Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years ago
    The FDA and NIH are a mafia. The do not serve the good of the country, they just support crony insiders, and stifle innovation. Both need to go.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Commander 10 years ago
      Preachin to the choir.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years ago
        Not to my evil twin. Comrade citizens, superior authority cannot tolerate varicose-vein treatment hucksters running around saying stuff without the approval of their more than equal Big Brother departmental elite betters.
        Control! Control! All you stupid little people require control, control, control! Now raise a late 60s Marxist fist into the air and cry, "Power to the people!"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years ago
    I'm all for a company being able to make any claim they want. But if they're going to claim something as *fact* when it is not known to be *fact*, I think they can be held liable unless they simply make a disclaimer.

    That means these guys should be able to say "for sale to do XYZ, we believe it works because ______" But can't say "this does XYZ"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
    Am I the only one that sees a 1st amendment issue?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Commander 10 years ago
      I just re-read under this premise. Can definitely see some potential. I surely don't have enough legal background to apply this in "case". Can you expand?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
        Basically they are being prosecuted for speech (sales pitch). They are not being sued by a private citizen for fraud, which would not be a violation of the 1st amendment since it is a private citizen and fraud is not merely about speech, but speech and actions.

        Here we have the government telling people that they can be thrown in jail for what they say. Here is what the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Clearly Congress has made a law that abridges the freedom of speech of this company.

        This argument will never fly in court. The Supremes have gotten around this by saying commercial speech is different than other speech and not deserving of the same protection. (Talk about counting the number of angels on a pin head).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ Commander 10 years ago
          I agree with the constitutionality, as of the original Constitution.
          The grating thing....We have "Corporatised" all business and individuals through the establishment of the "District of Columbia" and the indoctrination vehicle: Social Security Administration. When we use our SSN's for the first time, we agree to abide by the laws of "THE CORPORATION". The grand tool of enslavement. I have a friend who went through an extrication process from "THE CORPORATION" using the Uniform Commercial Code.....many filings and a three year time period. Everything he did was to establish his "rights" under original constitutionality. He re-asserted his "Natural Sovereign Born Self / Citizenry. Does not mean he was believed. I'll see if he still has the original documents to share....more to come. Thanks for the insights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Flootus5 10 years ago
            Commander; I have been reading about the UCC process and position and would really, really like to learn more. Maybe a new thread?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Commander 10 years ago
              I'm in the same process as you. It's God-awful complicated with timing the proper departmental filing.....wish I had paid more attention when Denny was doing this. The first benefit is tax exemption on a Federal level, secondly, State.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Genez 10 years ago
              Definitely would like to learn more on this. I've seen articles explaining elsewhere, but not all the details... Interesting how there really is a difference in legal status...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years ago
          So according to my business law class, companies can engage in a certain amount of "puffery", but get into problems as soon as their claims amount to a verbal guarantee or warranty. It seems to me that the FDA has to prove that the company engaged in making express verbal (or written) guarantees as to the use of a product under certain circumstances. If they can, they have a case. If not, they don't. There really isn't much from this article to give any real basis for a ruling either way, so I would appreciate a follow-up as litigation continues.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo