Re: Maybe ever.
 

Posner mentions the possibility of a civil claim by the manufacturer. But the manufacturer appears to have known at least that they would be sold at the dollar store. I'm not sure how new labels would hurt the sales at the local Piggly--I'm kind of envisioning a self-stick label applied by the dollar store, not an actual replaced label of the whole thing.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

the reason it is cheaper is that it was suppose to come with a label that says the manufacturer doesn't believe it is good anymore. that way, people who buy into the date can tell themselves it makes sense to pay $5 (at a grocery) for a bottle instead of $1. The guy could have posted a sticker saying "expiration dates don't matter. He didn't. He posted a sticker that implies they matter. in fact, that he bothered to put new stickers on shows that they matter very much to consumers. I assume he covered the old date with the new sticker, no?

Say if you were convinced it made sense to buy high octane premium gas. It would be one thing if I sell regular and put a sign saying "Don't buy premium. It doesn't add anything, it just cost more."

That's not what the guy did. He put a sign up calling the regular premium.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

That analogy would be better if the government established the use-by date. Henri's did based apparently on its subjective view of what still met its standards. He had a different view of what was best. I see the civil issues, sure, but criminal fraud? Not really.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

It would be better, i agree. but better up from very good, not better up from doesn't apply.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

Posner says that the stuff is good for years and years. But you can imagine that the company wouldn't want people to be told that, since it makes the dressing sound artificial, even if it isn't. Also, the date may induce some people to throw away perfectly good dressing and buy more, in circumstances where they'll think they're to blame for leaving it on the shelf too long.

eta: Or what Cletus said.

It's called "Evidence", people
 

Grandma Greedy used to stick all kinds of stuff in cans with vinegar and stick it down in the basement for time immemorial. It's called "pickling". Folks are surpised that spices in vinegar and oil keeps for a while?

I don't think the judge made conclusions one way or another about any of this stuff. He just said the Government hadn't proven its case. Instead of introducing evidence, the prosecutor just raved and spewed a bunch of irrelevant blustery shit. That's not how you prove a case.

I understand why Hank doesn't understand this. Why don't the rest of you?

Re: Maybe ever.
 

Sure, but "best if used by" serves the same function. Unless it's a weasel to comply with multiple, inconsistent state laws.*

*I'd love to see multistate packaging that says something like:

Best if used by: 3/13/09 in New Jersey
Best if purchased by: 3/13/09 in New York
Best if consumed by: 6/13/09 in California

Re: Maybe ever.
 

The point of the opinion is "misled how?" And, if so, it was not proved. I love it, although I think Posner should have shouted defense counsel out by name because so many let this sort of prosecutorial crap sail by.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

I answered this. I don't know if it is a crime or not, I do know consumers were misled. Go read my post to Burger about gas.

GGG, you logout, delete your last post, then redo with your old southern guy sock. I think some people may not know its you, and when you do your dumber shit, it is a good way to decrease the harm you do yourself. WTTW.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

Wire fraud!

Re: Maybe ever.
 

I'm sure we will agree no one has ever been misled by GGG. Or led for that matter.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

He did: Juliet Sorensen

Re: Maybe ever.
 

How many people in the dollar store looked at the date label?

Re: Maybe ever.
 

does someone have to be shown to be fooled for the crime to be complete? say when a cop sets up a con man, no one is fooled by the attempt, but he is still prosecuted, isn't he?

Re: Maybe ever.
 

She was the fuckwad prosecutor, not defense counsel.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

You have to show the guy was trying to fool someone. That wasn't proven.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

What crime? There was no evidence adduced that the second "best if" date was false. Nor any evidence the first "best if" date was anything other than puffery.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

Whoops. Sorry. Didn't the defense attorney object to much of this stuff? The objections on closing argument were sustained, and the use of the FDA witness by Posner's description didn't seem to be by consent of the defense.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

Right. I was just saying that he should have named whoever defense counsel was. Good resume stuff.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

this is getting circular, but what was putting the new label on?

Re: Maybe ever.
 

