Bellevue attorney Richard Pope has filed a class action lawsuit against Issaquah-based Costco Wholesale Corporation and its top executives for selling a "3-month emergency food supply" product, which Pope alleges is fraudulently labeled --
12. If the contents of a bucket of Costco "Emergency Food Supply -- Three month food supply for one person" are consumed at 3 servings per day over a 91-2/3 day period as directed, a person would receive average daily nutrition of 455 calories, with 18 grams of protein.Costco is a low-cost retailer:13. The recommendations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for minimum nourishment to sustain adult human life are for 2,000 daily calories, with 50 grams of protein.
14. To put things in perspective, the Nazis provided concentration camp inmates at Auschwitz with a diet of 1,300 calories per day for light work prisoners and 1,700 calories for hard labor. The average prisoner at Auschwitz died of starvation within three months on this diet.
According to Jim Sinegal, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, "Costco is able to offer lower prices and better values by eliminating virtually all the frills and costs historically associated with conventional wholesalers and retailers..That apparently includes eliminating frills such as adequate portion sizes. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 23, 2006 04:12 PM | Email This
"14. To put things in perspective, the Nazis provided concentration camp inmates at Auschwitz with a diet of 1,300 calories per day for light work prisoners and 1,700 calories for hard labor. The average prisoner at Auschwitz died of starvation within three months on this diet."
Hmmmm...NOT SO FAST...
As a petite woman in my mid-40's with extra weight (despite eating reasonabliy and being pretty active - biking close to 75-100 miles a week), I can't even lose weight at 1500 calories a day!
I can see how a man, with much higher caloric needs, would be shocked at this...but then not everybody is a man with high caloric needs.
Any man that finds himself waiting out a natural disaster with me can be assured that I'll donate any excess calories to him.
Posted by: ALP on June 23, 2006 04:30 PMDo you know something (impeding disaster) the rest of us don't???
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2006 05:23 PMBy similar logic you could say:
1. An auto emergency flare that can never be lighted is okay, because the chances of really needing it are small.
2. A defective reserve parachute is okay, because the main parachute will work almost all the time.
3. No need for the temporary space saver spare tire in the trunk to work at all. Chances of a flat tire aren't that great, and if you have one, it will probably be in a populated area.
4. So what if the air bag doesn't work?
5. Who cares if thousands of mail ballots are wrongly rejected? Most elections aren't that close, and the ones that are usually aren't for the important offices.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 23, 2006 05:39 PMThe real issue here is Richard is trying to make some political hay. It's so blatantly obvious that he's trying to "WalMart" Costco.
Am I expected to sit back and cheer just because it's some conservative attorney who is going after a liberal corporation now?
I hope Costco fights this. And furthermore, I hope Costco countersues to reclaim court costs.
In the meantime I'm getting as far upwind as I can on this frivolent issue.
Richard probably just increased Costco's sales by a completely unnoticeable amount. Three months supply is actually a one month supply? So what - if I can't find food for a month, we're all totally screwed.
Posted by: Larry on June 23, 2006 07:05 PMWhy did you post this Stefan?
Posted by: Gerald on June 23, 2006 07:10 PMOr we could settle up Mark the Redneck's long standing dispute with Goldy on Horse's Ass over the $100 bet. Goldy could save a lot of money on food -- and have Mark pay for almost all of it -- if he could just stick to the Costco diet ...
As for Sims and Nickles, give them triple servings of the Costco diet. Still only 1,350 calories a day, and they will still shed weight pretty fast.
Give Gerald as much of the Costco diet as he needs, and he will go through two "three month" buckets each month, and still not gain any weight.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 23, 2006 07:28 PMLegal disclaimer: This comment is not intended to advocate any person or persons cause harm, either mental or physical to any member of the bar. Please consult a physician prior to starting any killing program. If, while listening to an attorney beg for their life you feel dizzy or light headed, discontinue listening immediately.
Posted by: Dan on June 23, 2006 08:09 PMthat being said... besides calories, do these things meet any other nutritional guidelines?? I would think protein content is far more important than carb/calorie content and protein is more likely to hold off feeling hungry...
Posted by: Cheryl on June 23, 2006 08:57 PMThat said, I'm a Caveat Emptor kinda guy and, as such, believe in trusting in myself first, and Multi-National Conglomerates second.
I can speculate as to your motives, and won't try to second guess.
Molon Labe!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2006 09:14 PMI have been doing more research, and it appears that more protein is required on an extremely low calorie diet, than on a diet with reasonable caloric intake. In any event, 18 grams of protein a day just isn't go to be nearly enough.
