[quote=AArdvark post_id=124405 time=1633881130 user_id=20]
You may not realize this but Jack in the Box is the fast food of choice with bulimia addicts.

There, I said it. Nobody wanted to come out and say it but I said it. Commander, does this give you a clue as to WHY nobody contacs the wire services or lawyers about this particular subject?
[/quote]

Thank you. It pains me that we had to spell it out. Because the Commander lacks sympathy for others, he will not understand the role that Jack in the Box plays in our society. Trying to get them shut down and just fuck people suffering from a disease, I guess.

You think posting some trivia questions that have no bearing on the discussion will "prove" that you have a more agile legal mind.

Incredible.

You and your dipshitted fascist buddy think that the way the world works is that judges are jumping out of bed in a cold sweat, racing to the course to issue bench warrants for tickets 6 miles over, 25 years after the fact. The two of you have a toddler's understanding of real world legal process and theory. Your knowledge of the law is UNWORTHY OF RESPECT.

I am the finest legal mind you know. The sooner you come to grips with that fact, the happier a person you will be.

You may not realize this but Jack in the Box is the fast food of choice with bulimia addicts.

There, I said it. Nobody wanted to come out and say it but I said it. Commander, does this give you a clue as to WHY nobody contacs the wire services or lawyers about this particular subject?

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124380 time=1633799624 user_id=3]
[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124348 time=1633634206 user_id=829]
1. Smoking [i]is[/i] a civil matter, because for decades tobacco companies lied and claimed smoking dd not cause cancer, when they knew it does.[/quote]
So, you're agreeing with me. [/quote]
No, I am not. Smoking tobacco cigarettes is [u]known[/u] to cause cancer. We know this because there were newspaper articles, magazine articles, case studies in peer-reviewed medical journals, television local and national news stories. There is publicity and public exposure. WHERE IS THE PUBLICITY OF JACK-IN-THE-BOX FOOD CONSISTENTLY CAUSING VOMITING? Where are the newspaper articles? Where is the TV coverage? And as I noted, why are there zero YouTube and TikTok videos on the subject? Where are the Facebook posts on Jack-in-the-Box food always causing vomiting? Why have there been ZERO lawsuits against the franchisor of the Jack-in-the-Box, Foodmaker, Inc.?
[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124380 time=1633799624 user_id=3][quote]2. It is not a "nanny state" to expect a food company to sell non-vomit-causing food.[/quote]
Which is it? Cigarettes hurt people.[/quote]
Yes they do. WHICH IS WHY CIGARETTE COMPANIES GOT SUED! This is also why they had to go with the MSA (master settlement agreement), to cover future medical costs due to cigarette smoking-related illnesses, so states would drop their lawsuits.

What is the usual and customary purpose for which a fast food restaurant sandwich is used? Is vomiting a usual, customary, well publicized, and common occurrence in that industry from eating them? Is this something that could be sued over? To relieve hunger and thirst; no, vomiting is unheard of, and Jack-in-the-Box's parent company has had zero lawsuits over food safety since 1993; Yes, you could easily sue.

Now the same questions for tobacco cigarettes, usual and customary purpose? Is cancer publicized and common when smoking? Can they be sued over this? To relieve craving for nicotine as well as the other chemicals including flavoring; Yes, the link between smoking tobacco and getting cancer is very well known; Yes, they have been sued many times, but it's harder to do so because these hazards are [u]well known[/u]. (Another reason: vomiting after eating happens quickly and the chain of causality is easy to prove; cancer takes years to happen and might have other factors than just smoking.)

One could argue cigarette smokers have an implied "assumption of risk,'" [i]because[/i] the link between cigarette smoking and cancer is well publicized to the general public.

To claim people have an assumption of risk of vomiting from eating Jack-in-the-Box food, it would be necessary to show that it is well established that the public is aware this is routinely happening. Where is the evidence of this?
[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124380 time=1633799624 user_id=3]
Is it a nanny state to expect to not get cancer if buying something? Is it or isn't it?[/quote]
No, it is not, and it is ILLEGAL to sell a product that causes cancer and that the product must be removed from public sale, EXCEPT cigarette manufacturers bought off Congress to exempt cigarettes from this rule.

As i said, if JITB restaurants had signs posted telling people their food causes vomiting, they would have potential grounds to avoid lawsuits, [i]because people had advance warning[/i]. If you look at a pack of cigarettes, there is a warning right on the side of every pack and every carton. Also, there is another issue. Cigarettes contain nicotine, an addictive, poisonous chemical. One can't stop smoking without experiencing withdrawal symptoms, (unless they use a product to relieve them, like nicotine gum or patches).

If you stop eating jack-in-the-Box food because it caused vomiting, other fast food would not, neither would moving to non-fast food like home-cooked meals or non-quick-serve restaurants. Ergo, this would be clear and convincing evidence that something is wrong with their product.
[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124380 time=1633799624 user_id=3]I don't think you've studied the right case law, frankly. Never go against me when it comes to the law. Never. I know much, much more than you.[/quote]
Oh really? Without looking it up, answer these five questions:
1. What is 'Chevron deference'? 2. What is the [i]Daubert[/i] standard? 3. What is 'standing'? 4. What do you need to have standing? 5. in a court case, what is the difference between dicta and opinion?