I would think "acquittal on appeal, opinion by Posner, J." would be pretty good standing alone.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

Correcting an untruth? Henri's, let alone the government, never established that the "purchase by" date meant anything. Perhaps Henri's should be indicted for wire fraud because their label misled people into thinking the dressing went bad before it did.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

She was the prosecutor. Or prosecutrix, I suppose.*

* N.B. -- An allusion to the first sentence of The Crying of Lot 49. I amuse myself, and some days that's enough.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

g.o.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

BTW, I am not buying any Henri's after this. Right up there with Pringles, the non-potato chip.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Guess this is one of those laugh or cry ones (probably mostly the latter):

Mom who killed kid as part of religious cult can withdraw guilty plea if her child is resurrected, as she believes will happen.

Re: Maybe ever.
 

Except that the government could prove that different octane ratings do make a difference in some high performance engines* whereas the prosecutor here never proved that the dates had any meaning. No evidence. None.

Odd really, what with the whole innocent until proven guilty shtick they fed us in law school.

Think "burden shifting" if that helps.




*Really, I know the big three don't make many cars that are dependent on high octane fuels to wring out their stated hp ratings, but surely you are familiar with the concepts of pre-ignition and retarded timing.**




**It's a soft ball, don't swing too hard or you'll miss it.

Newsflash
 

Discovery in this country sucks, is totally out of control, and is ridiculous.

And judges really need to figure out how to rule on preliminary questions (e.g., personal jurisdiction) without it.

Re: Newsflash
 

Isn't that just laziness on the judge's part in not limiting initial discovery to personal jurisdiction issues if you have a motion to dismiss on that ground?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

While playing cards in Las Vegas this weekend, another player at the table related that he had a bunch of Latham lawyers on his deal until they were laid off. He said that L&W laid off 950 lawyers firm-wide. That can't be right, can it?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

According to ATL, as of February 27, 2009, Latham had laid off 190 associates and 250 staff (a total of 440). The managing partner said the cuts represented 12% of U.S. associates in the firm.

ETA: The linked article says the 190 figure is on top of any "stealth layoffs" the firm "may have" conducted in the past year. Since I stopped caring about the fate of any Biglaw associates, I leave it to you to decide what that means about the veracity of the 950 figure (which boggles, if 190 is 12% of the total, because that would, if true, mean Latham secretly laid off 32% of its associates before openly laying off 12% of whoever was left).

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I fired 12% of my firm one day. I only recently have again been in a position where I could fire 12%.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

He made it sound like these were recent layoffs (at least for the attorneys that were on his deal). But that would be a staggering amount even if it was associates and staff and counted both rounds.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

950 is untrue, but (i believe, on informed speculation) it's more than double the 190 announced, and includes a meaningful number of partners. 950 might be about right for total lawyer + staff layoffs. New York was the hardest hit office--something like a third of associates let go.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of douchebags.

actual legal advice question
 

Saturdays the mail lady leaves a banded packet of our mail outside our 3rd floor office door. The smaller firm on the second floor gets its the same way. We represent a Fortune 100 company with a very recognizable logo.

Earlier, as I walked by the second floor firm's door I saw a check envelope on the top of their mail packet with that logo. The second floor firm doesn't represent big companies, so I knew the check was mine. If I wait until they get the mail Monday, then get it to us, we'll lose a day, or maybe two, before we can deposit it.

Am I violating Federal law if I just take it, or is there a self-help provision to the postal code?

Re: actual legal advice question
 

Man, that's tough. If you take it you get yourself that extra day or two of interest in the ol' checking account. But if you take it, open it and realize that your neighbors took your client? Awk-ward.

Re: actual legal advice question
 

Are you absolutely certain they didn't farm out a small matter to your neighbor that y'all may have been conflicted out of, or was so small that wouldn't make business sense to pay your firm's fee's?

Re: actual legal advice question
 

I think Hank found a polite way of saying that the guys on the second floor are bottom feeders who do nothing but sue his fine upstanding clients.

And remember, Hank's in Detroit. We aren't talking about interest. We're talking about getting the cash in the bank before the bankruptcy filing.

I think the point is moot now that the banks are shut, but it would have been nice for Hank to have maybe helpfully picked up their mail and put it in a safe place for them.I can't believe the post office would just leave it there out in open.

Re: actual legal advice question
 

Why would the envelope not by addressed either to Chinaski, Cheatum, and Howe or to the interloper? How hard is it to figure out whom it's for?