In any event, caveat emptor simply does not excuse a seller from being bound by their own representations -- i.e. "Emergency Food Supply -- Three month food supply for one person".
Moreover, this situation is more serious than, let's say if Costco milk consistently soured one week before the date printed on the carton. At worst, a customer might be out several partially unused containers of milk if they kept coming back for me. They could always buy more milk to replace it.
With emergency food storage, if it is ever needed, the consequences of slowly starving to death over three months or only having enough to properly eat for three weeks would be extremely severe -- i.e. death, etc. And it would be very difficult or impossible to get replacement food in a situation where emergency food had to be eaten.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 23, 2006 09:35 PMPoint taken. I am out of my element (having never studied law). I am sure that you have weighed the odds of success in your endeavour and have no intentions toward second guesses...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2006 09:43 PMLet's say half of your lawsuits are as irrelevant as yesterday's Seattle PI. Give me a break. I'm as conservative as you are, or more so, since I believe people should check things out and make their decisions -- not wait for "class action" lawsuits or guvment to bail them out. If there aren't enough calories in the package, buy a couple more.
Bottom line:We don't need lawyers going into court to protect the stupid.
Why don't you buy the Costo 3-Month Emergency Food package and use that for your diet plan. At 455 calories a day, even you will lose weight rapidly.
Pope,
The government's recommendation varies highly for each person. 2000 Calories is on the high end. But certainly 455 calories is off the charts low. A reasonable portion size would be about 1500 calories. After all, it is for emergency use.
I'm against false advertising, but this is a showy display of legal overreach. You make a great case for tort reform. Why don't you find something better to do than attack corporations. Even left leaning corporations don't deserve this kind of petty behavior.
Now, as to Mr. Pope's motive, it's very simple. If he's seeking huge attorney's fees, he's in this for himself. If he's doing this for reasonable fees, and let the purchasers of this item get their money back, then he's not out to make a quick fortune.
Time will tell.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on June 23, 2006 10:08 PMI want to point out a few thing about Richard's lawsuit:
1) The consumer produc is not what is being advertised. How many people would say it is OK to pay the full price for a gallon of gasoline and only get 1/2 gallon.
2) Costco is a major moonbat contributor. If they are doing shady deals, they should have the book thrown at them. Then maybe they won't have much left over for moonbat causes.
3) Everyone wants to make fun of lawyers - till they need one.
An no, Richard is not paying me to say this. Besided, I bet he know the best lawyer jokes of all.
Posted by: pbj on June 23, 2006 11:21 PMPosted by Peaches Marie at June 23, 2006 10:14 PM
Sams Club's are in Auburn (1101 Supermall Way), Renton (901 S Grady W) and Seattle 13550 Aurora Ave N).
Posted by: Cheryl on June 23, 2006 11:54 PMThe "law" has become a self absorbed, self maintained, incomprensible institution, that the average citizen no longer understand's. If Flaw, I mean Law, had been kept simple, lets say, like a National Flat Tax Rate, we would NEVER NEED a lawyer, like we would never need to kill thousands of trees to make millions of forms, and booklets to support an incomprhensible tax code.
The Ultimate accomplishment by any TRUE (this may be a word many legal professionals may need to research) professional is to do their job so well, that it is no longer needed.
Richard stop muckraking simply for Job Security
just because Wal-Mart sells a book titled:
"Simplified Will Kit: Prepare Your Own Will Without Using a Lawyer " for $10.36 you have to go "create" your own battles for your own self absorbtion.
I read your lawsuit... The TIMELINE is what pisses people off about frivilous lawsuit.
Thursday Evening (June 22nd)you go to Costco- Buy the product after the church advises you to buy this type of thing.....
Friday (wee hours of morning) You are writing letters to Costco telling them they have Less than 8 hours to respond (by noon) or you are gonna sue them.
Friday (3:25 pm) you file suit. You expected these people to respond within 8 hours which 5 of those hours they were sleeping???
You didn't call them did you. You faxed a snotty letter to them between 1am and 3 am in the morning and expected a response by noon the next day....
You spent the entire evening preparing a lawsuit, and filed it within 12 hours, you are quick.
Why didnt you get in your car the next morning, drive to costco, ask for your money back, and talk to someone from costco......If you wanted to truly get this "line of product off the shelf, you should be "sueing" the manufactuter, not the distributer......