They are all questions about legal issues. I [i]can[/i] answer [i]all[/i] these, [i]correctly[/i] off the top of my head. And i know you can't.

Marlbrah Rads or GTFO bro.

[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124348 time=1633634206 user_id=829]
[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124338 time=1633559593 user_id=3]
Is smoking a big civil matter? WE KNOW THE RISKS.

You and your nanny state.
[/quote]
1. Smoking [i]is[/i] a civil matter, because for decades tobacco companies lied and claimed smoking dd not cause cancer, when they knew it does. Then they started getting sued. Eventually, all the cigarette manufacturers joined the Master Settlement Agreement, and a very large additional tax is now imposed on cigarettes (additional $1.30+ per pack), which is why now they cost more than $5 a pack. It's supposed to be used to cover increased medical costs for smokers.[/quote]

So, you're agreeing with me. People know the risks of smoking, but guess what big fella, you can still get a cigarette. I will buy you a carton of Marlboros right now. SAME WITH JACK BOX MY FINE FEATHERED FRIEND.

[quote]2. It is not a "nanny state" to expect a food company to sell non-vomit-causing food.[/quote]

Which is it? Cigarettes hurt people. Is it a nanny state to expect to not get cancer if buying something? Is it or isn't it?

I don't think you've studied the right case law, frankly. Never go against me when it comes to the law. Never. I know much, much more than you.

[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124372 time=1633790430 user_id=829]
[quote="Bass Reeves" post_id=124367 time=1633739989]
[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124251 time=1633204197 user_id=829]There is Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s opinion in [i]Employment Division v. Smith[/i] (1990), which says, “The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see [i]Torcaso v. Watkins[/i].” [/quote]"Antonin Scalia has made his decision, now let him enforce it." --Jack, 1990
[/quote]
Well, you're only about 158 years late with that quote. <<In the U.S. Supreme Court Case, [i]Worcester v. Georgia[/i] (1832), the High Court sided with Native Americans and ruled against white settlers who sought to remove them from their land. President Jackson steadfastly refused to enforce the ruling, informing the Court, “Chief Justice John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Marshall did not take Jackson up on his offer and the order was never enforced.>>
[/quote]

Now, that was some interesting information that I did not know, thanks tDarcos!

[quote="Bass Reeves" post_id=124367 time=1633739989]
[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124251 time=1633204197 user_id=829]There is Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s opinion in [i]Employment Division v. Smith[/i] (1990), which says, “The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see [i]Torcaso v. Watkins[/i].” [/quote]"Antonin Scalia has made his decision, now let him enforce it." --Jack, 1990
[/quote]
Well, you're only about 158 years late with that quote. <<In the U.S. Supreme Court Case, [i]Worcester v. Georgia[/i] (1832), the High Court sided with Native Americans and ruled against white settlers who sought to remove them from their land. President Jackson steadfastly refused to enforce the ruling, informing the Court, “Chief Justice John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Marshall did not take Jackson up on his offer and the order was never enforced.>>

EDIT: A few hours after I posted this, I remembered that I should mention that today, Jackson is memorialized with his picture on the $20 bill.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124359 time=1633664235 user_id=3]
[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124349 time=1633634374 user_id=829]
Getting back to the original thread, my new weight has dropped to 300.4 pounds.
[/quote]

You want a pointer on how you can lose another 5 pounds real quick?
[/quote]
What, lose my attitude? Otherwise. If you're serious, I have no idea. Oh, and losing any more limbs or having surgery is off the table.

[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124251 time=1633204197 user_id=829]There is Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s opinion in [i]Employment Division v. Smith[/i] (1990), which says, “The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see [i]Torcaso v. Watkins[/i].” [/quote]

"Antonin Scalia has made his decision, now let him enforce it." --Jack, 1990

[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124349 time=1633634374 user_id=829]
Getting back to the original thread, my new weight has dropped to 300.4 pounds.
[/quote]

You want a pointer on how you can lose another 5 pounds real quick?

We the people demand the choice to choose poorly! JitB will soon have to conform to those...(waves hand in dismissal) government regulations only after people stop buying their take out. Its a law of diminishing returns: people go there, eat, puke and don't go there again. Some don't, anyway.

Getting back to the original thread, my new weight has dropped to 300.4 pounds.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124338 time=1633559593 user_id=3]
Is smoking a big civil matter? WE KNOW THE RISKS.

You and your nanny state.
[/quote]
1. Smoking [i]is[/i] a civil matter, because for decades tobacco companies lied and claimed smoking dd not cause cancer, when they knew it does. Then they started getting sued. Eventually, all the cigarette manufacturers joined the Master Settlement Agreement, and a very large additional tax is now imposed on cigarettes (additional $1.30+ per pack), which is why now they cost more than $5 a pack. It's supposed to be used to cover increased medical costs for smokers.

