Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Orson Swindle
                in FTC v. Jacqueline Sable, File No. X980012
     _________________________________________________________________

   The Commission's complaint in this matter alleges that the defendant
   violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making false and unsubstantiated
   representations in radio infomercials advertising a purported baldness
   cure. The proposed settlement agreement contains extremely strong
   injunctive relief, including a ban on participating in any business
   involving hair loss prevention, hair growth, or baldness treatments.
   Most of the relief in the settlement is without question necessary and
   appropriate. I applaud the strong relief obtained in this case. On the
   other hand, several provisions are unrelated to the unlawful conduct
   alleged in the complaint or would empower the Commission to seek
   contempt sanctions for violations of another governmental entity's
   laws. These provisions are so overreaching that I cannot vote to
   accept this settlement.

   First, the settlement agreement prohibits violations of the
   Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule, deceptive practices in the
   marketing of franchises and business ventures, and violations of the
   Commission's Franchise Rule. None of this relief is reasonably related
   to preventing the defendant from deceptively advertising baldness
   cures or engaging in similar law violations. If there is sufficient
   information to give the Commission reason to believe that she engaged
   or is likely to engage in other types of law violations, then we
   should seek leave to amend the complaint to establish a basis for
   accepting relief that addresses those violations.

   Second, the settlement agreement broadly prohibits the defendant, in
   connection with the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promoting,
   marketing, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any product or
   service, from "making any representation . . . that does not comply
   with any applicable rule or regulation established by the Food and
   Drug Administration" and from "conducting or participating in any
   telemarketing solicitation without compliance with all applicable
   federal and state registration and bond requirements." We should not
   ask a federal court to empower us to enforce another agency's
   regulations with the club of a contempt action. To do so stretches far
   beyond the authority given to us by Congress.
     _________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

   FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

                              EASTERN DIVISION

   ____________________________________

   )

   FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, )

   Plaintiff, )

   )

   v. ) Civil Action No 98 C 0170

   )

   )

   JACQUELINE SABAL, ) Judge George W. Lindberg

   a.k.a. JACQUELINE SABLE ) Magistrate Ronald A. Guzman

   individually, )

   Defendant. )

   ____________________________________)

               STIPULATED ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND

                  FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST JACQUELINE SABAL

   Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission"), has
   filed a complaint for a permanent injunction and other equitable
   relief in this matter, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade
   Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), charging defendant
   Jacqueline Sabal with violations of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act,
   15 U.S.C. §§  45 and 52. The Commission, by and through its counsel,
   and defendant Jacqueline Sabal have agreed to the entry of this
   Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment by this
   Court in order to resolve all matters of dispute between them in this
   action without trial or adjudication of any issue of law or fact
   herein.

                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
                              EASTERN DIVISION

                         FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

                                 Plaintiff,

                                     V.

            JACQUELINE SABAL, aka JACQUELINE SABLE individually,

                                 Defendant.

                              Civil Action No

            COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

   Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission"), for
   its complaint alleges as follows:

   1. The Commission brings this action under section 13(b) of the
   Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), to secure
   preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission of contracts,
   restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable relief for defendant's
   unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of Sections 5(a)
   and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52.

                           JURISDICTION AND VENUE

   2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.
   1331, 1337(a), and 1345, and under 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a)(1) and 53(b).

   3. Venue in the United States District Court for the Northern District
   of Illinois is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 15 U.S.C.
   § 53(b).

                                 PLAINTIFF

   4. Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission, is an independent agency
   of the United States Government created by statute. 15 U.S.C. § 41 et
   seq. The Commission is charged, inter alia, with enforcement of
   Sections 5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52.
   Section 5(a) of the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or
   practices in or affecting commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Section 12 of
   the FTC Act prohibits the dissemination or the causing to be
   disseminated of any false advertisement in order to induce the
   purchase of food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics. The Commission is