|
|
(more...)
, (less...)
Add to My Group(s)
Permalink
View Article Stats (3 comments)
Add to My Group(s)
4
3
2
View Ratings |
Rate It
View Article Stats (3 comments)
FDA Running Extortion Racket: Supplement Companies Threatened with Arrest if They Don't Pay Up!
By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor Posted by Stephen Fox (about the submitter)
Become a Fan -- Page 10 of 10 page(s)
22. All decisions specified in this Decree shall be vested in the discretion of FDA and shall be final. If contested, FDA's decisions under this Decree shall be reviewed by the Court under the arbitrary and capricious standard set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Review shall be based exclusively on the written record before FDA at the time the decision was made. No discovery shall be taken by either party.
23. If, in FDA's judgment, Defendants maintain a continuous state of compliance with this Decree and the Act for a period of three (3) years after the date of entry of this Decree, and FDA has not notified Defendants that there has been a significant violation of this Decree or the Act during such time, the government will not oppose Defendants' petition to the Court to dissolve the Decree.
24. This Court retains jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of enforcing or modifying this Decree and for the purpose of granting such additional relief as may be necessary or appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated this_day of_, 2008.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR PLAINTIFF
CHARLES R. GROSS
United States Attorney Western District of Michigan
W. FRANCESCA FERGUSON
Assistant U.S. Attorney
ALAN J. PHELPS
Trial Attorney
Office of Consumer Litigation Department of Justice Civil Division P.O. Box 386 Washington, D.C. 20044
OF COUNSEL:
JAMES C. STANSEL
Acting General Counsel
GERALD F. MASOUDI
Chief Counsel
Food and Drug Division
Become a Fan -- Page 10 of 10 page(s)
23. If, in FDA's judgment, Defendants maintain a continuous state of compliance with this Decree and the Act for a period of three (3) years after the date of entry of this Decree, and FDA has not notified Defendants that there has been a significant violation of this Decree or the Act during such time, the government will not oppose Defendants' petition to the Court to dissolve the Decree.
24. This Court retains jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of enforcing or modifying this Decree and for the purpose of granting such additional relief as may be necessary or appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated this_day of_, 2008.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR PLAINTIFF
CHARLES R. GROSS
United States Attorney Western District of Michigan
W. FRANCESCA FERGUSON
Assistant U.S. Attorney
ALAN J. PHELPS
Trial Attorney
Office of Consumer Litigation Department of Justice Civil Division P.O. Box 386 Washington, D.C. 20044
OF COUNSEL:
JAMES C. STANSEL
Acting General Counsel
GERALD F. MASOUDI
Chief Counsel
Food and Drug Division
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Editor |
Comments
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
| 3 comments |
To view all comments:
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
FDA POLICIES NEED MAJOR OVERHAUL BY NEXT COMMISSIONER
by Stephen Fox on Saturday, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29:50 PM
Meanwhile, the FDA is failing at everything else!
by Jade Bruhjell on Sunday, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:30:19 PM
Food Safety Oversight
by Tommy News on Monday, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:23:59 AM