsibility do marketers have to protect these vulnerable consumers
from puffery? What responsibility does society have, if any, to
protect vulnerable consumers from puffery?

The FTC's concept of a reasonable consumer has evolved over the years
through a number of court cases and rulings. It generally has
established that most people, but not all, are to be protected, "The
FTC does not go so far as to prohibit the deceptiveness that involves
only a few consumers. It works under the constraint that it may
proceed only when its action involves a sufficient degree of public
interest" (Preston, 1996).

This is a far cry from the ignorant consumer standard that the FTC
followed until the 1960s. Since the 1960s the standard has been
relaxed in favor of sellers, "...It (the FTC) clearly rejects a strict
ignorant person standard that would protect everyone from everything
that would deceive them" (Preston, 1996).

If vulnerable consumers are not reasonable consumers, many of them are
likely to fall prey to the false or misleading claims made in
advertising that reasonable consumers may reject as puffery, and thus
unbelievable (Andreasen, 1993). What then can marketers generally, and
advertisers and salespeople, more specifically, do to minimize the
harm caused by the puffery to which vulnerable consumers are exposed?
The following section will make recommendations to address this
question.

Recommendations

It is probably impossible for marketers to protect vulnerable
consumers from all puffery and all of the other marketing efforts that
may harm them. There are, however, some measures that marketers can
take to attempt to protect vulnerable consumers from puffery and other
types of potentially harmful marketing efforts.

First, marketers should be careful when choosing target markets. Past
efforts by companies to target vulnerable consumers have been
scrutinized by consumer groups and government agencies (i.e., Moon,
1990; Benet, Pitts, & La Tour, 1993; Sautter & Oretskin). Companies
have been criticized for targeting vulnerable consumers for products
that are both good and bad for consumers (Smith & Cooper-Martin,
1997).

Marketers that have aimed harmful products such as tobacco and alcohol
at vulnerable groups of consumers such as women and minorities are the
most visible examples of marketing campaigns targeted to vulnerable
consumers. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) was chastised for its
product, Uptown, because it was marketed to African-American smokers.
RJR later introduced Dakota brand cigarettes. This product was aimed
at young, poorly educated, blue collar, white females. Both of these
efforts were denounced for targeting a vulnerable group of consumers
(Smith & Cooper-Martin, 1997).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set guidelines concerning
the targeting of children for certain harmful products (Smith & Cooper-
Martin, 1997). The FDA has also made attempts at protecting adults
with respect to their consumption of gambling (Clotfelter & Cook,
1989) as well as alcohol and tobacco as noted above. With this
interest by the government, consumer groups, and the public at large
to protect vulnerable consumers, it would appear that it would be in
the best interest of marketers to avoid aiming their marketing
efforts, especially deceptive or puffed advertising, at these
vulnerable consumers (Geyelin, 1995).

A second recommendation is aimed at salespeople who work with
vulnerable consumers. Because of the fact that salespeople work with
no close supervision (Dubinsky, Howell, & Bellenger, 1986), they may
have the greatest opportunity to take advantage of vulnerable
consumers.

Salespeople who make a living selling to vulnerable consumers need to
refrain from using puffery to sell their products. Pitts and La Tour
(1993) state that some marketers use fear appeal to influence older
consumers. The use of salespeople by the elderly to help fulfill
social needs make them an inviting target for unscrupulous salespeople
(Kang & Ridgway, 1996). Their sometimes limited cognitive abilities
make them even more likely to believe puffed statements made by a
salesperson (John & Cole, 1986; Andreasen, 1993).

Finally, the most important recommendation to marketers is to do what
they can to be aware of vulnerable consumers who may be exposed to the
puffs that the company communicates in its promotional materials.
Attempts by marketers to take a more ethical and honest approach to
protecting vulnerable consumers may prevent government and consumer
groups from needing to prohibit the activities of marketers aimed at
these consumers.

Limitations and Future Research

The connections between puffery and vulnerable consumers outlined
above are made based on past research and have not been empirically
tested. No empirical research has been conducted on the effects of
puffery on vulnerable consumers. As is evident from the research in
this paper, the FTC has done little to address the issues of puffery
as it applies to vulnerable consumers.

Future research needs to be done to examine how vulnerable consumers
respond to puffery. It is important to see if these vulnerable
consumers really are more susceptible than other consumers to the
claims made by puffery. Also the negative effects of puffery on
vulnerable consumers should be investigated. What harm does puffery
cause for vulnerable consumers?

Further research in these areas can provide guidance for marketers who
deal with vulnerable consumers. The additional research can also guide
lawmakers and consumer groups implementing policies that protect
vulnerable consumers and are also fair to marketers. Hopefully this
paper will encourage this empirical research to begin.

References

American Law Institute (1996). Uniform commercial code. Fourteenth
edition, section 2- 13.

American Marketing Association (1998). American marketing association
code of ethics. In L. P. Hartman (Ed.), Perspectives in Business
Ethics (pp. 502-504). Chicago. Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Andreasen, A. R. (1993). Revisiting the disadvantaged: Old lessons and
new problems. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12, 270-275.

Benet, S., Pitts, R. E., & La Tour, M. (1993). The appropriateness of
fear appeal use for health care marketing to the elderly: Is it ok to
scare granny? Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 1, 45-58.

Berger, A. A. (1989). Seeing is believing: An introduction to visual
communication. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Brenkert, G. (1998) Marketing and the vulnerable. In L. P. Hartman
(Ed.), Perspectives in Business Ethics (pp. 515-526). Chicago. Irwin/
McGraw Hill.

Bruskin Report (1971). No. 40, New Brunswick, NJ.

Carson, T. L., Wokutch, R. E. & Cox, J. E. (1985). An ethical analysis
of deception in advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, (1985),
93-104.

Clotfelter, C. T. & Cook, P. J. (1989). Selling hope: State lotteries
in america. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohen, D. (1974). The concept of unfairness as it relates to
advertising legislation. Journal of Marketing, 38, (July), 8-13.

Ford, G. T. & Calfee, J. E. (1986). Recent developments in ftc policy
on deception. Journal of Marketing, 50 (July), 82-103.

FTC Deception Policy Statement (1983). World Wide Web: www.webcom.com/
lewrose/decptionpol.html

Geyelin, M. (1995). Limits on cigarette billboard upheld. The Wall
Street Journal, (September 7).

Goodin, R. E. (1985). Protecting the vulnerable. Chicago. The
University of Chicago Press.

Hyman, M. (1990). Deception in advertising: A proposed complex of
definitions for researchers, lawyers, and regulators. International
Journal of Advertising, 9, 259-270.

John, D. R. & Cole, C. A. (1986). Age differences in information
processing: Understanding deficits in young and elderly consumers.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, (December), 297-310.

Kang, Y. S. & Ridgway, N. M. (1996). The importance of consumer market
interactions as a form of social support for elderly consumers.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, l15, 1, 108-117.

Kent, F. H. (1996). What is "puffery?" The New York Law Journal
(December 20), 18-20.

Lippke, R. L. (1989). Advertising and the social conditions of
autonomy. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 8, 4, 35-55.

Moon, M. (1990). Consumer issues and the elderly. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 24, 2, 235-244.

Morgan, F. W. & Schuler, D. K. (1995). A framework for examining the
legal status of vulnerable consumers. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 14, 2, 267-277.

Nebenzahl, I. D. and Jaffe, E. D. (1998). Ethical dimensions of
advertising executions. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 7, 805-814.

Patterson, L. T., Hunnicut, G. G., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Young
adults' perceptions of warnings and risks associated with alcohol
consumption. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11, 1, 96-103.

Preston, I. L. (1997). Regulatory positions toward advertising puffery
of the uniform commercial code and the federal trade commission.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 61, 2, 336-351.

Preston, I. L. (1996). The Great american blowup: Puffery in
advertising and selling (Rev. ed.). Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin Press.

Preston. I. L. & Richards, J. I. (1992). Proving and disproving
materiality of deceptive advertising claims. Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, 11, 2, 45-56.

Ross, C. (1996). Marketers fend off shift in rules for ad puffery.
Advertising Age (February 19), 41.

Rotfeld, H. (1997). When firms admit their promotions are false.
Marketing News, 31, 24, 13.

Rotfeld, H. J. & Rotzoll, K. B. (1980). Is advertising puffery to be
believed? Journal of Advertising, 10, 16-20.

Sautter, E. T. & Oretskin, N. A. (1997). Tobacco targeting: The
ethical complexity of marketing to minorities. Journal of Business
Ethics, 16, 10, 1011-1017.

Shimp, T. A. (1987). Do incomplete comparisons mislead? Journal of
Advertising Research, 18, 21-27.

Smith, N, C. & Cooper-Martin, E. (1997). Ethics and target marketing.
Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 3, 1-20.

Stern, B. B. (1992). "Crafty advertisers": Literary versus literal
deceptiveness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11, 1, 72-81.

Stern, B. B. (1990). Pleasure and persuasion in advertising:
Rhetorical irony as a humor technique. In (J. Leigh and C. R. Martin,
Eds.), Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 12. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan

[fudge]

BOTTOM LINE: Pay your taxes on time. Use all the legal deductions available
to you under the tax laws and avoid lawyers. Simple enough!

Farmer John

[b***@hotmail.com]

Post by fudge
BOTTOM LINE: Pay your taxes on time. Use all the legal deductions available
to you under the tax laws and avoid lawyers. Simple enough!
Farmer John

Farmer John?? U got to be kidding!!!

Did you know that Al Qaeda is based in what you all
call...CANADA??!!! DioGuardi & Company are in cahoots with CRA
tollgators who are FRONTING for Al Qaeda. How do you think the
atrocities in NYC on September 11, 2001 was possible...hmmm??? YOUR
TAX $$$$ are going to AL QAEDA !!! period!!!! DioGuardi is FRONTING
for Al Qaeda and so is CRA -- that's why you see CSIS blackmailing 2
top officials in the CRA and all of CRA's offices are bugged with the
latest technology money can buy.

Al Qaeda and their networks in the IRS-CRA-CAI [known as CIA] did a
SNUFF movie on September 11, 2001 so that they could emotionally +
financially BLACKMAIL all the world into compliance. Any THINKING mind
would think on HOW could any so-called intelligent human fall for such
an obvious SCAM!! Here we are -- world population OVER 6 billion --
and here are UNDER 3,000 humans snuffed live on tv.HELLO???? ANYONE
HOME?? Motorola's iridium sattelites did the firefighters in. IRS
office was in tower 7 and all their documentations were in WT-7 --
which was the command center to guide the planes into tower 1 and 2.

Dead peasant insurance policies are used on all of us. I suggest you
put a dead peasant insurance policy on all of the staff at DioGuardi
and Company and the top guns at CRA and CAI group of private investors
and all the members at the Privy Council. We should all be on equal
footing. They got dead peasant insurance policies on us -- we all
should reciprocate, n'est-pas? ;)

Buddie

[b***@hotmail.com]

Post by b***@hotmail.com

Post by fudge
BOTTOM LINE: Pay your taxes on time. Use all the legal deductions available
to you under the tax laws and avoid lawyers. Simple enough!
Farmer John

Farmer John?? U got to be kidding!!!
Did you know that Al Qaeda is based in what you all
call...CANADA??!!! DioGuardi & Company are in cahoots with CRA
tollgators who are FRONTING for Al Qaeda. How do you think the
atrocities in NYC on September 11, 2001 was possible...hmmm??? YOUR
TAX $$$$ are going to AL QAEDA !!! period!!!! DioGuardi is FRONTING
for Al Qaeda and so is CRA -- that's why you see CSIS blackmailing 2
top officials in the CRA and all of CRA's offices are bugged with the
latest technology money can buy.
Al Qaeda and their networks in the IRS-CRA-CAI [known as CIA] did a
SNUFF movie on September 11, 2001 so that they could emotionally +
financially BLACKMAIL all the world into compliance. Any THINKING mind
would think on HOW could any so-called intelligent human fall for such
an obvious SCAM!! Here we are -- world population OVER 6 billion --
and here are UNDER 3,000 humans snuffed live on tv.HELLO???? ANYONE
HOME?? Motorola's iridium sattelites did the firefighters in. IRS
office was in tower 7 and all their documentations were in WT-7 --
which was the command center to guide the planes into tower 1 and 2.
Dead peasant insurance policies are used on all of us. I suggest you
put a dead peasant insurance policy on all of the staff at DioGuardi
and Company and the top guns at CRA and CAI group of private investors
and all the members at the Privy Council. We should all be on equal
footing. They got dead peasant insurance policies on us -- we all
should reciprocate, n'est-pas? ;)
Buddie

Just google 'death peasant insurance and september 11' -- and let your
fingers do the walking...
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=death+peasant+insurance+and+september+11&meta=

[b***@hotmail.com]

Post by b***@hotmail.com

Post by b***@hotmail.com

Post by fudge
BOTTOM LINE: Pay your taxes on time. Use all the legal deductions available
to you under the tax laws and avoid lawyers. Simple enough!
Farmer John

Farmer John?? U got to be kidding!!!
Did you know that Al Qaeda is based in what you all
call...CANADA??!!! DioGuardi & Company are in cahoots with CRA
tollgators who are FRONTING for Al Qaeda. How do you think the
atrocities in NYC on September 11, 2001 was possible...hmmm??? YOUR
TAX $$$$ are going to AL QAEDA !!! period!!!! DioGuardi is FRONTING
for Al Qaeda and so is CRA -- that's why you see CSIS blackmailing 2
top officials in the CRA and all of CRA's offices are bugged with the
latest technology money can buy.
Al Qaeda and their networks in the IRS-CRA-CAI [known as CIA] did a
SNUFF movie on September 11, 2001 so that they could emotionally +
financially BLACKMAIL all the world into compliance. Any THINKING mind
would think on HOW could any so-called intelligent human fall for such
an obvious SCAM!! Here we are -- world population OVER 6 billion --
and here are UNDER 3,000 humans snuffed live on tv.HELLO???? ANYONE
HOME?? Motorola's iridium sattelites did the firefighters in. IRS
office was in tower 7 and all their documentations were in WT-7 --
which was the command center to guide the planes into tower 1 and 2.
Dead peasant insurance policies are used on all of us. I suggest you
put a dead peasant insurance policy on all of the staff at DioGuardi
and Company and the top guns at CRA and CAI group of private investors
and all the members at the Privy Council. We should all be on equal
footing. They got dead peasant insurance policies on us -- we all
should reciprocate, n'est-pas? ;)
Buddie

Just google 'death peasant insurance and september 11' -- and let your
fingers do the walking...http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=death+peasant+insurance+and+septe...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Welcome to ARG v1.4

[Updated 09/10/06 - 11PM EST]


HawksCAFE @ ARG
"Manufactured Shock" - How Teachers, NATO and the Mob staged an al-
Qaeda 9/11
Copyright: David Hawkins, Forensic Economist
Hawks-***@hotmail.com

Introduction (Revised without notice on Sunday, September 10, 2006)

They could make a killing in Chicago, but they wanted a nice, clear
day in New York.

The MIT plasma and fusion lab had shown them how to rig planes and
targets for remote detonation through global satellite networks; how
to fuel shockwave tube bombs with solid or liquid propellants from
Delta or Zenit rocket engines burning half as hot as the surface of
the sun and how to solve an assassin's perennial problem by shocking
the bodies of victims and liquefying - even vaporizing - evidence of
murder, arson and fraud.

Their supersmart mathematicians with superfast computers, networked to
a 'Center for Coordination Science', were primed to pounce on price
differentials when trade on the NYSE stopped but the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange stayed open for profit and business.

But MIT's professor of linguistics, the anarcho-syndicalist Noam
Chomsky, and fellow intellectuals were not so interested in the money
- even if the murder of a few firefighters would pad their pensions -
they wanted a clear view of the "first live-broadcast mass snuff film
in history" when a manufactured shock and al-Qaeda myths ended
American capitalism for ever and NATO paramilitaries were sworn in to
enforce a fascist peace.

But MIT's effete, elite professor and his mathematical, engineering
and scientific fellow travelers, had little experience at generating
the panic the world's most powerful bankers needed to target and
terrify local victims and have them begging for peace at any price.

So back in 1989, the bankers began to assemble elite special weapons
and tactics teams, coordinated online through the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, so that 'al-Qaeda' assets could move
undetected on global networks controlled by radical intellectuals,
NATO paramilitary commanders and those organized crime and labor
bosses who reported to the Bonanno headquarters, well out of reach of
the FBI, in Montreal, Quebec.

Oh yes, I almost forgot, thanks to a secure satellite communications
and electronic credit network, our teachers were able to invest in
staged 'al-Qaeda' panics via a private bank in Switzerland and share
their profits with the extended, racketeering families of Osama bin
Laden - former CIA agent in Afghanistan - and Saddam Hussein, the
butcher of Baghdad.

And that oh-so simple trick; conceal civilian box cutters in military
baggage for simulated hijacking attacks then switch cockpit controls
to concealed military gyroscopes in civilian Boeings and fly along
"Final Approach" corridors into targeted U.S. command centers.

This then is their story; told not for the fearful - of which there
was a troubling many - but for the victims, whose souls beg to leave
those September scenes but only if justice is done.

Seconds, Hours, Months and Years through 9/11

Our story has four acts with different timelines, spanning twelve
seconds to kill and vaporize targets and twelve years to develop war
game and weapons for 9/11.

The first two timelines - one in seconds, one in hours - will be
developed with online co-researchers using virtual reality and
computer simulation tools; partly to better visualize the physics of a
shockwave murder and partly because the self-styled 'Global Guardians'
would have used these same tools to plan and execute the attacks.

With the encouragement of my co-researchers, I will be inviting the
people below to help us (a) reconstruct the 9/11 physics of observed
and measured effects, (b) identify the special weapons and tactics
('SWAT') teams which appear to match, (c) identify the paymasters or
the custodians of such teams, and finally (d) identify motives which
might have justified the Global Guardians' use of 'shock, bait and
liquidate' weapons on 9/11.

Some Characters in "Manufactured Shock"

M.I.T. professor of linguistics and de facto leader of anarcho-
syndicalists in the Industrial Workers of the World - also known as
"The Wobblies" - Noam Chomsky knew how to manufacture consent with
propaganda, but he didn't know how to organize unskilled workers into
one world union as custodians of the global commons to destroy
capitalism by abolition of the wage system and aboriginal and legal
property rights.

Former general president of the Laborer's International Union of North
America, Arthur Coia knew how to recruit laborers, train them as blast
technicians and manipulate hiring halls to sabotage construction,
upgrade or demolition contracts, but he didn't know how to duck the
draft racketeering complaint from the U.S. Justice Department accusing
LIUNA and mob affiliates of extortion, crushing dissenters and
pilfering union funds.

Former impeached U.S. President Bill Clinton knew how to triangulate
voters into thinking he was to the left of the right, to the right of
the left and above them both, but he didn't know how to get himself or
the Democrats elected without accepting money from mobbed-up unions or
Chinese agents wanting to buy arms technology to attack America.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Boeing director on
9/11, John Shalikashvili, knew how to conceal the treasonous transfer
of U.S. weapons technology and a coup d'etat inside President
Clinton's bogus NATO Partnership-for-Peace program but didn't know how
to conceal his admiration for his father's role as a major in the Nazi
Waffen SS.



Former No 2 in US Air Force procurement, former chairman of board of
directors of NATO's AWACS program and a future vice-president of
Boeing, Darleen Druyun, knew how to conceal illegal modifications to
Boeing passenger or refueling aircraft in Canada so the planes could
be flown as hijacked decoys or bomb-laden drones to sabotage NORAD's
war games on 9/11, but she didn't know how to stay out of jail.

Former director of Lafarge and the former president and de facto
leader of "Les Militants Syndicalistes" at the French American
Foundation, Hillary Clinton knew how to use law firms to conceal CIA
special weapons and tactics ('SWAT') teams and intelligence networks
linking New York, Montreal, London and Paris to clients, including
Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but she
didn't know how to make herself likeable enough to ever be elected as
the president of the United States.

Former deputy chief of staff to the Clinton administration and co-
leader of the Shadow Party with George Soros and Hillary Clinton,
Harold Ickes knew how to protect Coia and LIUNA from RICO lawsuits
with a Democrat in the White House but he didn't know how to do the
same under the administration of U.S. president, George Bush.

Controlling investor in Waste Management Inc, convicted for insider
trading in the Société Générale scam and co-leader of the Shadow Party
with Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes, George Soros knew how to
mislead investors and stock market analysts, defraud union pension
funds and hire workers to move and destroy evidence of murder, arson
and fraud at Ground Zero in Manhattan, but he didn't know how to buy
the election of Democrat presidential candidates in November 2000 (Al
Gore) or 2004 (John Kerry).

Convicted former Bonanno crime family boss, 'Big Joey' Massino knew
how to run a RICO enterprise, shock targets, bait traps and kill the
people who fell into them, but he didn't know how to liquidate or
vaporize human bodies and destroy evidence of murder.

Alleged shooter in 1981 Bonanno hit and reputed Montreal Mafia don,
Vito Rizzuto knew how to use Canadian lawyers to protect meetings from
police scrutiny and take the Montreal family to a leadership role in
organized crime in North America, but he didn't know how to wipe out
the New York families for his allies in Montreal and Chicago.

Disgraced former CIA director, Dr. John Deutch, knew how to generate
shock waves to liquefy solids but he didn't know how to conceal a
rocket-fuel bomb inside modified Boeing aircraft or the upgraded
buildings at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

UN Oil-for-Food scam godfather, Maurice Strong knew how to launder
money and collect kickbacks for "world bankers and intellectual
elites" from the likes of Teachers* and Teamsters pension funds, but
didn't know how to run a murder or drug-and-weapons smuggling network
through the Montreal, New York and Chicago labor unions.

'Teamsters' is the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; 'Teachers*'
is the name given to New York's Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association-College Retirement Equities Fund - TIAA-CREF -
representing $340 billion retirement benefits of university faculty,
the part owner of insured mortgages on the World Trade Center
buildings though its private equity arm 'CAI' and an alleged source of
venture capital for organized crime.

CAI is the Teachers' private equity group of 50 prominent individuals
who meet the call of David Rockefeller - on the international advisory
council of JP Morgan Chase - for an "intellectual elite and world
bankers" to take custody of the global commons.

Alleged bogus litigant against Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates,
Mohammad al-Zaibak knew how to bypass coastguards using Canada's
digital hydrographic charts and how to take hijacked passenger
aircraft off enroute airways and fly them into targets, but he didn't
know how to stand down the U.S. Air Force so that the hijackers could
pass.

JP Morgan Chase international advisory council member, William Daley
successor to a U.S. secretary of commerce whose military Boeing C37
plane was allegedly blown up with a 'thermite' bomb, with his brother,
Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago, knew how to manipulate the FAA and
Boeing into sabotaging the Pentagon's response to 9/11, but they
didn't know how to liquidate Cantor Fitzgerald in One World Trade
Center and switch the world's largest broker in sovereign debt to the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Outline Chronology

In 1981, Massino invited three Bonanno capos to peace talks at a
Brooklyn social club.

The baited capos were killed by a Montreal hit team which went back
home leaving local mobsters to dispose of the evidence, perhaps using
those Bonanno double-decker coffins where a loved one positioned on
top would conceal the murder victim's body underneath.

