Tupperware, Les Stewart, CAFO and freedoms, 1

Franchise freedom of speech and association in Canada, circa 2004.

Two pages of a Record of Motion filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by Michael Shell and Drazen Bulat on behalf of their client, Tupperware Canada Inc. on September 23, 2004.

– and-I voluntarily closed down the “TupperWars” section of CAFO‘s website in response to this challenge (see context). This happened days after we (for the first time) sent out a series of emails to U.S. franchisees/distributors.

We received zero requests to stop the emails from franchise investors.

3 Responses to Tupperware, Les Stewart, CAFO and freedoms, 1

  1. Carol Cross says:

    Certainly true that the franchisors and the special interests who control them understand that the threat of legal action will silence any perceived negative coverage of their BRAND or negative coverage of this exploitive model of doing business, i.e. “franchising.” .

    Who can afford to fight BIG franchising and its power base? –when it appears that all three branches of government support the FLAW in disclosure. And, any attack on any BRAND business is interpreted by “the powers that be” as an attack on franchising and the franchise model of doing business.

    It would be interesting to know whether or not the CNBC Research people understood that they would be “opening a can of worms” when they developed negative coverage of this big BRAND in their documentary about franchising! The portrayal of “good” and “bad” franchisors just further covers up the FLAW in the FTC Rule that permits all franchisors to commit torts and fraud, as necessary, against prospective franchisees under cover of flawed regulation of the sale of the franchise.

    Robert Zarco, who represents franchisees, is certainly aware of the FLAW in the FTC Rule governing the sale of franchises to the public and aware of the fact that the 50% of franchisees who will fail are routinely silenced in failure to protect the 50% who survive and who are then necessarily allied with the franchisor in their own interests.

    Robert Zarco knows that when the attorneys for the franchisors go to court, the survivors in the franchise system stand before the judge in support of the brand franchisor, even though they don’t actually physically appear in the courtroom.

    The CNBC-Robert Zarco scenario demonstrates that the dishonest regulation of the sale of franchises to the public, which has become accepted public policy, will not be disclosed to the public by CNBC. Or, would CNBC be willing to open this can of worms?

    Any bets?



  2. Les Stewart says:


    It appears inevitable.

    “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall – Think of it, always.” Mahatma Gandhi

    The most informed insiders are voting with their feet while they proclaim they were “with you in spirit” from the beginning. The original enemy were these indirect champions of tyranny (ie. those who write/argue for $, irrespective of truth Northrop Frye/Blake).

    These sopihist gatekeepers held the monopoly on coercive power (via the Courts) but WikiLeaks has shown it is now reputation management via document indexing.

    The champions of tyranny have been flushed out.



  3. Carol Cross says:

    Yes! But WikiLeaks pays a price for leaking and it appears that the preponderance of the public prefers to be spectators and are not willing to judge and/or take an objective look at the “message” that is leaked and actually think about the purpose of the leak! The leaker indicates that the purpose of the leak is ” to unmask coercive power that works against the interests of the masses.” Those who are the subject(s) of the leak(s) fight back by saying that the “leaks themselves” work against the interests of the masses?? But! Thank God, the Internet is not regulated — as yet!

    While there were brave supporters of WikiLeaks like Michael Moore, who will stand up for principle, most of the public is willing to stand by and let the “wave makers” and “whistle blowers” be punished and silenced by those in power who have the strongest voice and the means to silence the voices of dissent and appease the masses by changing the subject.

    The courts, who, in the past, have always supportered coercive power that enhances the economic survival of the fittest — who always, also, appear to be those “most fit” corporate “citizens” that influence those who make the laws — are quick to indicate that they do not make the laws, and only enforce them. Thus, slavery, child labor, strike breaking, etc.. were supported by “the rule of law.”

    We know that it is not the courts, therefore, who will flush out the “champions of tyranny” and probably not the “free press” and business media, and we can only hope that coercive power will be exposed by “reputation management via document indexing” as is accomplished by your excellent WikidFranchise.org.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: