Should the government have power to recall food.

[UCDAggies]

If a food item is contaminaited it is up to the manufacture to recall it, and the governemnt has no authority to recall food items. If the manufacture doesn't recall it, good luck trying to sue, evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court, thanks to laws protecting them. Anyone find this outragous.

 

[loup garou]

Just get banned again already.

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: loup garou
Just get banned again already.

This is a legit concern. The government is not allowed to recall any food items.

You should be concered over this aswell, givent he recent spinich scare in which countless people died.

 

[Mill]

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

It isn't admissible in the sense they do NOT have to disclose any testing they have done. If you can find evidence they knew, then yes it is admissible, but good luck, since they don't have to tell you.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

He just made it up. :laugh:

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: loup garou
Just get banned again already.

This is a legit concern. The government is not allowed to recall any food items.

You should be concered over this aswell, givent he recent spinich scare in which countless people died.

Replace countless with 3.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

That is just how the law works.

Uh, not it doesn't.

What Federal Rule of Evidence would be violated that would make evidence of a conspiracy or prior statements inadmissible or not relevant?

You need to read the FREs:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

He just made it up. :laugh:

No I didn't.

Go read up on this, it is scary to think what is allowed.

The government has NO power at all to recall food items. None what so ever. A company could sell food laced with arsenic and their is NOTHING you can do to them, other than try to sue.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

It isn't admissible in the sense they do NOT have to disclose any testing they have done. If you can find evidence they knew, then yes it is admissible, but good luck, since they don't have to tell you.

Someone's never heard of a subpoena for records. Oops.

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

That is just how the law works.

Uh, not it doesn't.

What Federal Rule of Evidence would be violated that would make evidence of a conspiracy or prior statements inadmissible or not relevant?

You need to read the FREs:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

I am not saying if you have evidence you can't use it, I am saying they aren't obligated to reveal any testing they have done, so you have no way of knowing they knew before hand it was tainted.

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

It isn't admissible in the sense they do NOT have to disclose any testing they have done. If you can find evidence they knew, then yes it is admissible, but good luck, since they don't have to tell you.

Someone's never heard of a subpoena for records. Oops.

Someone never heard of exception to the law, Oops.

In cases of food they CANNOT be granted. Read up on the law.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: loup garou
Just get banned again already.

This is a legit concern. The government is not allowed to recall any food items.

You should be concered over this aswell, givent he recent spinich scare in which countless people died.

Replace countless with 3.

You just quantified the unquantifiable. You should work for Dogbert.

 

[slsmnaz]

Is this you?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

It isn't admissible in the sense they do NOT have to disclose any testing they have done. If you can find evidence they knew, then yes it is admissible, but good luck, since they don't have to tell you.

Someone's never heard of a subpoena for records. Oops.

Someone never heard of exception to the law, Oops.

In cases of food they CANNOT be granted. Read up on the law.

Cite which court case allows for Food Corporations to assert a privilege against providing those records.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

That is just how the law works.

Uh, not it doesn't.

What Federal Rule of Evidence would be violated that would make evidence of a conspiracy or prior statements inadmissible or not relevant?

You need to read the FREs:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

I am not saying if you have evidence you can't use it, I am saying they aren't obligated to reveal any testing they have done, so you have no way of knowing they knew before hand it was tainted.

Suppose the government discovered that the food a company is selling is tainted, and the government goes to that company and in their best Bill O'Reilly voice says "Hey, you're selling tainted food. Knock it off!" If that company continued to sell tainted food, do you think there would be no repercussions?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Is this you?

It's obvious why tainted food is a big concern for him.

(That was a very mean thing to say, I wouldn't normally make fun of someone for being overweight. But I don't care for Douglas )

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

That is just how the law works.

Uh, not it doesn't.

What Federal Rule of Evidence would be violated that would make evidence of a conspiracy or prior statements inadmissible or not relevant?

You need to read the FREs:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

I am not saying if you have evidence you can't use it, I am saying they aren't obligated to reveal any testing they have done, so you have no way of knowing they knew before hand it was tainted.

Suppose the government discovered that the food a company is selling is tainted, and the government goes to that company and in their best Bill O'Reilly voice says "Hey, you're selling tainted food. Knock it off!" If that company continued to sell tainted food, do you think there would be no repercussions?

No their won't be. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO ORDER A FOOD RECALL. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

That is just how the law works.

Uh, not it doesn't.

What Federal Rule of Evidence would be violated that would make evidence of a conspiracy or prior statements inadmissible or not relevant?

You need to read the FREs:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

I am not saying if you have evidence you can't use it, I am saying they aren't obligated to reveal any testing they have done, so you have no way of knowing they knew before hand it was tainted.

Suppose the government discovered that the food a company is selling is tainted, and the government goes to that company and in their best Bill O'Reilly voice says "Hey, you're selling tainted food. Knock it off!" If that company continued to sell tainted food, do you think there would be no repercussions?

No their won't be. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO ORDER A FOOD RECALL. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

The government does have the power to punish a company for knowingly putting people at risk. The government also has the power to let people know about tainted food if it is discovered. So effectively the government has the power to force a "voluntary" recall.

You really need to work on your critical thinking skills.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court, thanks to laws protecting them.

Subpoenas under the FDCA:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00108.htm#108

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: Mill

evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court

How do you figure?

That is just how the law works.

Uh, not it doesn't.

What Federal Rule of Evidence would be violated that would make evidence of a conspiracy or prior statements inadmissible or not relevant?

You need to read the FREs:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

I am not saying if you have evidence you can't use it, I am saying they aren't obligated to reveal any testing they have done, so you have no way of knowing they knew before hand it was tainted.

Suppose the government discovered that the food a company is selling is tainted, and the government goes to that company and in their best Bill O'Reilly voice says "Hey, you're selling tainted food. Knock it off!" If that company continued to sell tainted food, do you think there would be no repercussions?

No their won't be. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO ORDER A FOOD RECALL. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

The government does have the power to punish a company for knowingly putting people at risk. The government also has the power to let people know about tainted food if it is discovered. So effectively the government has the power to force a "voluntary" recall.

You really need to work on your critical thinking skills.

Wrong, they government does not have the power to punish them, unless the government can prove they did it with malic intentions. The government also cannot tell me not to buy the food. The government doens't have that authority.

 

[UCDAggies]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
evidence that they knew the food was tainted is NOT admissible in court, thanks to laws protecting them.

Subpoenas under the FDCA:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00108.htm#108

That is NOT for food.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: loup garou
Just get banned again already.

This is a legit concern. The government is not allowed to recall any food items.

You should be concered over this aswell, givent he recent spinich scare in which countless people died.

Replace countless with 3.

For him, that might be countless.

 

[UCDAggies]

Also the FDA is NOT regulatory agency for meats.

 

[UCDAggies]

3 is still a countless number, even 1 death is countless.