Massino then began "a quarter-century of murder, racketeering, arson,
extortion, loan-sharking, and gambling" and built a criminal empire
linking the Fulton Fish Market to the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten
Island and the World Trade Centers where mob brokers gamed with
pension funds of labor unions including operating engineers (IUOE),
laborers (LIUNA), the Teamsters garbage-disposal locals and New York
City's public employees.

In 1988, Rudolph Giuliani, U.S. Attorney in New York, filed a federal
lawsuit demanding the Teamsters union be put into trusteeship by the
government to clean out corruption.

In 1989, the Bonannos bankers hired CAI - a Teachers private equity
group in New York and Montreal - to take custody of the Teamsters
funds out of the reach of the U.S. Attorney, Rudi Giuliani, and the
41st President of the United States, George Walker Bush.

Post by b***@hotmail.com
From 1993 to early 2001, U.S. president Bill Clinton, strengthened the

Teachers control of the Teamsters and SWAT teams; he put Darleen
Druyun as head of U.S. Air Force procurement to lease fuel bombs and
shock weapons from Boeing, backed the election of Teamsters president,
Jimmy Hoffa Junior, defended Labourers' president, Arthur Coia,
against Department of Justice's racketeering charges and pardoned Dr.
John Deutch.

In 2000, Dr. Deutch invited Mayor Rudi Giuliani to sponsor an Office
for Emergency Management where the CIA shared access to a shock-
resistant bunker in 7 World Trade Center. Four years earlier, Deutch,
an MIT professor of chemistry, had stolen top-secret information and
database ('al-Qaeda') on CIA SWAT teams, including the apparent use of
rocket fuel bombs to generate shock waves and liquefy solids -
evidence.

When George Bush Jr. was sworn in as 43rd president of the United
States in January 2001, a Republican White House linked up to Rudi
Giuliani, now a reforming mayor of the City of New York.

By 2001, Giuliani had forced the Bonannos out of the Fulton Fish
market and begun an attempt to clean up New York's construction,
demolition and garbage-disposal unions.

The Teachers and Teamsters' private-equity managers, including World
Bank advisors, Maurice Strong and Dr. John McArthur, felt threatened
by the renewal of a Giuliani-Bush reform agenda and the stage was set
for the shock and bait of RICO 9/11.

During the June 1-2, 2001 'Amalgam Virgo' war game, Teachers and
Boeing insiders, including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, used instrument approach procedures to fly hijacked planes with
the U.S. Air Force ordered to stand down.

When Dr. Deutch launched the privately sponsored war game 'Global
Guardian' on 9/11, he chose to simulate 'al-Qaeda' hijacking attacks
with red team flying Boeing aircraft, modified with embedded fuel
bombs, into buildings rigged with embedded fuel bombs.

Deutch's games were staged with Boeing and NATO AWACS aircraft,
illegally-leased by Darleen Druyun, Clinton's corrupt head of
procurement for the U.S. Air Force.

New York firefighters responded to the shock of the 9/11 attack by
entering the North and South Towers to help victims escape and put out
low-intensity fires. Their analog Motorola radio systems appear to
have been jammed; they did not receive the order to evacuate and over
300 firefighter bodies were liquidated when the buildings were
demolished by what appears to be a shockwave from fuel bombs in the
towers.

On 9/11, with the pulverized cement dust still settling in Manhattan,
Teamsters' Local 831 members from the New York City Department of
Sanitation began hosing down the streets, flushing evidence of murder
and ultra-high temperature arson into the sewers.

On 9/11, the contractor working on 7 World Trade Center diesel systems
was ordered to pull the building by the owners of the mortgage (the
Teachers' private equity group) and to start planning shipments of
debris from Ground Zero to Staten Island where terrified investigators
would sort through 'fines', including incinerated bits of
firefighters' bodies.

On 9/11 at 5:20 p.m., WTC #7 - a building never hit by a plane - was
'pulled' by the Teachers' mortgage company in a fire so hot it
vaporized steel and evidence of fraud.

On 9/11, the problem of liquidating bodies of murder victims was
solved not by the Bonannos - North America's most powerful crime
family - nor by Teamsters - the 'World's Most Powerful Union' - but by
people more powerful than either who double crossed them both.

A Challenge

Some have proposed that battles between nations should be fought with
a champion selected by each side fighting in man-to-man combat to save
casualties.

Dr. Deutch is a member of the Teachers' elite, a director of
Citigroup, Raytheon and Schlumberger, and an expert in solution
chemistry, molecular thermodynamics and kinetics.

David Hawkins is a full member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the
former coordinator of Artificial Intelligence and geoscience research
at Schlumberger, the inventor in 1989 of a toolkit for virtual-reality
prototyping and a world authority on the use of applied mathematics,
thermodynamics and deductive logic to analyze violent crimes and
identify the weapons, opportunities and motives of the perpetrators.

I will be challenging Dr. Deutch to a virtual reality war game in the
four acts of this story; we can work together or against each other to
develop the true interpretation of the events during twelve seconds of
9/11 physics, twelve hours of the 'Global Guardian' war games, twelve
months of the CIA or al-Qaeda's special weapons and tactics teams and
twelve years of Teachers' securities, insurance and mortgage fraud.

Dr. Deutch's red team played 9/11 with 3 million - mostly unwitting -
members in the $340 billion teachers' national pension fund and 1.4
million - mostly unwitting - members of the teamsters in the United
States and Canada working as law enforcement officers, technical
employees in both the public and private sectors and public defenders.

On 9/11, a red-team hijacker said, "We have some planes"; today I can
respond with "We have some truths" and invite readers to participate
in four acts ...

Acts 1, 2 and 3 will explore the physics of virtual shock and visual
awe in the murder of selected victims and how 'al-Qaeda' special
weapons and tactics teams were recruited, equipped and trained to kill
them.

Act 4 will be difficult for me and the blue team to write; focused as
it must be on the intangible motives or mens rea of the 'Teachers',
the self-appointed 'Global Guardians', the 50 or so people who have
the power to recruit paramilitary SWAT teams through American or
Canadian governments for private use; the people who write military
and business hedge-fund scenarios for 'spinning' war games against
trusting allies; the people who share David Rockefeller's view that
the world is "now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government"; the people convinced by Canada's Maurice Strong
that the United Nations should have custody over the global commons,
including the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land on which
we walk; the people who feel different from you or me, superior to
janitors in high rises, indifferent to firefighters in New York,
hatred for Wall Street types and rage at U.S. naval officers or
marines who go with fierce pride into harms way, and, ultimately and
tragically, the people whom we trusted to remind us before 9/11 that
the price of freedom was always eternal vigilance.

If I err in my allegations, I will correct the offending statement or
stand ready to defend them in a court of law, but the red-team people
know who they are so this is the challenge and let the war games
begin.

David Hawkins

Outline Acts

Act 1 - 12 Seconds through 9/11

Act 1 will present six 12-second timelines as computer animations with
written text or voiceover to describe the physics, chemistry and
thermodynamics of the murder of the six victims named below ....

Captain Jason Dahl, murdered at 10:03:05 a.m. on 9/11 while serving as
pilot of Flight 93 by the violent kinematics of gyroscopically-
controlled spin and an ultra-high temperature shock wave which
vaporized his body with present status unknown.
Loading Image...

Captain Gerald DeConto was murdered while serving as duty officer in
the US Naval Command Center in the Pentagon as he was speaking on the
phone to the secretary for the navy. Status of body unknown.
Loading Image...

Carlton Bartels was murdered while serving as founder of carbon
trading at eSpeed in the $70 trillion/year business of Cantor
Fitzgerald in the North Tower where Dr. Thomas Barnett held his bogus
war games. Status of body unknown but is presumed vaporized or the
small body parts bulldozed into garbage hills at Fresh Kills land fill
on Staten Island by AMEC sub-contractors.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

John O'Neil was murdered while serving as head of security for the
World Trade Center, in the South Tower. O'Neill was former New York
FBI Counterterror chief responsible for investigation into Osama bin
Laden. His body - present status unknown - was allegedly identified by
Jerry Hauer who found John O'Neill his position at the World Trade
Center. Hauer is linked to the bunker in 7 World Trade Center,
evacuated on 9/11, but used as a command and control center for mass
spraying of malathion over boroughs of New York City to combat West
Nile Virus.
Loading Image...
http://home.earthlink.net/~silent_no_more99/id22.html

Master Special Officer Craig Miller was murdered while serving the CIA
in 7 World Trade Center where the entire Secret Service office was
buried on 9/11. Status of body unknown. Master Miller was an agent on
loan from Washington and temporarily assigned to New York in
preparation for the UN General Assembly.
Loading Image...
http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/press/pub1202.pdf

Ahmed Shah Massoud murdered at Khvajeh Ba Odin in Afghanistan on
September 9, 2001; status of body unknown. Massoud's murderers appear
to have used the same M.O. as that planned for a poolside interview
with U.S. president George Bush two days later on 9/11. The murderers
of Massoud used a locally or remotely detonated (Thuraya-Boeing-
AbuDhabi?) bomb in either a video camera or a belt that had been
stolen in December 2000 in Grenoble, France, before being modified by
parties unknown.
Loading Image...

The key benefit of 12 second timelines for computer animation is that
the deliverables are constrained by the physics of what we must prove
to be true and not the politics of what we would like to be true.

Act 2 - 12 Hours through 9/11

By early morning on 9/11, Dr. John Deutch with the Teachers and their
bankers and Darleen Druyun and her sponsors, had extorted control of
Boeing and were ready to pilot the world's largest builder of civilian
and military aircraft through an 'al-Qaeda' war game.

6:00 am - 7:00 am: "Flight 93 positioned at decoy departure gate"
Boeing plane modified with satphones, embedded gyroscopes and rocket-
fuel incendiaries, ready for war game.

7:00 am - 8:00 am: "Pilot, Jason Dahl boards Flight 93", invites Ziad
Jarrah into cockpit.

8:00 am - 9:00 am: "Flight 93 delayed 41 minutes on runway in Newark,
New Jersey."

10:00 am - 11:00 am: "Flight 93 spins upside down into drone before
ignition" Boeing satellite command and control hubs out Abu Dhabi and
Quebec are used to abort mission. Dahl's Boeing spins round an axis
controlled by its embedded gyroscope, flies upside down and the
plane's onboard incendiaries are ignited to vaporize evidence of
murder in separate debris fields across 8 miles of the Pennsylvanian
countryside.

11:00 am - 12:00 am: "Flight 93 generates three burning debris sites
in Pennsylvania" Onboard incendiaries vaporize evidence of murder with
a reaction temperature at around half the temperature of the surface
of the sun - effectively disassociating atoms and molecules of
victims' bodies into a gaseous plasma of charged particles or ions.

12:00 am - 1:00 pm: "Teachers' clear unused war-game decoys into
Canada"

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm: "Teachers' bypass elected leaders with Boeing
satphones"

2:00 pm - 3:00 pm: "Teachers' hedge funds 'pump-and-dump' through
panic"

3:00 pm - 4:00 pm: "Teachers' plant evidence of al-Qaeda, begin media
spin"

4:00 pm - 5:00 pm: "Teachers' prepare 'Global Guardians' for shadow
government"

5:00 pm - 6:00 pm: "Teachers' demolition team 'pulls' WTC# 7."
Teachers held insured interest in WTC#7 mortgage. Building held
evidence of CIA 9/11 war game planning in branch of Counter-Terrorism
Center. Evidence linking CIA-CAI to Teachers incinerated.


