Roger Hamilton And XL Results Foundation Pte Due Diligence, Non Disclosure, Cover Up, Misrepresentation, Deliberate attempt to mislead consumers, Pyramid Scheme Singapore Internet

Individuals who are considering buying an XL Life Membership from Roger Hamilton of XL Results Foundation, Paul Stuart Dunn of Results Net Australia and Daniel Steven Priestly of Triumphant Events UK are advised to conduct due diligence. The following extract is a public document available from the Subordinate Court of Singapore.

XL Results Foundation has enforced a legal gag on the ex employee since 2005 and is in current litigation.

XL Results Foundation is attempting to block legal requests to provide full disclosure of the company's revenue source.



IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

MC Suit No. 24750 of 2006/D

Between
XL RESULTS FOUNDATION PTE LTD
(RC No 200107729C)

Plaintiffs

And

Linda Ruck
Defendant

Supplementary Affidavit (April 2007)

I, Linda Ruck (Personal details of the Passport No and Address of the defendant removed) do make oath and say as follows:

1. I am the Defendant herein.

2. Insofar as the contents of this Affidavit are within my personal knowledge they are true and insofar as the contents of this affidavit are not within my personal knowledge they are true to the best of information, knowledge and belief.

Background and employment

6. In or around March 2002, I become acquainted with one Roger Hamilton (RH) and was employed by a company known as Achievers International Pte Ltd, as the personal assistant to RH, who was a director in the said company.

8. I came to know at the time that RH had other business concerns. One was a company promoting speakers i.e. Competitive Edge Pte Ltd (CE) and the other a local magazine company known as Expat Living Publications. Exhibit LR-2.

Birth of the Plaintiffs

9. After about 6 months, RH discussed with me about a managerial position in CE.

10. I was soon tasked to promote a Life Membership program in CE which promised, amongst other things the following:-

a) This Membership includes the rights to 4,000 to 6,000 wherever applicable, ordinary shares in Competitive Edge Pte Ltd, amounting to 0.2% of its enlarged share capital of 2m ordinary shares. I may exercise this right in the event of a sale, merger or public listing of the company.
b) Life Memberships may be resold at any time in any country after a full year of membership. The transfer fee payable to CE for membership is USD$500. Exhibit LR-3 is a copy of a Life Membership subscription form.

11. After a successful round of promotions, CE managed to get about 200 members. Each one of those members paid USD$6,150 (S$10,762.50). The real attraction at the material time was the opportunity to participate in the future of CE. The investment was presented as risk free with the transferability clause. Investors were lulled into thinking that their membership had a market value which could be cashed out at their option, with only a small penalty of USD$500. Exhibit LR-3, Clause 9 under Benefits.

12. I am now advised and verily belief that CE was not permitted to sell or offer its shares or options in its shares without a prospectus or seeking approval from the relevant authority. The talks and promotional materials issued by CE at the time also did not confirm with the requirement of a prospectus. Moreover, the representation of a market for the Life Membership maybe false.

14. In or around 18 August 2004, CE changed its name to XL Results Foundation Pte Ltd (the Plaintiff), RH explained that the business was expanding and needed a better image. Except the change in the name, the Plaintiffs operated and continued to promote the same scheme. The members were only notified of the name change about 6 months later.

15. In July, 2004 I was appointed as editor-in-chief of the new magazine XL Magazine. I developed, wrote and created the magazine content. The magazine promoted the Plaintiffs. I am advised and verily belief now that the magazine was an essential propagandist tool used in the recruitment of new Life Members. I am also beginning to see and belief that the books, seminars and network sessions are just tools to help RH and the other licensees generate hype, so that new members maybe recruited and the enrolment fees utilised to keep RH and the licensees well lubricated.

The Recruitment Scheme

16. In the course of the work, I travelled extensively with RH, assisting with the development of the Life Membership program and the Wealth Dynamics weekend seminars. I also spoke on the commitment of the Plaintiffs to donate 10% of revenue to charity. I also oversaw the day to day operation concern of all staff and licensees in each country. At the time and like the Life Members and licensees, I really believed in the Plaintiffs and that it had potential of making everyone wealthy and also contributing to the good of the community.

17. By the end of 2003 the Plaintiff had approximately 10 licensees in India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines USA east and west coast, Taiwan and UK.

18. In the copies of the Country Licence Agreements, it was stipulated that the licensee had to pay a licensee fee. Before the Plaintiffs change of name, the fee was USD$25,000 per year if they were not Life Members or if they were Life members USD$20,000 per year. After the Plaintiffs change of name, the fees were USD$8,000 per year. However, the licensee fee will be returned in full if the licensee reaches 20 or more new Life members in a year. Exhibit LR-4.

19. On the face of the licence agreements, the licensee appears to receive the following heads of remuneration:-

a) A commission of ticket sales, sale of products, training sales and book sales (hereinafter collective referred to as Product Commissions):
b) A 20% commission on the sale of Life Memberships (Membership Commissions)
c) Before the Plaintiffs name change a retainer of USD$1,500 per month. The condition to this retainer is pegged to 12 new enrolments in a previous 3 month period (The Retainer).

20. In the course of my work with the Plaintiffs and RH, I know that the bulk of the income earned by the Plaintiffs and the licensees were from the Membership Commissions and The Retainer. When compared to the Membership Commissions and The Retainer, the Product Commissions are small or negligible.

21. This can be easily seen from the list of Benefits that each Life Member gets for free. Essentially a Life member gets free admission to events, magazine and workshops. The Product Commissions are virtually small or negligible. This can also been seen from the Sales Report in New Zealand in 2004, where the only revenue was from the sale of 38 new life memberships. According to the sales report, the New Zealand licensees got a 20% commission on the sale of the life memberships. Exhibit LR-5.

22. I am now advised and verily believe that it is not lawful to operate a scheme or arrangement for the distribution or purported distribution of a commodity whereby, the person then receives a benefit as a result of the recruitment of more additional participants in the scheme or arrangement. It is clear from the matters described above, that RH, together with the licences are using the Plaintiffs to operate such a scheme.

Paul Stuart Dunn (PSD) and Daniel Steven Priestly (DSP) are licensees and part of the scheme.

23. Both PSD and DSP are licensees in the same scheme abovementioned, perpetuated and operated by RH though the use of the Plaintiffs as a vehicle.

24. They each have huge financial interest in keeping the scheme and the Plaintiffs surviving. In a way and as I am now advised and verily believe, they together with RH are using the Plaintiffs to suck on and prey on new recruits.

25. In fact, DSP himself may have let slip that the bulk of RHs wealth is derived from the fees of Life members:-

LR: No. Rogers got absolutely no money. Roger doesnt have any money.
DP: Well, what about all the Life Members fees. - emphasis added.
(See page 16 of DSPs affidavit, at line 4 to 5)

26. Clearly, the licensees knew that the primary revenue and financial base of the Plaintiffs business and the scheme is their individual income is from the fees of new members.

Confidentiality clause is a cover-up

27. In or around the time of my resignation from the Plaintiffs company, I could only suspect that something was not right with the Plaintiffs business. In fact, I could not and was notable to put my finger on the issue until recently and after I appointed my new solicitors to look into the matter with fresh perspective.

28. I verily believe, from the reasons explained above, RH together with PSD and DSP are using the Plaintiffs as a vehicle to suppress their criminal activity.

29. In fact, Clause 8 of the Severance Agreement which I am alleged to have breached does not seek to protect any legitimate or real confidential information/trade secrets belonging to the Plaintiffs. I verily believe that the only trade secret was the secret that RH, PSD, DSP and the other licensees are using the Plaintiffs as a front to bleed money from the new members.

30. I maintain that I did not start nor was I possessed with the ability of spreading ill will against the Plaintiffs or RH. The simple truth of the matter was that until recently, I myself did not comprehend how the scheme worked.

31. Like the other people in the Internet, I was merely joining in their chorus about monies not been given to charity and how the matter was being investigated by the authorities. Coming from a background of volunteer work, I was very upset that money promised by the Plaintiffs to charity has not been given. I knew something was amiss, but did not at the time have the facility to articulate it.

I did not breach any confidentiality clause

32. The transcripts from PSD and DSP if taken at face value will clearly show that the calls to me were all initiated by PSD and DSP.

33. Thus paragraph 8, page 3 of PSDs affidavit is a blatant lie.

34. Again and taking the contents of the transcripts in PSDs and DSPs affidavits on its face value, I am surprised that the substance of the matters discussed were actually expressions of my views and/or opinion about RH and not as alleged leaking company trade secrets. In fact, I was also asking questions about the whereabouts of the money and about the money to the charities.

35. In this regard, I would like to refer this Honourable Court to the following particular excerpts of the transcripts. Transcript documents listed.

36. I am advised and verily believe that I am entitled to express and formulate my views about RH. In fact, and from the said transcripts, those views expressed by me about RH are from sources which could easily gathered the public domain at the time.

37. It is clear from the transcripts that PSD and DSP had themselves heard about the criminal investigations on RH, they had only called to ask me about my views on matters which they already knew about.

38. I have grave reservations about the authenticity and accuracy of the transcripts. I am advised and verily believe that as the transcripts were not affirmed or sworned by an approved transcriber, it cannot be admitted into the Court.

39. In my dealings with DSP, he is usually chatty and responsive. I note that from page 7 to 15 of the transcripts he was very economical with his responses.

Complaints were already circulating around

40. I wish to state that complaints and unhappiness both with the members and the staff of the Plaintiffs were already rife in or around late 2004. In fact and in or August 2004, there was a mass staff walk out in Hong Kong and Singapore.

41. RH had disputes with several staff members in the Hong Kong and Singapore offices, some were unpaid and two staff would not return the Plaintiffs laptops until they were paid.

42. By December, 2004 I had stopped travelling with RH and was working from home. I was deeply concerned over the business conduct of the Plaintiffs company. At the time I did not fully understand the complaints, all I knew was that members were complaining about services not delivered, members felt cheated, consultancy clients werent getting value. I found out that members were starting to go to the Consumer Protection Association and asking me to help get refunds.

43. At around the same time I had also bumped into a lawyer at a coffee shop who advised me to get out of the Plaintiffs company.

44. Sometime, around mid-February 2005 I received an anonymous email from the UK to the community in Singapore and Asia calling RH a charlatan and a compulsive liar. See Exhibit LR-1, page 24 of my earlier affidavit.

51. In or around 14 March 2005, I went into the office to wrap up the last edition of the magazine (XL) I was working on. In the office, I found out RH had sold the Australian licence to his Wealth Dynamics program and XL Life Membership. I expressed my concern over going into a new market (my home market) while promises were not delivered to the Asian members and several hundred members were unhappy.

66. I believe that RH is using the Plaintiffs as a front, in particular, the agreements, to allege that I have breached Clause 8 when in fact, I had not.

67. The criticism which I have made were levied against RH and the manner in which he is using the Plaintiffs for his own financial benefit. If what I have stated is untrue, it would be appropriate as I am now advised for RH to institute defamatory action against me. This fact appears not to be lost on RH when his lawyers at page 83 and 84 of RHs affidavit clearly stated that they were contemplating defamatory action.

68. It is thus telling that instead of commencing defamatory action, they had now commenced an action against me for breach of Clause 8. I believe that RH is simply hiding behind the Plaintiffs. To commence an action under clause 8 of the severance Agreement and Supplementary Agreement is a big smoke screen as RH is terribly afraid that I maybe expressing the truth about him, after all.

The Aftermath The Plaintiffs own doing No credit to me.

69. I categorically deny that I started a slur campaign against the Plaintiffs or RH. I do not have the resources, capability or the facility to start such a one woman campaign. To this extent I cannot take personal credit for the campaign. However, I do believe and as I have explained in the proceeding paragraphs that it would be a matter of time before all the deeds of RH and the licencees would catch up on them.

70. So in or around 2006, members commenced an Asia Pacific petition and buyer beware program against the Plaintiffs, with the support of Ms Ann Phua a community activist in Singapore. In September a blogger in the UK posted a blog titled Roger Hamilton exposed Exhibit LR-6.

71. In November 2006, 40 members went with three journalists and two photographers to the XL business premises and lodged refund requests for approximately SGD$400,000. Two articles have featured in the Straits Times and on the local English and Chinese Radio. Members have also put on record the fact no money went to charity. See Exhibit LR-1.

72. In retaliation to the queries and unhappiness from the public, RH used me as a scapegoat, to slur my character by speaking ill about me, posting a blog, openly lying about me to the business community locally and internationally and sending out emails as well as spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal costs to bully and intimidate me.

73. I am informed that members have lodged requests for refunds of approximately USD$500,000 to one million dollars. Many members are too scared to openly attack RH who will use all legal means to stop anyone standing up against him. On 23rd February 2007 the Australian media wrote an article on RH and XL and the controversy of the company in Singapore. While I have been contacted by the Australian and UK press, I have decided not to be interviewed by them.

74 I pray that this Honourable Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs application with cost.

Sworn by the above named

Linda Ruck
On this 29th day of March, 2007 at Singapore.
Before me. Commissioner for Oaths.


Concerned citizen
Singapore
Singapore