You are truly trying to get "SOMETHING" from this...Take some personal responsibilty and withdraw it....It won't cost you anything, but you will gain respect for it.....Put that negative energy you have for COSTCO, and SUE the Manufacturer.
I am not sure why Stefan posted this, but read the link, and you too will be disgusted....A lawsuit filed within 18 hours of purchasing the product. No negotiations, no bargining, no NOTHING, just midnight faxed letters.....
I am Curious, would you sue ME (a nobody citizen) if you had bought that product at my store?
Posted by: Chris on June 24, 2006 08:02 AMI figured the situation out very quickly, conducted research, analyzed it, and wrote a detailed letter all within a few hours. This was without any paid staff to help me, just me all by myself -- and taking care of my three year old daughter at the same time to boot.
All they had to do to check out my claims -- assuming they didn't know already -- was to send someone to go accross the street to their Issaquah store (right across Lake Drive from corporate HQ) and get a bucket of the product. Open up the bucket. Inventory the contents, put it on a simple spreadsheet, input the alleged nutritional values, then divide out by 91-2/3 days and get the result.
455 calories per day. 18 grams of protein.
Let's suppose you ran your own store and sold this product. Legally, I would be under no obligation whatsoever to improve your knowledge before I sued you.
But let's suppose I did tell you about it. But you failed to act. Would you have the right to be resentful because I merely laid out the facts in detail format with supporting documentation -- but wasn't "nice" enough to repeatedly pound you with the facts?
As for suing the "manufacturer" -- there is no information whatsoever as to the assholes who are manufacturing this product. The bucket has no company name or address. The website has no company name or address. The WHOIS registration information for the website is confidential, so the website operator's identity is hidden. (If you read the lawsuit, you would know this already.)
And Costco hasn't told me who the manufacturer is. Had they furnished this information, I would have simply added them to the lawsuit as well.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 24, 2006 08:24 AMI read the lawsuit, saw the snapshots of the websites, and noted the lack of IP identity. As I said, I READ IT....
Would you SUE ME? Not that you have to warn me, or even let me know that the product I sell is mis labeled.....
Just hypothetical here, but If you were to sue me within 18 hours of buying a product, and I only had 8 hours to respond to a fax, before being sued, I doubt that I would divulge the identity of the manufacturer either.
If a person is that "Lawsuit Happy" to make it happen in 18 hours, then I am not sure I would want to deal with them directly, probably hire me an attorney.
Question is Would you sue me?
IMO, if we are in a situation where we need 3 months supply of food, I am not sure I want to be around........
Posted by: Chris on June 24, 2006 08:37 AMI agree this is America, he can sue if he wants....But he should have given them more than a few HOURS to respond.....
AND if he is trying to set a precedent, the he should SUE all STORES that sell products that are MIS Labled.....Not just the rich corporate ones.
Your tax dollars, as well as mine are used in Lawsuits like this. Superior Courts are used for criminals cases too. I would rather see them trying a murderer than a "I bought it and it isn't what it said it was" case...
But as you said, let him go with it, it will be interesting to follow this case.
Posted by: Chris on June 24, 2006 09:00 AMYou might try finding out who this guy is "Neum Schmickrath"
6 days ago he was trying to fix a problem on their website.... Maybe you can find out who write's his paycheck.....
Maybe you can name him in your lawsuit too !!!
Posted by: chris on June 24, 2006 09:40 AMyou said
"As for suing the "manufacturer" -- there is no information whatsoever as to the assholes who are manufacturing this product. The bucket has no company name or address. The website has no company name or address. The WHOIS registration information for the website is confidential, so the website operator's identity is hidden. (If you read the lawsuit, you would know this already.)"
Here is the particulars...(took me 15 min to find from the Business Enity Search at https://secure.utah.gov/bes)
Nutristorage is registered with the state of Utah, and is located in Wellsville.
NUTRI STORAGE, LLC Limited Liability Company Wellsville Active
Business Name: NUTRI STORAGE, LLC
Entity Number: 6097173-0160
Registration Date: 01/17/2006
State of Origin:
Address
217 Redslide Drive
Wellsville, UT 84339
Status
Status: Active
Status Description: Good Standing
This Status Date: 01/17/2006
Last Renewed: N/A
License Type: LLC - Domestic
Delinquent Date: 01/17/2007
Registered Agent
Registered Agent: Douglas Craig Tippets
[Search BES] [Search RPS]
Address Line 1: 217 Redslide Drive
Address Line 2:
City: Wellsville
State: UT
Zip: 84339
Its amazing that this company is in UTAH, with all the Mormons about, and it hasn't been shut down by now.