ACT 3 - 12 Months through 9/11 and 2001

January: "Presidential Pardon, John Deutch and the Chemistry of
Treason".
February: "Vaporizing Evidence with Rocket-Fuel Insulation"
March: "Spin-Less Gyrochip to Satphone, Boeing Decoy to Boeing Drone"
April: "Positive Force Hijackers Try Simulated Attack on Pentagon"
May: "Kidnapped Autopilots Beg the Question; Who Controls the Drones?"
June: "Everyone Participates - Canadian War Games on Washington"
July: "Boeing Satphones Patch Al-Qaeda in Abu Dhabi, to Gatineau,
Quebec"
August: "Can a Hijacked Boeing Decoy Land as a Spin-Less Boeing
Drone?"
September: "Al-Qaeda Death and Demolition but why 'Pull It' for
WTC#7?"
October: "Teachers and Teamsters truck evidence of murder to Fresh
Kills?"
November : "Loansharking the Shareholders of Boeing, Bombardier and
Nortel"
December: "Market Collapse Gives Teachers' Private Equity a Profitable
Year"

ACT 4 - 12 Years from 1989 to 2001

Deutch's former CIA agents in Raytheon and the American universities
in Beirut and Cairo sabotage investigations by U.S. military
intelligence ('Able Danger') and CIA Counterterrorism Center ('Alec
Station') into Osama bin Laden and his SWAT teams.

Boeing is accused by Lockheed of a 14-year "pattern" of illegal
activity in violation of the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act, including stealing documents related to Air
Force satellite contract and patronage appointments for an aerial-
refueling deal. Boeing is under investigation by federal agencies
where Boeing officials have pleaded guilty to criminal violations,
including a jailed ex-Pentagon official Darleen Druyun, who favored
Boeing on at least five government contracts.

The Teachers is being investigated by Federal agencies which have
stopped it from serving American faculty in Beirut and Cairo in the
context of possible post-9/11 security risks. A Teachers' CFO has been
given leave of absence following Securities and Exchange Commission
allegations she helped General Re improperly increase insurers
American International Group's reserves. The Teachers hired a woman in
their Charlotte firm who has pleaded guilty to federal charges of
racketeering and money laundering.

A preliminary cast of characters for Act 4 to describe how Boeing fell
into the 9/11 war game in the racketeering custody of institutional
investors, including the Teachers' pension fund, global banks, and "50
prominent individuals" of the CAI Private Equity Group.

Dr. John McArthur, Dean of the Faculty, Harvard University Graduate
School of Business Administration, from 1980 to 1995, after which he
served as senior advisor to the President of the United Nations'
controlled World Bank. In 1989, Dr. McArthur helped the Teachers set
up the CAI Private Equity Group in Montreal and New York which began
the private placement of faculty pension funds in preparation for a
fraudulent global market in carbon credits under the Kyoto Accord.

Dr. Paul Gray, President Emeritus of Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and a Boeing director since 1990. Dr. Gray sat on Boeing's
Governance and Special Programs committee through the 9/11 war games.
The 9/11 Commission later accused the CIA's Counterterrorism Center
('CTC') of "failures of imagination" to conduct red-team analysis to
thwart the use of hijacked or explosives-laden [Boeing] aircraft as
weapons, implying that Americans had turned their collective backs on
an obvious threat. Our story will show that red-team analysis was in
fact performed by Boeing insiders, including Dr. Gray, and was crucial
to the success of the al-Qaeda attacks on the US embassies in East
Africa, the USS Cole and the Boeing plane flown by Captain Dahl on
9/11. (SWAT* - Special Weapons and Tactics).

At the time of the 9/11 war game, John Biggs was chairman of the
Teachers, Boeing's largest institutional investor, where the Teachers
was the former owner of the mortgage on World Trade Center building
#7.

Mr. Biggs was also a director of Boeing and the chairman of its audit
committee, making the Teachers partly responsible for illegal
modifications to aircraft and satellite networks used for the 9/11 war
games.

Mr. Biggs knew or ought to have known the Teachers were financing
modifications to Boeing 737 and 767 aircraft and satellite networks so
that Boeing planes could be remotely controlled and flown in war games
as decoy 'hijacked' passenger jets or drones able to deliver fuel
bombs precisely into selected targets.

The Appendix has the text of my open e-mail, sent Tuesday, June 13th.,
2006 to W. James McNerney Jr. Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of The Boeing Company, "asking for help from past and present
Boeing's board of directors in tracing the teachers' national pension
funds (TIAA-CREF) through the CAI private-equity group which appears
to have sponsored Boeing's bogus war games on 9/11.
http://www.caifunds.com/ourinvestors.html

CAI's limited partners are major North American institutional
investors, including pension funds, insurance companies, allegedly
including Group AXA with 'dead-peasant' life insurance on 9/11
victims] and banks [allegedly including Teachers' custodial banks such
as JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, State Bank of New York, Deutsche];
prominent individual Special Investors [50] ; and the CAI principals
[allegedly including hedge-fund managers for 9/11 churning, insider/
outsider trading and pump-and-dump through panic scams].
http://www.caifunds.com/specialinvestors.html

CAI published the names of 28 of its 50 prominent individuals, leaving
the readers of the year-by-year storyline in Chapter 4 to guess at the
names of the remaining 22.

1989: "John H. Biggs sets up CAI - Teachers private equity in
Montreal, New York?"
1990: "Hillary Clinton directs Lafarge through Iraqgate, cluster
bombs for Saddam?"
1991: "David Rockefeller to rule world through intellectual elite and
world bankers?"
1992: "Darleen Druyun begins U.S. Air Force procurement frauds for
Boeing 9/11?"
1993: "Rozanne Ridgway prepares shadow government through Department
of State?"
1994: "Joe Giroir promotes solid state gyroscope for Boeing 9/11 war
games?"
1995: "Dr. John McArthur's carbon-credit-kickback model for UN and
World Bank?"
1996: "William Daley becomes U.S. Commerce Secretary after bomb kills
Ron Brown?" 1997: "Maurice Strong bribed by Saddam, sells a seat and a
script for 9/11 war games?"
1998: "John Deutch, disgraced CIA director, prepares WTC#7 as 9/11
command center?
1999: "Mohammad al-Zaibak backs into Boeing and al-Qaeda satellite hub
in Gatineau?" 2000: "Boeing launches Thuraya satellite for use by al-
Qaeda in United Arab Emirates?"
2001: "John Shalikashvili ex-chair US Joint Chiefs of Staff stands
down US Air Force?"

http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/070106.html

[b***@hotmail.com]

DioGuardi & Compnay helping Al Qaeda LAUNDER through corporation ...
FUNDMORE [ ...a laundering company??]

Our Team
We are proud of our Management Team. The Team is composed of several
senior highly experienced and respected financiers, investment
bankers, and legal and industry experts. The Team represents the old
wise experienced and confident executives and the young, talented,
competent and dynamic senior officers. All are equity shareholders in
the Company. A number of our team are presently holding senior
positions with several major investment banks and will join Fundmore
in a timely fashion upon the completion of the First Funding. It is
for this reason that we are unable to mention their names at this
time.

FRED L.H.FARHA
The Founder, President & CEO

Canadian citizen, Prior to founding Fundmore Merchant Bank, Fred was
President and CEO of Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Limited which he
started 1968 in Zurich Switzerland where he spent two years working
with several Swiss banks as a private placement banker, which he later
founded in Canada, by Dominion Charter on the 13th day of August 1971.
Fred is also President and CEO of CENCOR International S.A., Executive
Director of Fundmore International Capital Corporation - FICC and
former Chairman of the Board of Fundmore Capital Management Inc. He
was an early pioneer of several, then unconventional finance models
and products, now recognized as financial engineering, structured
financing, commodity-linked finance, asset-based finance, asset-backed
finance, as well as other unconventional and innovative financing
solutions. Fred is an innovative financial engineer and an authority
on the use of financial instruments and products. He excels in
devising solutions and credit enhancement structures and strategies to
resolve project financing difficulties in the Emerging Markets. He
built the Fundmore group of companies into a global boutique of
financial services and established important contacts and name
recognition in over 85 countries. From the start of his career, he
recognizing the demanding nature of structured financing solutions and
the wide and diversified range of expertise involved and needed to do
the work. Fred developed and cultivated a unique global network of
sourced out "Finance Teams" which can be assembled and put in place at
short notice. These Finance Teams are drawn from over 900 consultants,
industry experts, legal and auditing, trading houses, shipping,
engineering and construction and others. His recent challenges came in
the form of partnership with Karellesprom Holding JSC (Timber
Association of Karelia) and the Government of the Republic of Karelia,
Russian Federation. He became involved in the radical rehabilitation,
reorganization and capitalization of 20 timber harvesting, pulp and
wood processing companies with assets and infrastructure valued at
more than $ 7.650 billion. Over the past 32 years, Fred was involved
in the financing of complex projects including major oil and gas,
power generation, petrochemical plants, property development and
shipping.



The Cofounders


HUGH KENNEDY, LLB
Chief Coordinating Officer and Cofounder

Canadian citizen, resident Senior Vice President and Director of
Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Limited and Director of Fundmore
International Capital Corporation -FICC, a graduate of Ottawa
University Law School class of 1969, was called to the Bar of Ontario
Canada 1971, practiced law as Solicitor & Barrister in the City of
Ottawa Ontario Canada as Partner in the law firm of Bergh, Dioguardi &
Kennedy, prior to resuming his law studies was employed as Account
Executive with the Royal Bank of Canada 1954- 1962,then as Manager of
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 1962- 1963, worked as Commercial Real
Estate Consultant 1985- 1993 and General Manager of Capital Parking
Inc. Starting early 1973 to date, Hugh actively participated with
CENCOR International S.A. and FICC in several major trade finance
projects, assisted in various property development projects and
managed the processing and structuring of several critical financing
instruments in support of loans and credit facilities.



EDWIN REDZEPAGIC
Chief Technology Officer - Cofounder

Edwin worked as the project manager and management consultant at Ernst
and Young and Unisys in the US, UK, Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
The key focus of his role was to promote the use of Information
Technology as an enabler to the business change process in both
developed and emerging markets. For the past 12 years, Edwin primarily
worked in the financial services industry, specialising in the
Brokerage and Investment Banking areas. Edwin' projects include:
UBS Warburg. Edwin worked as the Equities Brokerage programme manager
during the development, testing and regulatory approval of the UBS' e-
banking solution. The system is designed to support the bank's high
net-worth client community and its technical architecture is based on
FIX (Financial Information eXchange), MQ Series, Siebel, BroadVision
and WebSphere environment, as well as the straight-through links to
the German and US exchanges.
Central Bank of Russian Federation. Edwin managed the development and
implementation of a bespoke Electronic Clearing and Settlement system
for the major eastern- European central bank He implemented the system
in nine regional centres and advised the commercial banks on the
electronic interface specification and development.
VneshEconomBank - Russian government bank for foreign trade. Edwin
managed the reconciliation of the external debt of the former Soviet
Union. His team was involved in development and maintenance of a
custom build debt reconciliation system.
Lloyds of London. Edwin designed and implemented the Names liability
and solvency tracking application for a number of Lloyd's Underwriters
in the city of London. This system enabled Wellington, one of the
agents, to become one of the best performing Lloyd's underwriters at
the time.






Chief Financial Officer (CFO) - Cofounder

XXXX - Working with major financial institutions. Several years as
senior executive with major international industrial and utilities
companies, 10 years senior in investment banking, effective role in
preparation for the IPO Floatation & Investment Banking. Participation
in advanced company's strategic financial plans, responsible for
development and implementation of financial systems and control.
Qualified accountant, MBA in finance and other degrees. Knowledge of e-
commerce and Internet.



JAMES N. WUENSCHE
Treasurer and Deputy CFO - Cofounder

American citizen, has over 25 years' experience in financial
management and for the last seven years has directed all aspects of
his management and financial consulting firm, with an emphasis on
startups, turnarounds, corporate structured financings, taxation,
investor relations and corporate communications. Jim provided CFO and
general management consulting services to a wide variety of clients
including medical, manufacturing, publishing, real-estate development,
e-commerce and retail businesses. While serving as Corporate
Treasurer, he was a member of the transition team, which successfully
reorganized The Circle K Corporation. He is a Certified Public
Accountant and member of the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, Arizona Society of CPA's, Treasury Management Association
and is a Diplomate' of the American College of Forensic Accountants.





Accounting Controller & Business Manager - Cofounder

XXXX - Senior director of one of the top six accounting firms. Duties:
will be working with CFO. Supervise and control all accounting matters
of the company. Prepare financial statements and local and
consolidated company's global divisions. Coordinate all accounting
matters and provide supervision of departments and perform other work
assignment special to company's business. XXXX received degrees in
accounting and finance with 5 years work experience with a major
accounting firm. Knowledge of e-commerce and is computer literate.
Director of Project Financing and Models - Cofounder XXXX - Working
with a major American investment bank. Has over 11 years in financial
management, preparation of valuation models, including greenfield
generation projects, contributing to tax, accounting, operational
structuring and legal teams etc. Contributing to other project
structuring models and related work. Prepare financial forecasts and
analysis. Other work assignment special to company's business. He is
the holder of MBA & Masters degree in finance and economics. Previous
experience in financial modelling with advanced Excel skills, previous
project financing experience, previous structured financing
experience, completed an investment banking analyst program.



MATT KINDBOM
Director Investment Banking & Products, Cofounder

Matt Kindbom With a diverse background, Matt has held positions at
HSBC Bank Canada, in private banking in Luxembourg, at the United
Nations in Switzerland and recently at one of Canada's oldest
investment banks, a boutique and top technology underwriter. As such,
Matt is adept at risk management associated with the following:
business operations; company operations; trading and portfolio
operations; and asset management, securities, and administration of
policies and procedures in both large and specialised institutions.
His education is equally broad-based and well rounded, with a focus on
business, banking, and law. He holds an undergraduate degree from
McGill University and two graduate degrees from the University of
Lund, Sweden -- a Master's degree in International Law and a Master's
degree in European Affairs, where his thesis was on international
banking. Having dealt with a wide range of institutional clients,
agencies, and entrepreneurs in a number of transactions, Matt
possesses the analytical tools and creative thinking that investment
banking in the emerging markets demands. Matt is multilingual with
interests in genealogy, SCUBA diving and international politics.





ELENA DENISSENKO
Design Manager - Cofounder


Elena worked in fashion and design industry for a number of years. She
graduated at the Omsk University and worked and lived in Russia, UK
and US. Elena key design contributions include:
Art4deco www.art4deco.com. Elena worked as the chief product and web
designer for a premier on-line gallery, specialising is sale of
Eastern European arts to the western buyers.
Webphotographer www.webphotographer.com Elena worked as the chief
designer for the Stock photography agency, supplying high-resolution
photo images to the Advertising, Media and Corporate Communications
industry. The site is currently being tested and is scheduled to go
live in the summer of 2001.
Diosphere www.diosphere.com. Corporate indentity and website design
for a global business and IT consultancy firm.

Non-executive Directors
SAMUEL COOPER III


Mr. Cooper is an American citizen, a graduate of the Harvard Law
School where he received several academic awards and honours including
a Harvard Law Review Fellowship. He is a proven entrepreneur with an
outstanding track record as a businessman over the past 20 years. In
addition he has over 27 years of corporate, telecommunications and
international law experience including purchases and acquisitions,
business planning, contracts and litigations. He is former Chief
Legislative Counsel to the Federal Communications Commission, former
counsel to the National Cable Television Association, former outside
counsel to CBS on Syndication and Financial interest and former
outside counsel to COMSAT on direct broadcast Satellite systems. He
has been a television broadcast station licensee and the founder of
several successful telecommunications and high tech companies,
including Community Television Network (CTN), Interstellar Media,
Intervox Communications, Bright Spark Technologies and Netsure
Solutions. Mr. Cooper was a member of the Clinton Administration
Transition team where he was responsible for advising the President on
high technology and trade issues. Louis Ruckeyser named him "
Outstanding Businessman of the Year" on Business Journal TV show.


Other Key Officers

They are Colleagues presently occupying senior positions with various
investment banks and financial institutions. They will join Fundmore,
as senior Division Heads, upon the successful completion of the
present phase of development activities:


Merchant Banking & IPO / GDR / M&A

Corporate Finance & Private Placement

Trade Finance & Indemnities

Public Syndication Major

Projects Public Trading,

Auction & Arbitrage Finance

Products Issues/ Offering & Placement

Documentary Credit/Guarantees

Project Finance BOT, BOO and BOOT

Financial Engineering /Structured Finance

Financial Instruments & Products

Tutorial & Advertising

Marketing/Public Relations Manager
PAUL DIOGUARDI, Q.C.
Senior General Legal Counsel


Queen's Counsel, Canadian citizen, for over 26 years Paul has acted as
Senior Legal Advisor to Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Limited and to
FICC, a graduate of St Patrick's College, Ottawa University, Queen's
University and Osgoode Hall Law School, called to the Bar of Ontario
Canada in 1966 and of the Turks& Caicos Islands bar in1983, named a
Queen's Counsel in 1984. His training and experience includes having
formerly been, for several years, Tax Counsel for Revenue Canada (the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) and the Federal Department of
Justice. He has acted for over 22 years as Chief Legal Counsel of the
Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders' Association, in private practice for 36
years from offices in Ottawa Canada and the Turks & Caicos Islands in
all tax matters, real estate and development projects, estate planning
and trusts, international tax law, business and corporate law. He is a
member in good standing of the Carleton County Law Association, the
Law Society of Upper Canada, the Turks & Caicos Bar Association, the
Canadian Tax Foundation and the International Fiscal Association. Paul
is involved in providing guidance and advice to the Fundmore group of
companies.

http://www.fundmoremerchantbank.com/team/team.htm

[b***@hotmail.com]

Post by b***@hotmail.com
DioGuardi & Compnay helping Al Qaeda LAUNDER through corporation ...
FUNDMORE [ ...a laundering company??]
Our Team
We are proud of our Management Team. The Team is composed of several
senior highly experienced and respected financiers, investment
bankers, and legal and industry experts. The Team represents the old
wise experienced and confident executives and the young, talented,
competent and dynamic senior officers. All are equity shareholders in
the Company. A number of our team are presently holding senior
positions with several major investment banks and will join Fundmore
in a timely fashion upon the completion of the First Funding. It is
for this reason that we are unable to mention their names at this
time.
FRED L.H.FARHA
The Founder, President & CEO
Canadian citizen, Prior to founding Fundmore Merchant Bank, Fred was
President and CEO of Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Limited which he
started 1968 in Zurich Switzerland where he spent two years working
with several Swiss banks as a private placement banker, which he later
founded in Canada, by Dominion Charter on the 13th day of August 1971.
Fred is also President and CEO of CENCOR International S.A., Executive
Director of Fundmore International Capital Corporation - FICC and
former Chairman of the Board of Fundmore Capital Management Inc. He
was an early pioneer of several, then unconventional finance models
and products, now recognized as financial engineering, structured
financing, commodity-linked finance, asset-based finance, asset-backed
finance, as well as other unconventional and innovative financing
solutions. Fred is an innovative financial engineer and an authority
on the use of financial instruments and products. He excels in
devising solutions and credit enhancement structures and strategies to
resolve project financing difficulties in the Emerging Markets. He
built the Fundmore group of companies into a global boutique of
financial services and established important contacts and name
recognition in over 85 countries. From the start of his career, he
recognizing the demanding nature of structured financing solutions and
the wide and diversified range of expertise involved and needed to do
the work. Fred developed and cultivated a unique global network of
sourced out "Finance Teams" which can be assembled and put in place at
short notice. These Finance Teams are drawn from over 900 consultants,
industry experts, legal and auditing, trading houses, shipping,
engineering and construction and others. His recent challenges came in
the form of partnership with Karellesprom Holding JSC (Timber
Association of Karelia) and the Government of the Republic of Karelia,
Russian Federation. He became involved in the radical rehabilitation,
reorganization and capitalization of 20 timber harvesting, pulp and
wood processing companies with assets and infrastructure valued at
more than $ 7.650 billion. Over the past 32 years, Fred was involved
in the financing of complex projects including major oil and gas,
power generation, petrochemical plants, property development and
shipping.
The Cofounders
HUGH KENNEDY, LLB
Chief Coordinating Officer and Cofounder
Canadian citizen, resident Senior Vice President and Director of
Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Limited and Director of Fundmore
International Capital Corporation -FICC, a graduate of Ottawa
University Law School class of 1969, was called to the Bar of Ontario
Canada 1971, practiced law as Solicitor & Barrister in the City of
Ottawa Ontario Canada as Partner in the law firm of Bergh, Dioguardi &
Kennedy, prior to resuming his law studies was employed as Account
Executive with the Royal Bank of Canada 1954- 1962,then as Manager of
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 1962- 1963, worked as Commercial Real
Estate Consultant 1985- 1993 and General Manager of Capital Parking
Inc. Starting early 1973 to date, Hugh actively participated with
CENCOR International S.A. and FICC in several major trade finance
projects, assisted in various property development projects and
managed the processing and structuring of several critical financing
instruments in support of loans and credit facilities.
EDWIN REDZEPAGIC
Chief Technology Officer - Cofounder
Edwin worked as the project manager and management consultant at Ernst
and Young and Unisys in the US, UK, Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
The key focus of his role was to promote the use of Information
Technology as an enabler to the business change process in both
developed and emerging markets. For the past 12 years, Edwin primarily
worked in the financial services industry, specialising in the
UBS Warburg. Edwin worked as the Equities Brokerage programme manager
during the development, testing and regulatory approval of the UBS' e-
banking solution. The system is designed to support the bank's high
net-worth client community and its technical architecture is based on
FIX (Financial Information eXchange), MQ Series, Siebel, BroadVision
and WebSphere environment, as well as the straight-through links to
the German and US exchanges.
Central Bank of Russian Federation. Edwin managed the development and
implementation of a bespoke Electronic Clearing and Settlement system
for the major eastern- European central bank He implemented the system
in nine regional centres and advised the commercial banks on the
electronic interface specification and development.
VneshEconomBank - Russian government bank for foreign trade. Edwin
managed the reconciliation of the external debt of the former Soviet
Union. His team was involved in development and maintenance of a
custom build debt reconciliation system.
Lloyds of London. Edwin designed and implemented the Names liability
and solvency tracking application for a number of Lloyd's Underwriters
in the city of London. This system enabled Wellington, one of the
agents, to become one of the best performing Lloyd's underwriters at
the time.
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) - Cofounder
XXXX - Working with major financial institutions. Several years as
senior executive with major international industrial and utilities
companies, 10 years senior in investment banking, effective role in
preparation for the IPO Floatation & Investment Banking. Participation
in advanced company's strategic financial plans, responsible for
development and implementation of financial systems and control.
Qualified accountant, MBA in finance and other degrees. Knowledge of e-
commerce and Internet.
JAMES N. WUENSCHE
Treasurer and Deputy CFO - Cofounder
American citizen, has over 25 years' experience in financial
management and for the last seven years has directed all aspects of
his management and financial consulting firm, with an emphasis on
startups, turnarounds, corporate structured financings, taxation,
investor relations and corporate communications. Jim provided CFO and
general management consulting services to a wide variety of clients
including medical, manufacturing, publishing, real-estate development,
e-commerce and retail businesses. While serving as Corporate
Treasurer, he was a member of the transition team, which successfully
reorganized The Circle K Corporation. He is a Certified Public
Accountant and member of the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, Arizona Society of CPA's, Treasury Management Association
and is a Diplomate' of the American College of Forensic Accountants.
Accounting Controller & Business Manager - Cofounder
will be working with CFO. Supervise and control all accounting matters
of the company. Prepare financial statements and local and
consolidated company's global divisions. Coordinate all accounting
matters and provide supervision of departments and perform other work
assignment special to company's business. XXXX received degrees in
accounting and finance with 5 years work experience with a major
accounting firm. Knowledge of e-commerce and is computer literate.
Director of Project Financing and Models - Cofounder XXXX - Working
with a major American investment bank. Has over 11 years in financial
management, preparation of valuation models, including greenfield
generation projects, contributing to tax, accounting, operational
structuring and legal teams etc. Contributing to other project
structuring models and related work. Prepare financial forecasts and
analysis. Other work assignment special to company's business. He is
the holder of MBA & Masters degree in finance and economics. Previous
experience in financial modelling with advanced Excel skills, previous
project financing experience, previous structured financing
experience, completed an investment banking analyst program.
MATT KINDBOM
Director Investment Banking & Products, Cofounder
Matt Kindbom With a diverse background, Matt has held positions at
HSBC Bank Canada, in private banking in Luxembourg, at the United
Nations in Switzerland and recently at one of Canada's oldest
investment banks, a boutique and top technology underwriter. As such,
business operations; company operations; trading and portfolio
operations; and asset management, securities, and administration of
policies and procedures in both large and specialised institutions.
His education is equally broad-based and well rounded, with a focus on
business, banking, and law. He holds an undergraduate degree from
McGill University and two graduate degrees from the University of
Lund, Sweden -- a Master's degree in International Law and a Master's
degree in European Affairs, where his thesis was on international
banking. Having dealt with a wide range of institutional clients,
agencies, and entrepreneurs in a number of transactions, Matt
possesses the analytical tools and creative thinking that investment
banking in the emerging markets demands. Matt is multilingual ...
read more »

