<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kessler Issues DOJ Verdict</title>
	<link>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2006/08/17/kessler-issues-doj-verdict/</link>
	<description>Blogging U.S. vs. Philip Morris, Inc.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: krueger</title>
		<link>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2006/08/17/kessler-issues-doj-verdict/#comment-3396</link>
		<author>krueger</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2006/08/17/kessler-issues-doj-verdict/#comment-3396</guid>
		<description>"did not satisfy case law requirements"

You're entitled to your opinion.

The Judge had a different one.

"likely get reversed on appeal."

For some reason I'm reminded of David Smith's observation:

â€œTobacco analystsâ€¦are all keen students of law...But they always seem to read the law very narrowly, in the way that favors their clients, er, I mean companies.â€

Wake-Up Call / The Tobacco Tar Pit, David Smith, July 17, 2000</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;did not satisfy case law requirements&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re entitled to your opinion.</p>
<p>The Judge had a different one.</p>
<p>&#8220;likely get reversed on appeal.&#8221;</p>
<p>For some reason I&#8217;m reminded of David Smith&#8217;s observation:</p>
<p>â€œTobacco analystsâ€¦are all keen students of law&#8230;But they always seem to read the law very narrowly, in the way that favors their clients, er, I mean companies.â€</p>
<p>Wake-Up Call / The Tobacco Tar Pit, David Smith, July 17, 2000</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tobacco observer</title>
		<link>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2006/08/17/kessler-issues-doj-verdict/#comment-3395</link>
		<author>tobacco observer</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2006/08/17/kessler-issues-doj-verdict/#comment-3395</guid>
		<description>Its not over by a long shot.

This case is going to go to the DCCA Federal appeals court and they are going to rip it to shreds. 

At least several of Kesslers "remedies" usurp the FTC's authority to regulate tobacco marketing and labelling (eg, no use of descriptors such as "light").  Those will likely get reversed on appeal. 

I haven't had a chance yet to read the text of the actual decision, but I also strongly suspect that Tobacco will have an excellent case for appeal on the merits, since the gov't, IMO, did not satisfy case law requirements for establishment of a RICO enterprise. 

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its not over by a long shot.</p>
<p>This case is going to go to the DCCA Federal appeals court and they are going to rip it to shreds. </p>
<p>At least several of Kesslers &#8220;remedies&#8221; usurp the FTC&#8217;s authority to regulate tobacco marketing and labelling (eg, no use of descriptors such as &#8220;light&#8221;).  Those will likely get reversed on appeal. </p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t had a chance yet to read the text of the actual decision, but I also strongly suspect that Tobacco will have an excellent case for appeal on the merits, since the gov&#8217;t, IMO, did not satisfy case law requirements for establishment of a RICO enterprise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Old Observer</title>
		<link>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2006/08/17/kessler-issues-doj-verdict/#comment-3394</link>
		<author>Old Observer</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2006/08/17/kessler-issues-doj-verdict/#comment-3394</guid>
		<description>And so it ends with a whimper, not a bang.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And so it ends with a whimper, not a bang.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