2. It is not a "nanny state" to expect a food company to sell non-vomit-causing food. Do Wendys hamburgers / cheeseburgers cause vomiting? How about McDonalds, In-N-Out, Burger king, Five Guys, Fuddruckers? The common and usual industry standard is that burgers do [u]not[/u] cause vomiting. Since Jack-in-the-Box burgers are not sold with a warning that they cause vomiting, they are expected to come up to the same high standard that every other food service company easily meets, i.e. that if you eat it, it will stay down and have some nutritional value.

4. A purchase is a contract. You provide them cash, they provide you with goods, those goods must meet two qualifications. (a) they are not stolen; and (b) that they are fit for the intended purpose. Food that routinely cause vomiting violates the contract. You are the ones claiming that JITB food causes vomiting 100% of the time that the company covers it up and/or the news media don't report it. Since the restaurant does not warn customers their food will cause vomiting and/or all food is sold "as is" they are required to provide nourishing food.

It is not a "nanny state" that requires a seller to abide by the terms of their contract, it is a mandatory requirement of a capitalist economy. You may know that you're taking that risk of vomiting, but other people don't, and they are entitled to safe, wholesome food which is the standard everyone is expected to meet. And despite your obvious libel, I am certain, and have been all along, that Jack-in-the-Box food is edible, does not cause vomiting, and the company's stores have been serving safe and wholesome food for the last 29 years.

[quote=Tdarcos post_id=124294 time=1633352320 user_id=829]
[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124284 time=1633314662 user_id=3]
I am trying to imagine a scene of the cops somehow taking you seriously about all of this and I think it's the greatest thing ever.
[/quote]
Well, there is the possibility someone is adulterating food at JITB restaurants, which is a federal crime (remember the Tylenol poisonings?) and is [i]felony[/i] assault at the state level. It might also be other crimes. And if the stores don't close when they are found to be distributing unsafe food without having a reinspection, the police will come in and arrest the owner, and/or chain the place closed until they clean up their act. Otherwise, it's a civil matter. A [size=150]big[/size] civil matter.
[/quote]

Is smoking a big civil matter? WE KNOW THE RISKS.

You and your nanny state.

i died from eating jack in the box ama

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey" post_id=124284 time=1633314662 user_id=3]
I am trying to imagine a scene of the cops somehow taking you seriously about all of this and I think it's the greatest thing ever.
[/quote]
Well, there is the possibility someone is adulterating food at JITB restaurants, which is a federal crime (remember the Tylenol poisonings?) and is [i]felony[/i] assault at the state level. It might also be other crimes. And if the stores don't close when they are found to be distributing unsafe food without having a reinspection, the police will come in and arrest the owner, and/or chain the place closed until they clean up their act. Otherwise, it's a civil matter. A [size=150]big[/size] civil matter.

I am trying to imagine a scene of the cops somehow taking you seriously about all of this and I think it's the greatest thing ever.

Again, if any of you ate a Jack in the Box sandwich, and it made you vomit, as you claim happens 100% of the time, why haven't you contacted your local Health Department, newspaper and TV stations, [i]all[/i] of which accept anonymous reports, and dialing *67 before calling a number blocks Caller Id. There is no excuse, unless your clams are pure bullshit.

If you're afraid, e-mail me the details and I will call it in, and won't identify where it came from.

I happen to know what the law is. If it was found out that I reported it and police came to see me - which isn't gonna happen - I'd just tell them I don't talk to police, and get the fuck out. If they threaten me with "obstruction," I will say to them, "if that is the case, arrest me, my lawyer will have a field day when I sue you, your department, and the county for false arrest, violating my civil rights, and if you don't take me to a hospital to cover my various medical conditions in the interim, also for willful neglect and intentional endangerment, and collect at least a six-figure judgment." Refusing to talk to the police is not obstruction, that requires an act to stop others from talking. If they want me to talk, they should know how: have me subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and grant me immunity. And I'm not going to tell them how, if they don't already know how, they're too stupid to find out.

If these stories are not bullshit, and you're afraid to report them, send me e-mail to paul@paul-robinson.us, put "food illness" in the title, tell where you got a sandwich that made you vomit, give me the city, state, date, time if you want, what sandwich, and restaurant location and I'll report it. I'll call the local newspaper, TV stations, and the health department. And I will follow up to make sure this was acted on.

Or just post one here on one of the boards that allow guest postings. Here's the link to the message: [url=https://www.joltcountry.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=124279]Report bad Jack-in-the-Box food[/url]. Go ahead, prove me wrong and provide reportable evidence, if you're afraid to do so yourself.

Otherwise, obviously it's pure bullshit, and it never happened.

It was well established that Jack in the Box was John Wayne Gacy's partner in crime and yet he was never tried. JitB is as above the law as Steven Seagal and frankly all of us should now fear for our safety.