Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CA Suit Seeks to Ban OREOS (multiple threads merged)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MeekandMild, May 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,877
  2. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Of course. The black exterior, the white interior, there has to be some sort of subversive racist message in there somewhere...

    :banghead:
     
  3. sm

    sm member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    28,389
    Location:
    Between black coffee, and shiftn' gears
    Its a lawyer-no less !

    "SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A lawyer who has spent much of his life enjoying Oreo cookies has sued Kraft Foods Inc. seeking to ban the much-loved cookies in California because they contain trans fat, an ingredient he calls inedible". <snip>

    Calling Jim March...Jim...all you have to do to get CCW in Kali is to assert " your Honor I'm suing for CCW in Kali, otherwise due to undo suffering I'll pig out on Oreos to relieve my mental suffering...to save the taxpayers money for a suit...just issue CCW's...

    [ sarcasm off]

    Attorney's get a lot of bad comments, wonder why.
    Then the better attny's don't get recognized...Like March.
     
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    So many assault lawyers! So few opportunities to get rich quick!
     
  5. Don Rac

    Don Rac Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    I wonder how long it'll take before this gets thrown out for being stupid. If I were the judge or whoever had to read through this crap, I'd be seriously pissed off for the time I lost. It would be worse than watching Battlefield Earth.
     
  6. Elmer Snerd

    Elmer Snerd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    337
    Location:
    TN
    They are only going to ban the "high capacity artery assault" packaging. You'll still be able to buy them in packages of no more than 10.
     
  7. sanchezero

    sanchezero Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    555
    Yeah, those lil 4 packs next to the Little Debbies.

    Limit 1 pack a month and you must have your cholesterol checked at each purchase.

    Just think of the jobs they'll create with this program!
     
  8. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Remember . . .

    It's only 99.99% of the lawyers who give the rest of us a bad name. :scrutiny:





    Send lawyers, guns and money . . .
     
  9. enichols

    enichols Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    Funny. No less than two minutes ago...

    ...I saw the imbecile giving his speil about banning Oreos on the news. Scary that there are people like this out there.
     
  10. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    I swear to God, if anything happens to the Oreos, there will be bloodshed. There are lines across which I cannot be pushed.:fire:
     
  11. BerettaNut92

    BerettaNut92 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,724
    Isn't there already another alternative brand (Proxies?? Hydroxies?? Something like that?) that doesn't use the evil ingredients?

    You know...if I was concerned about my health...I wouldn't be eating Oreos in the first place. Wait, I haven't been able to afford snacks since I went tactical.... :eek:
     
  12. Ol' Badger

    Ol' Badger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Location:
    Locked in a Condo in Falls Church VA.
    You can have my Oreo when you pry it from my cold dead hand!!! :fire:
     
  13. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,523
    Bozo should scrape the center stuff out and eat the cookie alone without it. OT & case closed.
     
  14. DWS1117

    DWS1117 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Spring, TX
  15. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,270
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Someone should beat that moron with a clue-by-four.

    Unfortunately, this is off topic.
     
  16. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    Throw Down Your Oreos, Guns, Smokes

    http://www.etherzone.com/2003/sees051403.shtml

    THROW DOWN YOUR OREOS,
    GUNS, SMOKES
    OUR FREEDOM IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF COURTS AND MAYORS

    By: Dorothy Anne Seese

    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws!" --Tacitus (A.D. 55-130)

    Yes, like any other kid, I ate Oreos and now an attorney in California (aka **********) wants to ban Oreos. No, don't laugh, this is a real live prospective lawsuit! Oreos, so the attorney alleges, contain trans-fatty acids or "trans fats" as they are now known. Well, so does Crisco or other vegetable shortening, margarine and hundreds of other products we eat daily. We usually see them on labels as "partially hydrogenated" soybean oil or other vegetable oil product.




    It was bad enough when the World Health Organization, the UN's "fat police," was weighing in on what our body mass should be, and they've only taken shelter for a little bit until they can make a home run in some liberal court. Meantime, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, an ex-smoker himself who is now out to reform (and financially ruin) the city over which he presides has cost restaurant and bar owners as much as 40%-50% of their business, according to a report in the New York Post.

