Wednesday, October 24, 2007

TEAM: Terminated...Part 1

Original Source
NOTE: See the original for links to all referenced materials.

Terminated...Part 1
Wednesday, 24 October 2007

It's old news to most people that both Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady were terminated by Quixtar on August 9, 2007 a/k/a "Judgment Day." For some reason, I don't understand why Quixtar is attacking Team so viciously. Recently, they filed a contempt motion and argued in Grand Rapids that Team violates an injunction every time they host a meeting. In other words, they feel that Team has no right to exist. Quixtar lost. After suing 30 anonymous bloggers and trying to shut down Team, I'm curious to see the next move on the chess board.

I've recently had the opportunity to review the termination letter that Quixtar gave to both Woodward and Brady on Judgment Day. After reading this termination letter, something is seriously fishy. There are three main points that I'll make in three separate posts.

A. Timing

Why was Woodward and Brady terminated on August 9? Was it because they resigned? If that's the case, it seems absurd that Amway would say, "You can't quit because you're fired!" Amway's story has been that Woodward and Brady were terminated because of bad business practices. I find it a strange coincidence that Amway would drop the hammer on Woodward on the same day that he resigns. In Randy Haugen's affidavit, he gives his account of the Judgment Day meeting within one week of the event. In his affidavit, in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, he states, "Early in the meeting, I expressed my concern regarding the new business model. I felt my organization would never be able to survive the coming changes without an effective change to the product pricing strategy. Specifically, I said, 'this new business won't work for us. I just don't want to do this model.' I further stated, 'I just can't put my life in this model.' Both Jim Payne and Rob Davidson said that they could understand my problem in promoting a business I no longer believed in and also stated they respected my choice."

Randy statement is corroborated by Mike McCormick's affidavit, who was serving as Randy's attorney at the time, and Orrin Woodward's affidavit. In Woodward's affidavit, in paragraph 13, Orrin wrote, "I plaintly stated [to the Quixtar executives], 'I just can't continue.'" In paragraphs 20 and 21, he wrote, "After we talked for over an hour, the Quixtar executives wanted to take some time to think about a separation plan. Before leaving, Mike Mohr asked if I'd like to see the 'remediation package.' Since I clearly communicated my intent to negotiate an amicable departure, I felt it unnecessary to review any BSM issues for a business I was asking to leave."

Woodward's and Haugen's affidavits are corroborated not only by the affidavits of Robert Dickie, Ron Simmons, and Chris Brady, but by the two attorneys that were also present: McCormick and Thompson. Furthermore, it seems that their affidavits were also corroborated by Todd Krause's affidavit. Todd Krause is a Quixtar executive that was also present at the Judgment Day meeting. In paragraph 21, he states, "However, Quixtar was never able to present these points [that Woodward and Brady were in default of their contract] at the August 9 meeting. The meeting began by Haugen (an IBO invited by Woodward) requesting an opening statement. He then voiced his disagreement with the new direction of the company, and stated that he was looking for a way out."

So Woodward and Haugen open the meeting by effectively resigning, then Quixtar asks Woodward if he'd like to correct certain BSM issues, Quixtar requests a break to discuss separation terms, considered Woodward's proposal, and they terminated Woodward and Brady for contract violations. Hmmmmmmmm. This scenario is more messed up than a soup sandwich. Since the genesis of the termination letter is so messed up, it makes me wonder if the grounds for termination are even authentic.

For now, I encourage you to take the time to read over the affidavits and see if you can start piecing this complicated puzzle together. You just might make this case your new hobby:)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Either Q/A wanted to get rid of them to start with, or they knew the plan B plan for the Calif. Lawsuit before Randy/Orin/Chris, etc. said anything.