[PDF] airport investor - 6:22pmFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Ltd 5%. Mr Farha is a Canadian citizen,
the founder of Fundmore Merchant Bank, President and. CEO of Fundmore
Corporation ...
www.cate.mmu.ac.uk/documents/Publications/airport%20investors%20monthly.pdf

[b***@hotmail.com]

The Gazette Montreal Monday, March 8, 1976

$37 million contract
Ottawa firm, Saudi prince sign deal

OTTAWA - (CP) - Fred Farha tried last year to expand from his Ottawa-
based real estate development business to form a Canadian-Arab
development consortium that would - for a fee - assist member compa-
nies in making business deals in the oil-rich Arab states.

But there were few takers. Farha, a 41-year-old Lebanese-born Canadian
with experience in the interna-tional money markets, said Canadian
companies were not convinced they could crack the Arab market. So the
consortium concept was "put on ice" and Farha went looking for
opportunities for his own Fundmore Corp. (Canada) Ltd. Saudi Arabia
was chosen as the prime target after several scouting trips during
which business contracts were made and renewed.

Last week, Farha and two associates returned with a $37 million
contract for the design and construction of a group of apartment
buildings in Riyadh, the Saudi Arabian capital.

They believe it is the first major deal obtained by a Canadian company
in the Arab world, with the exception of consulting contracts. Under
the contract, Fundmore and several associated Ontario construction and
design companies will build a 350-unit housing unit, for Prince Dandar
Bin Muhammad Bin Abdul-Rahman A-Saud, nephew of the Saudi king. It
will feature 10 buildings of six storeys grouped around a swimming
pool and shopping arcade. Construction is to begin Aug. 1 with
completion planned for October, 1978.

The turnkey project, in which the Canadian companies will be
responsible for all detailsm will involve importing 150 skilled
workers from other countries and the hiring of about x50 local
laborers. Temporary recreation and housing facilities for the imported
workers are include a swimming pool and billiard tables.

In addition, Fundmore and the companies working with it will buy and
transport to Riyadh about $3 million worth of equipment, "everything
from pencils to bulldozers."

Farha said the equipment investment is being made with the conviction
that other contracts will follow. He said offers to design and build
two hotels and a shopping centre were declined on the recent trip so
the company could concentrate on "making a first-class show" of the
apartments.

Previously, the six-year-old Fundmore Corp. and three other companies
in the Farha Group have won contracts for designing, building,
managing and arranging financing for residential, commercial and
industrial projects in Canada, the United States and Caribbean
countries.

Farha is convinced the potential for Canadian companies in the Arab
world is enormous, and he hopes success of his own companies in Saudi
Arabia will generate faith in the concept of the Canadian-Arab
development consortium.

Business opportunities are currently being lost to British, French,
German and Japanese firms who have financial help from their
governments.

Farha said Canadian companies should receive subsidies from the
government to compete for contracts in Arab states.

What the companies need , the most, however, is assistance in locating
business opportunities and in Arab negotiating met odd, language and
culture.

Farha said the development consortium could provide this assistance.
He admitted to having an edge on other Canadians with hit background
in and knowledge of the Arab world - he writes and speaks Arabic - and
business contacts from two years of arranging private financing for
projects on the international money market in Zurich, Switzerland.

The Fundmore contract was negotiated promptly over a four-day weekend,
in sessions that included lamb feasts.
The CITIZEN Ottawa, Friday, March 5,1976
Daily Commercial News, and Construction Record Thursday, March 11,1976
GREECE'S WEEKLY September 19, 1988

http://www.fundmoremerchantbank.com/press/2thegazette.htm

[b***@hotmail.com]

BOT Projects Financing
For the Emerging Markets BOT, BOO and BOOT are the most attractive
financing model because of the inherent "No recourse" or "limited
recourse" features, which are of special importance to the economies
of the Emerging Markets requiring large capital to develop essential
infrastructure projects without increasing their national debit
burden. We plan to depart from the present practice of depending on
multinational utilities and other sponsors of BOT type projects by
creating the right conditions for the participation of equity
investors and fund managers. We will initially be involved in the
following
Projects:

Power Generation

Oil & Gas

Mining & Natural Resources

Ports & Airports

Bridges and Highways

http://www.fundmoremerchantbank.com/services/bot.htm

The above says it all -- oh canada = oh Al Qaeda !!!

No wonder their site [with help from DioGuardi] keeps stating
"CANADIAN citizen" after each mug shot of Fundmore Merchant Baners
'board of directors/owners' -- to give the ILLUSION that they born
here in the geographical location called "Canada". Nice trick
DioGuardi pulled on this one -- just like his 'amnesty" trick when in
FACT he talking PARDON - guilty!!! Only a SLICK, SLIMY lawyer can pull
this off. This Fundmore Merchant Bank connection is starting to make
more sense to moi. :)

Buddie

Buddie

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by b***@hotmail.com
Interesting that Paul DIOGUARDI, QC on ReportOnBusiness Television
[ROBtv for short] has some running commercials about TAX AMNESTY and
that HIS company are best suited to "PROTECT" you against from the CRA
[ugly bitch of a sister of the IRS]...since, according to him in one
"Your accountant can be forced to testify against you."
Now...WHY is it that THIS lawyer IS IMPLYING that HE will NOT be
forced to TESTIFY AGAINST YOU -- YET an ACCOUNTANT IS?? WHAT KIND OF
DEAL DO LAWYERS HAVE WITH THE CRA...hmmmm? I thought ALL people ARE
EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. So what $WEET DEAL does DioGuardi have
that OTHERS are NOT allowed to have?
http://www.fundmoremerchantbank.com/team/team.htm
PAUL DIOGUARDI, Q.C.
Senior General Legal Counsel
Queen's Counsel, Canadian citizen, for over 26 years Paul has acted as
Senior Legal Advisor to Fundmore Corporation (Canada) Limited and to
FICC, a graduate of St Patrick's College, Ottawa University, Queen's
University and Osgoode Hall Law School, called to the Bar of Ontario
Canada in 1966 and of the Turks& Caicos Islands bar in1983, named a
Queen's Counsel in 1984. His training and experience includes having
formerly been, for several years, Tax Counsel for Revenue Canada (the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) and the Federal Department of
Justice. He has acted for over 22 years as Chief Legal Counsel of the
Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders' Association, in private practice for 36
years from offices in Ottawa Canada and the Turks & Caicos Islands in
all tax matters, real estate and development projects, estate planning
and trusts, international tax law, business and corporate law. He is a
member in good standing of the Carleton County Law Association, the
Law Society of Upper Canada, the Turks & Caicos Bar Association, the
Canadian Tax Foundation and the International Fiscal Association. Paul
is involved in providing guidance and advice to the Fundmore group of
companies.
-----
PRIVILEGE. A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a
person, company, or class beyond the common advantage of other
citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A right,
power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class against or
beyond the course of the law.........
[page 1359 of BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY - FOURTH EDITION]
Interesting also that the DioGuardi site states "AMNESTY"
http://www.taxamnesty.ca/ -- yet at the end of their telephone #
before they had the word "2PARDON"[1-877-2-PARDON].
"PARDON' implies GUILT -- but "AMNESTY' means AMNESIA --
forgetfullness of the offence. Interesting this SCAM DioGuardi has
going.LOL ..Trust a lawyer to come up with the word AMNESTY for their
site and then they fuck their clients with PARDON!!! This is one of
many posts I posted re DioGuardi DECEITFUL advertising in 2005 at
Yahoo's NT forum --
...and now I see that DioGuardi changed their phone # now to 1-877-
TaxRx-02.LOL
[ < Previous | Next > [ First | Last | Msg List ] Msg #: Reply
Recommend this Post Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Tax AMNESTY vs. Tax PARDON
by: buddiebuddiee
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 09/21/05 03:19 pm
Msg: 728235 of 728271
DioGuardi and their commercials -- ALL LIES and the FCC ALLOWS them to
be aired. Go figure. The FUCKING ASSHOLE DIMWITS!!!
The LYING laywer does NOT define the TRUE MEANING of the word
"AMNESTY" -- which does NOT mean GUILT like PARDON does, according to
THEIR OWN BLOODY LAW dictionary --
"Legally, amnesty differs from pardon in that pardon implies guilt,
whereas amnesty does not. Amnesty is the abolition and forgetfullness
of the offence."
[Page 18 of Canadian LAW Dictionary - BARRON's]
And here's this f'ing lawyer LYING through his teeth RIGHT ON TV --
using the word "AMNESTY" -- and then has the phone # as
"-2PARDON"...HIS SITE SHOULD BE
taxPARDON.ca and NOT taxAMNESTY.ca
FUCKING PRICKS!!!! ]
----------
AMNESTY An act of oblivion for past acts, granted by a government to
persons accused of crimes generally of a political nature, e.g.,
treason, sedition, desertion. Legally, amnesty differs from pardon in
that pardon implies guilt, whereas amnesty does not. Amnesty is the
abolition and forgetfullness of the offence.
[Page 18 of Canadian LAW Dictionary - BARRON's ]
Amnesty (Page: 49)
Am"nes*ty (#), n. [L. amnestia, Gr. , a forgetting, fr. forgotten,
forgetful; priv. + to remember: cf. F. amnistie, earlier amnestie. See
Mean, v.]
1. Forgetfulness; cessation of remembrance of wrong; oblivion.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=amnesty&use1913=on
-------------
And then here's a chartared accountant who calls DioGuardi & compnay
LIARS...LOL
Voluntary Disclosure
One Canadian law firm runs a 51/2" by 31/2"
advertisement in the newspaper six times a week.
Each ad is addressed to individual taxpayers who
presumably have earned income over the years and
have failed to report it on their personal income tax
returns. Should this fact ever come to the attention
of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), they face a
large income tax liability for sure and perhaps equal
or greater amounts in penalties and/or interest.
The lawyers promise to "clean up your (income)
tax problem with no criminal prosecution, no financial
penalties, interest relief, and (a) possible waiver
of tax for some years". They term this package
to be an Income Tax Amnesty and refer the reader
to their website where he is advised to "come
clean" sooner rather than later and fess up to the
undeclared income through the services of their
firm.
While it may be in the taxpayer's best interest to
approach the income tax authorities via
experienced professionals who can negotiate on their
behalf, the reference to this process as an amnesty is
somewhat misleading. The dictionary definition of
"amnesty" defines the term as "official pardon" or
"forgiveness" or "reprieve". These words imply that
the taxpayer will disclose his dealings to the CRA
and they will permit him to escape any income tax
liability that would normally be associated with these
earnings.
Nothing is further from the truth!! The fact of the
matter is that they are leading their clients to CRA's
"Voluntary Disclosure" program, a reporting
mechanism that has been in existence for over thirty
years. Under this program, taxpayers come forward
to the income tax authorities and provide full and
accurate information, including complete
documentation, concerning income that has not
been disclosed or has been under-reported on at
least one personal income tax return.
The only caveat is that the taxpayer must not have
been previously notified that his affairs were under
investigation by the CRA or any other authority
with which they have an information exchange
agreement, such as the RCMP or a regional police
department.
If these conditions apply, the taxpayer then declares
his previously un- or under reported income and
becomes liable for the taxes. The savings, as
correctly pointed out in the advertisement, are in the
penalties and interest that have been waived through
prior negotiation with the Agency. And these can
often be equal or greater than the actual income
taxes themselves.
Compliments of Campbell Lawless
Professional Corporation
Chartered Accountants
8 King Street East, Suite 900
Toronto, Ontario M5C 1B9
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
http://www.canadianmoneysaver.ca/resource_center/homepg_articles/Voluntary%20Disclosure.htm
-----
BUT...wait!!! The legalese pricks have made ANOTHER word up to PROTECT
their assholes!!
...the word is Advertising 'PUFFERY"
http://www.dcpress.com/jmb/page60.htm
Marketing Implications of the FTC's View of Puffery and Vulnerable
Consumers
Introduction
Puffery is a tool marketers use in advertising and sales to enhance
their products. Despite recent threats to regulate puffery by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), puffery continues to be practiced by
advertisers and salespeople. Because of the characteristics of the
marketplace, vulnerable consumers are a group that may be harmed by
the use of puffery. In this non-empirical paper, the authors will
examine past research concerning puffery and consumers' perceptions of
its use. The authors will then review past research regarding
vulnerable consumers and how they may be harmed by puffery. The
authors will make recommendations to marketers concerning the use of
puffery relative to vulnerable consumers. Finally, the limitations of
this paper and opportunities for future research will be explored.
Puffery
The roots of puffery are generally traced back to the sixteenth
century when caveat emptor (buyer beware) became the rule of business.
The consumerism movement of the twentieth century has helped protect
consumers in many areas, but puffery for the most part has proceeded
unabated (Preston, 1996).
This paper will use the definition of puffery espoused by Preston
(1996),
...the marketplace term for what elsewhere would simply be called an
opinion statement, expressing the seller's evaluation of the
advertised item. However, it also involves an added feature that does
not apply outside the marketplace. By legal definition, puffery claims
praise the advertised item by using subjective terms, stating no facts
explicitly, and thus representing no factual content to consumers and
so creating no basis for them to believe anything about the item that
would affect their purchasing decision (p. 12).
The FTC Deception Policy Statement (1983) emphasizes that deception
must contain three elements. First, it, "must be a representation,
omission, or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer" (p. 4).
The concept of deception in advertising is generally thought to mean
anything that is false or misleading. More specifically, claims that
are misleading only need to encourage consumers, but not actually
cause consumers to act in ways that may hurt themselves. (Hyman,
1990). The FTC, however, defines deceptive advertising in terms of
whether or not potentially deceitful advertising advocates behavior in
which consumers would not otherwise engage (Nebenzahl & Jaffe, 1998).
Carson, Wokutch, and Cox (1985) examined the definitions of deception
as applied to advertising. They determined that advertising is
deceptive "if it causes a significant percentage of potential
consumers (i.e., those at whom it is directed or whose consumption
behavior is likely to be influenced by it) to have false beliefs about
the product" (p. 96). This definition still leaves open the question
of what makes up a significant percentage of potential consumers
(Carson, Wokutch, & Cox, 1985).
For the second element, the deceptive "act or practice must be
considered from the perspective of the reasonable consumer" (FTC
Deception Policy Statement, 1983). Puffery is generally defended by
suggesting that reasonable consumers will not believe puffery when
exposed to it. The theory is that a reasonable consumer is too savvy
or intelligent to believe a puff (Preston, 1996). The definition of a
reasonable consumer will be addressed later in the paper as it applies
to vulnerable consumers. The FTC's Commercial Code prohibits
advertisers from deceiving consumers in advertising. Historically the
FTC has ruled that puffery is not deceptive (Ross, 1996).
The third element for a statement to be considered deceptive is that
"the representation, omission or practice must be material" (FTC
Deception Policy Statement, 1983). Richards and Preston (1992) comment
that until 1991, the issue of materiality in deceptive advertising
cases had not been raised. If this material aspect of puffery is
pursued more often in legal proceedings it could be damaging for
advertisers, "Presumptions of materiality have the effect of shifting
the burden of proof to the advertiser. Because this shift entails
proving a negative, it is nearly impossible for advertisers to bear
that burden" (Richards & Preston, 1992, p. 55).
Recently the FTC has started to consider widening the definition of an
express warranty (Kent, 1996). This widening of the definition would
force advertisers to prove claims that they make. The Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) is being changed to make the definition of
warranty more inclusive of claims that are now considered puffery
(American Law Institute, 1996).
Often advertisers use clever literary devices to mislead or deceive
consumers. Metonymy associates the meanings of products with their
users (Stern, 1992). For example, alcohol advertisements that show the
consumers of these products surrounded by affluent people and things,
suggest that those who consume their product can also be these
beautiful people and have these things (Berger, 1989).
Irony is another literary tool that advertisers use to deceive
consumers. Words with more than one meaning can fool consumers into
believing something about a product that may not be true (Stern,
1992). Chanel skin crème used the line, "We don't say Lift Serum is a
miracle, but others may think so." The double meaning here is that the
product cannot perform miracles-or can it? The advertising is leading
the reader to believe that some who use the cream may think so (Stern,
1990).
Other advertising has used absurdism to attempt to persuade consumers.
Absurd language uses terms devoid of meaning and lets consumers
determine the meaning for themselves (Cohen, 1974; Ford & Calfee,
1986). The Joe Camel advertising is often cited as an example of this
absurd use of images. A cartoon animal smoking, surrounded by others
having a good time attracts people's attention because of its
absurdity (Stern, 1992).
Despite the fact that the FTC has not yet proclaimed puffery to be
deceitful, research indicates that puffery can be deceitful. A number
of studies suggest that large numbers of consumers do believe puffed
up claims made by advertisers (Bruskin Report, 1971; Preston 1996;
Rotfeld, 1997; Rotfeld & Rotzoll, 1980; Shimp, 1978).
The marketing research firm of R.H. Bruskin (Bruskin Report, 1971)
asked consumers to rank claims in advertising as "completely true,"
"partly true," or "not true at all." A sampling of the results
indicate that 64 percent of the consumers surveyed believed that Coca-
Cola's claim of "It's the Real Thing" is true or partly true. Minute
Rice's statement that it makes "Perfect rice everytime" was perceived
as being completely true by 43 percent of those asked and partly true
by another 30 percent of the participants in the survey (p. 17).
Another study (Shimp, 1978) examined whether consumers draw
implications about incomplete comparatives made concerning product
claims. In one example, when asked to analyze the claim, "Mennen E
goes on warmer and drier," over 50 percent said that this claim either
"directly stated" or "intended, but not stated" that "Mennen E goes on
warmer and drier than any other deodorant on the market" (p. 105).
The Rotfeld and Rotzoll (1980) study showed videotapes of five
commercials to over 100 consumers, 85 percent of whom had attended
college. Almost 70 percent of those in the study had undergraduate
degrees and 15 percent had post-graduate degrees. This would suggest
that this is a group of reasonable consumers, "A less well-educated
sample probably would believe puffery claims even more" (p. 20).
The participants were asked about the literal and implied messages in
the commercials. Of the group exposed to the video tapes, "puffery
claims for the five commercials were perceived and believed by 39.6
percent of the respondents while puffery implied claims averaged only
11.4 percent belief" (Rotfeld & Rotzoll, 1980, p. 19).
Sometimes advertisers argue that consumers know that advertising is
untrue as a legal defense. For years cigarette manufacturers have
routinely argued that the dangers of their product are not fully known
to them. Yet when challenged in recent liability cases, the cigarette
industry has claimed that reasonable consumers know that cigarettes
are harmful. They appear to be admitting to less than truthful claims
in their advertising (Rotfeld, 1997).
Of course if puffery did not work, marketers would not use it. Preston
(1996) argues this point,
Puffery is endemic in American salesmanship, practically the soul and
substance of the American way of selling. The industry's conviction
that puffery works is proof enough for me that it does, because I have
great admiration for the expertise of the advertising profession (p.
24, 25).
According to the sources cited above, puffery is a key component of
the American
way of selling and is believed by a substantial number of consumers
(including those with above average education). If this is the case,
what are the dangers for vulnerable consumers who are exposed to
advertising that contains puffery?
The following section will discuss vulnerable consumers and why they
present special problems for marketers. Specific vulnerable consumer
groups will be identified. In the following section vulnerable
consumers will be discussed, as well as why they may be deceived by
puffery.
Vulnerable Consumers
Some consumers are more likely than others to be harmed by deceitful
advertising. These consumers are often referred to as vulnerable
consumers. The vulnerability of consumers can be permanent or
temporary and may change with time (Goodin, 1985).
Society believes that vulnerable consumers need to be protected in the
marketplace. If vulnerable consumers are not protected, they may
possibly be cheated in market transactions. They are generally
vulnerable because of some condition that they cannot control, such as
age, race, or gender. These uncontrollable conditions may result in
vulnerable consumers making harmful choices in the marketplace
(Andreasen, 1993).
Because of the limited ability of the vulnerable to participate in
market activities, Brenkert (1998) argues that it is immoral for
marketers to aim their promotional efforts at these vulnerable
the physically vulnerable, cognitively vulnerable, motivationally
vulnerable, and socially vulnerable (Brenkert, 1998).
Physically vulnerable consumers are unable to use products on the
market because of the products' physical characteristics, such as an
allergic reaction (Brenkert, 1998). Physical vulnerability can also
include consumers with other types of disabilities that are covered by
the Americans with Disabilities Act. It may include the diminishing
visual, auditory, and motor skill functions often associated with the
aging process (Morgan & Schuller, 1985).
Motivationally vulnerable consumers are unable to resist certain
temptations because of their circumstances. A parent in a store with
an unruly child may find it difficult not to give in to the demands of
the child (Brenkert, 1998).
Social situations which make consumers more likely to purchase certain
products are included in the socially vulnerable category (Brenkert,
1998). Similar to this are vulnerable consumers who are not
sophisticated enough to avoid making purchase decisions that are
harmful, "These consumers may be gullible when encountering spurious
or questionable claims about products or services" (Morgan & Schuller,
1995).
The final category of vulnerable consumers according to Brenkert
(1998) is that of cognitively vulnerable consumers. These consumers do
not have the ability to understand the promotional information being
presented to them. Children, the elderly, and the uneducated are the
most obvious examples of this group (Brenkert, 1998). Morgan and
Schuler (1995) include those with information processing difficulties
such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder in this group.
The conditions surrounding vulnerable consumers can contribute to
their susceptibility to unscrupulous marketers. The nature of some
products may make them more dangerous for vulnerable consumers (Morgan
& Schuller, 1995). For example, alcohol and tobacco are products that
certain types of vulnerable consumers may be exposed to that could
hurt them in a number of ways (Patterson, Hunnicut, & Stutts, 1992).
How often the product is used is another issue for vulnerable
consumers. The more often a vulnerable consumer is exposed to a
product, the more likely (s)he is to suffer harm. Also the time
sensitivity of promotional efforts may confuse vulnerable consumers
(Morgan & Schuller, 1995). A salesperson who insists that a price
being offered for a product is only good for today may be dismissed by
a reasonable consumer as puffery, but may be believed by one who is
more vulnerable.
Finally, other temporary situations may occur when a vulnerable
consumer is forced to make a decision about a product without the help
of a trusted advisor or without the information needed to make a
rational choice on her/his own. Marketers need to be careful not to
take advantage of consumers in these situations (Morgan & Schuller,
1995).
All of these vulnerable consumers are less able to defend themselves
from misleading or deceitful attempts by marketers to influence their
purchase behavior. Often they are not aware that they are not able to
defend themselves. This makes them a very susceptible group of
consumers (Brenkert, 1998).
Andreasen (1993) comments that the characteristics of vulnerable
consumers and marketers' behavior towards them have changed in recent
years. More marketers are willing to take advantage of vulnerable
consumers than in the past, "...merchants who will take advantage of the
lack of mobility of the disadvantaged consumers ...charge exorbitant
prices for products...unconscionable interest rates and...trick the
elderly" have increased (p. 271).
The definition of vulnerable consumers has recently broadened to
include those who are physically handicapped and minorities who are
recent immigrants. Historically the vulnerable consumer group included
the poor, racial minorities, children and the elderly. This increase
in who is included complicates the issues involved in dealing with
vulnerable consumers (Andreasen, 1993).
It is the ethical duty of marketers to not take advantage of consumers
who are in these vulnerable groups. To do so would violate the ethical
principle of preventing harm to consumers and potential consumers
(American Marketing Association, 1998). Brenkert (1998) states, "...any
marketing to the vulnerable cannot morally be undertaken in a way
which trades upon their vulnerabilities" ( p. 522).
Lippke (1989) also argues that persuasive advertising can erode the
autonomy of the consumers' decision-making ability. He believes that
advertising suppresses the autonomy of the buyer. Persuasive
advertising discourages consumers from using their cognitive skills to
make a rational purchasing decision (Lippke, 1989).
The message that advertisers frequently send to consumers is that
their products can solve consumers' problems. Lippke (1989)
elaborates, "What could be more inviting than a life that demands so
little beyond ease and gratification (especially to children, who are
less attuned to the values of self-control and delayed
gratification)?" (p. 46).
Vulnerable Consumers and Reasonable Consumers
As the past research cited in this paper indicates, puffery is a
practice that has been for the most part left alone because the FTC
believes it does not deceive reasonable consumers (Preston, 1996). The
FTC, however, has not discussed the effects of puffery on those who
are not reasonable consumers.
Because consumers who are considered vulnerable are unable to protect
themselves as other consumers do against puffery (Andreasen, 1993), it
appears that vulnerable consumers are not considered to be reasonable
according to the standards set by the FTC (FTC Deception Policy,
1983). If vulnerable consumers are not considered reasonable, what
responsibility do marketers have to protect these vulnerable consumers
from puffery? What responsibility does society have, if any, to
protect vulnerable consumers from puffery?
The FTC's concept of a reasonable consumer has evolved over the years
through a number of court cases and rulings. It generally has
established that most people, but not all, are to be protected, "The
FTC does not go so far as to prohibit the deceptiveness that involves
only a few consumers. It works under the constraint that it may
proceed only when its action involves a sufficient degree of public
interest" (Preston, 1996).
This is a far cry from the ignorant consumer standard that the FTC
followed until the 1960s. Since the 1960s the standard has been
relaxed in favor of sellers, "...It (the FTC) clearly rejects a strict
ignorant person standard that would protect everyone from everything
that would deceive them" (Preston, 1996).
If vulnerable consumers are not reasonable consumers, many of them are
likely to fall prey to the false or misleading claims made in
advertising that reasonable consumers may reject as puffery, and thus
unbelievable (Andreasen, 1993). What then can marketers generally, and
advertisers and salespeople, more specifically, do to minimize the
harm caused by the puffery to which vulnerable consumers are exposed?
The following section will make recommendations to address this
question.
Recommendations
It is probably impossible for marketers to protect vulnerable
consumers from all puffery and all of the other marketing efforts that
may harm them. There are, however, some measures that marketers can
take to attempt to protect vulnerable consumers from puffery and other
types of potentially harmful marketing efforts.
First, marketers should be careful when choosing target markets. Past
efforts by companies to target vulnerable consumers have been
scrutinized by consumer groups and government agencies (i.e., Moon,
1990; Benet, Pitts, & La Tour, 1993; Sautter & Oretskin). Companies
have been criticized for targeting vulnerable consumers for products
that are both good and bad for consumers (Smith & Cooper-Martin,
1997).
Marketers that have aimed harmful products such as tobacco and alcohol
at vulnerable groups of consumers such as women and minorities are the
most visible examples of marketing campaigns targeted to vulnerable
consumers. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) was chastised for its
product, Uptown, because it was marketed to African-American smokers.
RJR later introduced Dakota brand cigarettes. This product was aimed
at young, poorly educated, blue collar, white females. Both of these
efforts were denounced for targeting a vulnerable group of consumers
(Smith & Cooper-Martin, 1997).
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set guidelines concerning
the targeting of children for certain harmful products (Smith & Cooper-
Martin, 1997). The FDA has also made attempts at protecting adults
with respect to their consumption of gambling (Clotfelter & Cook,
1989) as well as alcohol and tobacco as noted above. With this
interest by the government, consumer groups, and the public at large
to protect vulnerable consumers, it would appear that it would be in
the best interest of marketers to avoid aiming their marketing
efforts, especially deceptive or puffed advertising, at these
vulnerable consumers (Geyelin, 1995).
A second recommendation is aimed at salespeople who work with
vulnerable consumers. Because of the fact that salespeople work with
no close supervision (Dubinsky, Howell, & Bellenger, 1986), they may
have the greatest opportunity to take advantage of vulnerable
consumers.
Salespeople who make a living selling to vulnerable consumers need to
refrain from using puffery to sell their products. Pitts and La Tour
(1993) state that some marketers use fear appeal to influence older
consumers. The use of salespeople by the elderly to help fulfill
social needs make them an inviting target for unscrupulous salespeople
(Kang & Ridgway, 1996). Their sometimes limited cognitive abilities
make them even more likely to believe puffed statements made by a
salesperson (John & Cole, 1986; Andreasen, 1993).
Finally, the most important recommendation to marketers is to do what
they can to be aware of vulnerable consumers who may be exposed to the
puffs that the company communicates in its promotional materials.
Attempts by marketers to take a more ethical and honest approach to
protecting vulnerable consumers may prevent government and consumer
groups from needing to prohibit the activities of marketers aimed at
these consumers.
Limitations and Future Research
The connections between puffery and vulnerable consumers outlined
above are made based on past research and have not been empirically
tested. No empirical research has been conducted on the effects of
puffery on vulnerable consumers. As is evident from the research in
this paper, the FTC has done little to address the issues of puffery
as it applies to vulnerable consumers.
Future research needs to be done to examine how vulnerable consumers
respond to puffery. It is important to see if these vulnerable
consumers really are more susceptible than other consumers to the
claims made by puffery. Also the negative effects of puffery on
vulnerable consumers should be investigated. What harm does puffery
cause for vulnerable consumers?
Further research in these areas can provide guidance for marketers who
deal with vulnerable consumers. The additional research can also guide
lawmakers and consumer groups implementing policies that protect
vulnerable consumers and are also fair to marketers. Hopefully this
paper will encourage this empirical research to begin.
References
American Law Institute (1996). Uniform commercial code. Fourteenth
edition, section 2- 13.
American Marketing Association (1998). American marketing association
code of ethics. In L. P. Hartman (Ed.), Perspectives in Business
Ethics (pp. 502-504). Chicago. Irwin/McGraw Hill.
Andreasen, A. R. (1993). Revisiting the disadvantaged: Old lessons and
new problems. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12, 270-275.
Benet, S., Pitts, R. E., & La Tour, M. (1993). The appropriateness of
fear appeal use for health care marketing to the elderly: Is it ok to
scare granny? Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 1, 45-58.
Berger, A. A. (1989). Seeing is believing: An introduction to visual
communication. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Brenkert, G. (1998) Marketing and the vulnerable. In L. P. Hartman
(Ed.), Perspectives in Business Ethics (pp. 515-526). Chicago. Irwin/
McGraw Hill.
Bruskin Report (1971). No. 40, New Brunswick, NJ.
Carson, T. L., Wokutch, R. E. & Cox, J. E. (1985). An ethical analysis
of deception in advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, (1985),
93-104.
Clotfelter, C. T. & Cook, P. J. (1989). Selling hope: State lotteries
in america. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, D. (1974). The concept of unfairness as it relates to
advertising legislation. Journal of Marketing, 38, (July), 8-13.
Ford, G. T. & Calfee, J. E. (1986). Recent developments in ftc policy
on deception. Journal of Marketing, 50 (July), 82-103.
FTC Deception Policy Statement (1983). World Wide Web: www.webcom.com/
lewrose/decptionpol.html
Geyelin, M. (1995). Limits on cigarette billboard upheld. The Wall
Street Journal, (September 7).
Goodin, R. E. (1985). Protecting the vulnerable. Chicago. The
University of Chicago Press.
Hyman, M. (1990). Deception in advertising: A proposed complex of
definitions for researchers, lawyers, and regulators. International
Journal of Advertising, 9, 259-270.
John, D. R. & Cole, C. A. (1986). Age differences in information
processing: Understanding deficits in young and elderly consumers.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, (December), 297-310.
Kang, Y. S. & Ridgway, N. M. (1996). The importance of consumer market
interactions as a form of social support for elderly consumers.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, l15, 1, 108-117.
Kent, F. H. (1996). What is "puffery?" The New York Law Journal
(December 20), 18-20.
Lippke, R. L. (1989). Advertising and the social conditions of
autonomy. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 8, 4, 35-55.
Moon, M. (1990). Consumer issues and the elderly. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 24, 2, 235-244.
Morgan, F. W. & Schuler, D. K. (1995). A framework for examining the
legal status of vulnerable consumers. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 14, 2, 267-277.
Nebenzahl, I. D. and Jaffe, E. D. (1998). Ethical dimensions of
advertising executions. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 7, 805-814.
Patterson, L. T., Hunnicut, G. G., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Young
adults' perceptions of warnings and risks associated with alcohol
consumption. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11, 1, 96-103.
Preston, I. L. (1997). Regulatory positions toward advertising puffery
of the uniform commercial code and the federal trade commission.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 61, 2, 336-351.
Preston, I. L. (1996). The Great american blowup: Puffery in
advertising and selling (Rev. ed.). Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
Preston. I. L. & Richards, J. I. (1992). Proving and disproving
materiality of deceptive advertising claims. Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, 11, 2, 45-56.
Ross, C. (1996). Marketers fend off shift in rules for ad puffery.
Advertising Age (February 19), 41.
Rotfeld, H. (1997). When firms admit their promotions are false.
Marketing News, 31, 24, 13.
Rotfeld, H. J. & Rotzoll, K. B. (1980). Is advertising puffery to be
believed? Journal of Advertising, 10, 16-20.
Sautter, E. T. & Oretskin, N. A. (1997). Tobacco targeting: The
ethical complexity of marketing to minorities. Journal of Business
Ethics, 16, 10, 1011-1017.
Shimp, T. A. (1987). Do incomplete comparisons mislead? Journal of
Advertising Research, 18, 21-27.
Smith, N, C. & Cooper-Martin, E. (1997). Ethics and target marketing.
Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 3, 1-20.
Stern, B. B. (1992). "Crafty advertisers": Literary versus literal
deceptiveness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11, 1, 72-81.
Rhetorical irony as a humor technique. In (J. Leigh and C. R. Martin,
Eds.), Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 12. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan

listen, the dioguardi are my mom`s cousin. you are putting everyone in the same boat, humiliating our italian roots. they worked hard to be lawyers, you are simply jealous, and italians are use to that, we laugh at that.

written stays, words flies ...

pier waters