    However, it is now being proposed that Californians should throw down their Oreos and the product should be banned from the state. They've only been around since 1912, but suddenly they have become a threat to the public health, especially that of children. (Always watch out when someone says it's "for the children" because there's an agenda in the Control Closet somewhere.) If you cannot eat Oreos, then what will you eat? Almost all cookies are made with a lot of shortening. If you don't use butter (full of cholesterol) then you use partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (like Crisco or margarine).

    In my pantry are some cookies purchased from my local Trader Joe's, the California-based home of all things organic and as many kinds of rice as people in the USA never knew about. I checked the label and <gasp> Trader Joe's has sold me some of their own brand of oatmeal raisin cookies and they contain partially hydrogenated shortening! Ban those suckers. I purchased them from the most wildly liberal, seaweed-promoting, fish-dispensing, organic salad purveyor in the whole flippin USA. And yet they contain the same ingredient as Oreos. Sue the blighters. Sue them, I say.

    In case anyone doesn't recall the year 1983 or the circumstances, the Ninth Circuit (aka Ninth Circus) Court of Appeals in California (where else?) ruled that a woman's health had been damaged by being subjected to smokers working around her. I was working in the legal field when I heard that report via news radio, and I knew what was coming. There is no delight in saying "I told you so" when Americans lose their freedoms. All these old pharts who lived through the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, residing in retirement communities like Sun City have now decided that in order for them to live even longer and pay even higher medical costs for their arthritis and hip replacements, everyone else should stop smoking. If all the smoke they lived through was so deadly, how did this bunch of goofballs who cannot tell red from green stoplights live into their late 70's and 80's?

    Meanwhile, not all is calm in the state of New Jersey, either, where it has been proposed that anything that distracts a driver should be illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time, and that ranges from tuning the radio to having a cup of coffee in the coffee holder and drinking it while driving (or maybe just sitting at a stop light waiting for green). The police power granted in this proposed law, which the people of New Jersey may or may not defeat, is frightening. Even a woman looking in the rear view mirror and touching her hair could be accused of driving while distracted, whether she was fixing her hair or not. Maybe she just has a scalp itch ... no scratching while driving!

    Now mind you, while each of these is a separate and discrete state issue, collectively they are forming the basis for controls such as the United States has never known.

    Don't think for a minute that these issues aren't known to our present administration. If ever President Bush or Attorney General John Ashcroft wanted to assure Americans of their liberty, it would be now ... with subtle phone calls to the people who are promoting these assaults against our liberties. Don't think it isn't any of their business, it is. Whatever they decide is their business becomes their business. Don't think for a minute that President Bush isn't acquainted with billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York.

    What is this reference to the present administration about? It's about using heavy-handed billionaire mayors and little known lawyers from California and New Jersey to instigate rules, regulations and police powers that will effect controls to further stifle the freedoms of Americans until there is no question that they will have to throw down their guns or die, be jailed, or carted off to some unknown destination as enemies of the state.

    Most people will see little connection between a few outlandish controls in California, New Jersey, New York and other whack states (including my home, Arizona) and the overall progress of a controlled America. Be assured, there is one. A big network of little controls that condition us, one by one, to accept the fact that one morning, we will have utterly NO freedoms left. At that point ... the gun owners who are fighting so hard to keep their weapons (and sometimes their Oreos and cigarettes) will be enemies of the state. It's on its way.

    True Republicans would fight this sort of control. Neocons will not and liberal Democrats will not. The struggle is not for American freedom but for American control. After all, as long as Americans own guns and can assert constitutional rights, there's going to be a fight. Now ... if a gun owner eats an Oreo cookie ....hmmm. Think about it. Every freedom one American takes from another American will find its way back home until the state has all the power and the people have none.

    My suggestion is for the still-free Americans to apprise themselves of this chicanery and put a stop to it. Now. Tomorrow is too late. We're not losing our Constitution and Bill of Rights by the year, or month, we're losing it by the hour, one lawsuit at a time. What an elected administration will not do, and an elected Congress dare not do, is shifted to the courts to do. And it all adds up to police power. If eating a cookie is illegal ... then they can confiscate your guns! Be sure that anyone convicted of eating illegal cookies or illegal driving will be forbidden to own firearms.