I doubt Costco is Hiding this information from you, they are probably wondering why you didn't just do a bit of research........Unless Costco is in Kahoots with this company to STARVE all the mormons when an emergency happens.....Now is that reason behind this lawsuit?....
There's a couple hours of her life that she won't get back.
"Litigation: The first refuge of the incompetent"
Posted by: FT on June 24, 2006 10:10 AMAnd Stefan definitely got this one wrong. There's nothing to be proud of in giving publicity to Pope's litigious antics.
A commenter above said it best. Pope, why not do what normal people do when they don't feel they are getting a good value in a product? Take it back and get a refund.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 24, 2006 10:25 AMThere is one thing I got out of this whole topic...I wont hire Mr. Pope for an attorney...He is just too knee jerked for me..... I want a THINKER in an attorney, not a REACTOR...
Posted by: Chris on June 24, 2006 10:29 AMy'all successfully brought in more diversity training for the professors at BCC and now you are shaking down corporations whose political affiliations you disagree with.
completely pathetic.
the funny part is that y'all will claim to be "conservatives" but that's just a pander to toss out when the truth is you're just a bunch of sycophants bent on appeasing your masters.
Posted by: disgusted on June 24, 2006 10:45 AMbut don't let the facts get in the way of your knee-jerk smears.
Posted by: disgusted on June 24, 2006 10:52 AMAs for Nutristorage, I see what happened -- it is actually Nutri Storage. I pulled it up, and got what you got. I also paid Utah $1.00 by credit card, and have the following:
Business Entity Search - Principals:
Name Type City Status
NUTRI STORAGE, LLC Limited Liability Company Wellsville Active
Position Name Address
Member Douglas Craig Tippets 217 Redslide Drive Wellsville UT 84339
Member Laurie Shareen Tippets 217 Redslide Drive Wellsville UT 84339
Registered Agent Douglas Craig Tippets 217 Redslide Drive Wellsville UT 84339
Additional Principals on file at Division of Corporations: N
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=&city=Wellsville&state=UT&zipcode=84339%2d9757&country=US&location=EomxpLCiheP%2ft%2bJ3huaDc05Xvmf90nun7F8MeIAenzqjBOSk90JRcDkS%2fsyUFyvmOMSzReZrBTjrQyW9SjLDO5N%2fHRsrTwfmxLXVxdQgNqgChiaLPC5HEvBQ3hm08yVp&ambiguity=1
I guess it is amazing this company hasn't been shut down yet. How could they fool people without getting caught? It is pretty obvious 25 pounds of food -- even total dry food -- can't feed anyone for 3 months. I was inspired to investigate this situation immediately, and am surprised that no one else has done so.
In any event, Costco has the rope -- so to speak. I hope they use it as a lifeline to climb out of this mess and start doing right by everyone. But if they want to tie the rope around their necks and enjoy the "suspense", then they can do that too.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 24, 2006 11:01 AMAnd if they have really gotten away with selling this product in UTAH -- where the majority of the people are LDS and many take food storage very seriously -- for this long, then something had to be done about this. If I have been the only person inspired to do anything about this, then I guess that is the way it is.
This product is DANGEROUS. If you rely on it and use for its intended purpose -- you will be DEAD. Probably within three months, and definitely within one year. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. But if you have faith in the product, you won't know about it until it is too late.
I don't have the resources to send out picketers in every Costco store in the United States to inform people not to buy this bullshit product. Nor do I have resources to run nationwide advertising to inform people of its dangers.
The conduct of Costco executives in the next few days and weeks will show their true characters. They certainly KNOW the facts now. Regardless of what they do to defend against the damages claims in this lawsuit, they have a moral and legal duty to immediately stop selling this product at the very minimum.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 24, 2006 11:12 AMSomehow I doubt that the Tippets have very much money. Maybe nothing more than their home. Property values in Utah -- especially in a non-metro area like Cache County -- aren't nearly as high as they are here.
