Can the FDA be sued?

We'll both are US Federal Government agencies, and while in the US you can sue anyone or anything there is little chance of suceeding in a law suit against a government agency.

As a right minded upright intelligent person, how do you feel about that? I am sure you fly for your work and holiday and when you are ill you use drugs.

I am not propagating mass hysteria or even anything remotely hinting at the old "conspiracy" but when thinking about it it does make me "uneasy".

I read somebodies signature here on CR4 which said "if you want to find the truth, follow the money" or to that effect. Friend of mine worked as a high flying salesman for the pharma industry, including some American ones, and says that no industry is as corrupt as the pharma is today and has been. He has since retired (voluntarily) and would never go back.

I can't argue against your logic, and there have been plenty of cases, even recent ones where drugs have been found to be damaging after having been on the market for years.

As for flying and the FAA, I can only point to a pretty low accident rate as a reason to not worry much about the FAA.

The auto industry knew about the benefit of seat belts, and the tobacco business knew about the danger of smoking, but both did nothing.

The bottom line goes back to your quote about following the money. Pharma, and Airlines fully understand that consumer deaths are going to hurt their bottom line. There is a certain number of deaths they can accommodate financially depending on cash flow, and they will accept that. Airlines are running on thin margins and will be somewhat risk aversive, so really the FAA is unnecessary until the margins are so thin that they start taking risks to stay in business. Not sure we are there yet.

On the other hand pharma is as bloated with profit as the tobacco business, they can absorb a lot of customer deaths before it significantly affects their business.

The bottom line is that a large portion of the US population does not consider protection of the people from business interests as a valid role for the central government, in Europe, everyone would consider that a fundamental role of the government. Different cultures...

... and in both cases, the possible bad effects resulting from their screw-ups can affect the rest of the world (probably more with the FDA, as I'm sure the US drug manufacturers/exporters can have effects reaching pretty well anyone on Earth).

Say a plane crashes in Asia, or a few thousand kids get prescribed bad medicine in Africa, the US federal agencies protect the guys who screwed up.

Sad.

There are ways, one would be Civil RICO where you become the prosecution. Another would be obstruction of justice under Treason (only way to get a judge). Yet another would be the individuals if they act outside their directives thus loosing immunity.

Most Judges have never properly filed their "Oath of office" per the U.S. and State Constitutions. Find recourse for that and you will have remedy.

'if a nation comes down from its position of sovereignty and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals therein. It assumes the position of an ordinary citizen and it cannot recede from the fulfillment of its obligations.' 74 Fed Rep. 145 following 91 US page 398

Remedy and recourse, Lawyers are officers of the court so are bias. Am. Juris prudence- Client is a person of unsound mind and therefore a ward of the court.

You have options that they do not, and it is not in their best interest to or the courts to explain them to you.

The court ruled jurors have the right to decide the law, but they don't have to be told about it. It may sound hypocritical, but the Dougherty decision conforms to an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held the same thing. In Sparf vs US (156 US 51), the court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware of the right to do so.

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm Juror's handbook. What you should know but the system does not tell you.

The problem is digging through all the BS to understand the system, the law and the tactics the courts use to uphold the status quo.

You are in an Article 4 Congressional tribunal not an Article 3 Judicial court. Play the game with the wrong set of rules and loose. Or know your rights (lots of work) and cause an Article 3 court to be held (not easy).

As my agent/co-counsel (past the bar the year I was born) stated to me " you learned more about the law than you ever wanted to know". How right he is.

Brad

Maybe SiCKO "the film" put it right. Seems no politician is beyond "mis-speaking" and following money that comes from your biggest traditional enemy.

I find it all a bit hard to reconcile. I am not an outright lefty and never will be but government is for society and the people, not for themselves. Corruption always wins.

"90% of the politicians give the other 10% a bad name" Henry A. Kissinger

I didn't say Judicial Article 3 court. An Eagle standard on the flag (not banner) in all corporate and gov. standing denotes Executive jurisdiction. A spear and you are in a court martial proceeding.

Go to prison for a crime you didn't do and trust the system. Better yet Don't.

1988 Congress passed the Admiralty Jurisdiction Expansion Act merging: Civil; Criminal; Equity; and Probate courts into Admiralty.

Admiralty is an Executive Court which had jurisdiction over international treaties and crimes on the high seas.

The question was "Can The FDA be sued?" Doubtful in a 1983 action, but there is recourse if you learn the rules and pack a lunch(think BIG).

Brad

Doing some research today and couldn't find my the link to the Admiralty Jurisdiction Expansion Act. Without my source for this I can not defend it so I retract it.

Brad

There is always a lag, whether it be state or federal jurisdiction, between the time at which a legislative bill (too often someone's pet peeve project) gets introduced and the time such a bill is understood in all its ramifications. So if "pre-emption" follows the same course, it most likely will fail to be enacted...on Constitutional grounds. What ground, you ask? Try...equal protection.... It is already the case that any litigant could argue, and they not infrequently do, that a regulatory approval confers a product liability warranty and/or immunity. To memorialize such a claim or defense as a matter of statute would deprive...even the right to make the claim, or argue the merits...tantamount to denial of day in court...denial of due process.

So it is likely that even FDA would (eventually) oppose such a monkey being placed on its back. Nor would a right thinking legislator want to place such a burden on FDA's (or any bureau's) back...their budget should be first and foremost for carrying out their mandate (the evaluation of food and drug safety); not for paying of lawyer's arguing sovereign immunity case law.

PS: could not follow the link provided. it appears to be a cookie monster.

PS: could not follow the link provided. it appears to be a cookie monster.

Sorry, just grabbed the first google link. Try this one, it is a primary source.

http://www.fija.org/

Also many are enacted but never funded. JFK still has the issuing of silver certificates as an executive order 11110 (real money not currency) on the books they were recalled upon his death but the order is still active.

Brad