    That's my take on it. Now you, free Americans, who are getting less free every day, better get busy and find out what's going on in your state to take away another one of your freedoms. The end object isn't your cigarettes or your Oreos, it's your firearms and anything they can convict you of that has a firearms confiscation or ownership prohibition attached to it. And soon, every offense will have that penalty.

    You betcha!
     
  17. WyldOne

    WyldOne Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    93
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    CA Suit Seeks to Ban OREOS

    Suddenly Boston doesn't feel too bad. :(

    Source

    California suit seeks ban on Oreos

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Kids in California may have to give up their Oreos, if a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco public interest lawyer is successful.

    The lawsuit, filed May 1 in Marin County Superior Court, seeks a ban on the black and white cookies, arguing the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat.

    Stephen Joseph filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles about the health threat posed by the artificial fat that is contained in most packaged foods but isn't listed with other nutritional information.

    The big difference between this suit and others that have targeted tobacco and McDonald's fast food is that consumers know that tobacco is bad for their health and that McDonald's food contains a lot of fat, Joseph said.

    "Trans fat is not the same thing at all. Very few people know about it," he said, explaining that his suit focuses on the fact that trans fats are contained hidden dangers being marketed to children.

    Joseph said he targeted Nabisco because as other major snack food sellers reduced the amount of trans fats in their products, Nabisco had not.

    Nabisco has been exploring ways to reduce trans fats in Oreos, said company spokesman Michael Mudd. He also pointed out that reduced fat Oreos have half the trans fats as the regular kind.

    "Nutrition policy is best left to health professionals and regulatory agencies," said Mudd. "They have the expertise to address nutritional issues in the full context of people's overall eating and activity background."

    The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, which advises the government on health policy, said last summer that this kind of fat should not be consumed at all. It is directly associated with heart disease and with LDL cholesterol, the 'bad' kind that accumulates in arteries.

    But the U.S. Department of Agriculture said partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain trans fats, are present in about 40% of the food on grocery store shelves. Cookies, crackers, and microwave popcorn are the biggest carriers of trans fats, which are created when hydrogen is bubbled through oil to produce a margarine that doesn't melt at room temperature and increases the product's shelf life.

    The Food and Drug Administration has tried to force food companies to list trans fat content with other nutritional information on food packages, but manufacturers have challenged the rule. Even food labeled "low in cholesterol" or "low in saturated fats" may have high percentages of trans fats.

    Informing customers about trans fats on food labels could prevent 7,600 to 17,100 cases of coronary heart disease and 2,500 to 5,600 deaths per year, the FDA has estimated.

    The case is Bantransfat.com, Inc. vs. Kraft Foods North America, No. CV 032-041.


    Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.
     
  18. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    You're behind the curve, though. This is the 3rd or 4th thread on this nutiness.
     
  19. WyldOne

    WyldOne Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    93
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    LOL sorry. :eek: I looked real quick, and I wanted to post it before I went to lunch (to eat my celebratory Oreos).

    Feel free to close this, which you probably will anyway, dear moderators. :)
     
  20. cordex

    cordex Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Indiana
    Chowin' on some "Double Stuft" Oreos right now, in fact. The descriptions on the radio of the evil ingredients made me so hungry for some I went out and bought a package with extra evil kill-cream.

    yummy.

    Haven't seen you around much, Wyld. Too busy shopping around for a gun, right?
     
  21. Greg L

    Greg L Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Northern KY
    A little bird told me that she's been out shooting one of those eeeevil assault killing machines recently (trying to keep things from getting shut down too quickly :D )

    Greg
     
  22. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    I'm bettin' Oreo sales go up b/c of this. I'm going to go buy some just to PO some doofus in Kali. :D
     
  23. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    When eating Oreos is a crime, only criminals will have Oreos.
     
  24. Frohickey

    Frohickey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,018
    Location:
    People's Republic of **********
    [​IMG] British-born attorney Stephen Joseph holds an Oreo cookie in San Francisco May 12, 2003. Joseph, who has spent much of his life enjoying Oreo biscuits has sued Kraft Foods. and is seeking to ban the much-loved cookies in California because they contain trans fat, an ingredient he calls inedible. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne



    :scrutiny:
    I think this guy's brain is of the same consistency as the sweet creamy filling.
     
  25. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    There you go. ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page