Yes, Costco will have the right to cross-claim against the Tippets and their personal LLC for what they have to pay out in this lawsuit, and any other damages they have been caused by the Tippets. But I doubt that Costco's judgment against the Tippets will be worth the paper it is written on.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 24, 2006 11:24 AMCraig Tippets
217 N Red Slide Dr
Wellsville, UT 84339-9757
Phone: (435) 245-2911
http://www.switchboard.com/bin/cginbr.dll?ID=63977046&FUNC=MORE&TYPE=1007&MEM=1&L=tippets&S=UT&LO=ut&VL=MSZ1dCYmJlVUJiYwJjAmMSYyJjAz&NM=tippets&QV=BFD7FD0FFD2248F68DBE97BC6D0619C0l02886F287F78524445323203O019DE5D7B097954479CF3203O03892B3D0A969544D0CF3203
For all you Richard Pope haters out there, why doesn't someone call up Mr. Tippets, and ask him how a person can survive for three months or one year on 455 calories per day?
Maybe you can get some good scientific information to trash me with and make me look like a total idiot.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 24, 2006 11:34 AMRichard,
I don't hate you, I just feel you could have approached Costco more professionally and given them TIME (as in more than 8 hrs) to respond to your claim.
I doubt your clients expect Answers from you within 8 hours, or they drop you as their counsel.
I am sure Costco will pull this off their shelves, and if that is accomplished, I would hope that you would be satisfied and drop your Lawsuit. I would also hope that you would try to negotiate with the manufacturer to RELABEL their product.
Posted by: Chris on June 24, 2006 11:55 AM
Then ... we read package ingredients (aka caloric amounts, vitamins, protein, etc.) from whatever source and buy sufficient quantities to sustain outselves in an emergency. It ain't rocket science, and we don't need lawyers to tell us what we should do to protect ourselves. If folks want to attack Costco because their management gives campaign donations to Democrats, there is a long list of corporate baddies (ei. Starbucks, Boeing, Levi Strauss, ATT, etc.) -- so get in line.
But Mike, when that calamity comes, there sure won't be enough time to file a lawsuit then!
Honestly, I think this lawsuit is pretty lame...but then again a pre-packaged three month emergency food supply kit is as well.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on June 24, 2006 02:21 PMI am NOT a Liberal Troll and I am confident in saying Richard Pope is NOT a Republican. He is a baffoon who files frivously lawsuits just to grandstand for publicity. I find the reference to Nazi concentration camps extremely offensive and in bad taste. But that is grandstanding Richard Pope for you.
Posted by: Spudster on June 24, 2006 05:37 PMSnort. You're doing a fine job of that on your own, Richard.
Posted by: jimg on June 24, 2006 06:05 PMI've got some protein to share! Just had to reply as it was such a "soft ball" response waiting for that. :-)
As for Mr. Pope, I don't listen to him much because being "intelligent" doesn't mean you are smart or that I should listen to you. Look at Sharpten....he's an educated man, but he still sounds like a fart when he opens his mouth.
Posted by: Dengle on June 24, 2006 07:32 PMRichard's claim is legitimate to the extent that he is attempting to penalize unfair trade practices that will not solve themselves. Costco will not respond otherwise because they don't have to, and liberals must be forced to do the right thing because they have no integrity or moral compass.
Personally, I wouldn't waste my time, but this is not a frivolous lawsuit. Although some are unable to do so, looking out for yourself is the best policy, and part of looking out for yourself is stomping people's a$$ who intentionally try to cheat you. This is about as humorous as an empty fire extinguisher.
Kick their a$$es Richard.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 24, 2006 08:42 PMJust because Mr. Pope was up all hours of the night doing these calculations does NOT mean it was first action of the day for the poor person who picked the fax up off the fax machine (if it even got through. Our own office has been having fax problems of late. What if the machine ran out of paper? Hard to prove they even got your message by fax. A letter sent by registered letter/courier with a signature needed and a reasonable amount of time given to respond. Reasonable in a corporate sense, not an individual hot-button sense would have been better.) and may not have known who to pass it off to! It feels like a childish tantrum to me to demand a personal response on such a short timeframe for anything short of poison in the food. This is the marks of a letter looking for a lawsuit (or a settlement) rather than looking for an answer to the problem.
I don't know thought that I would ever have taken them to court. Stores have the right to sell what they want. Customers have the right to buy, or not buy. I'd have returned my supply and show the front desk what I discovered about it dangers. I'd have sent letters to the corporate office and the manufacturer. I may even raise a stink on a public bulletin board trying to make sure people didn't buy the false supply and depend on it.
But creating a lawsuit? You lose a lot of sympathy by clogging up our systems (and costing the business money) with a frivolous lawsuit.
Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on June 24, 2006 10:04 PMIndeed, "Stores have the right to sell what they want," but they have a responsibility to be truthful in the claims they make about the products they sell."
If they can get away with expressly false claims with this product, they will do it with others. How would you like to buy a fire extinguisher only to find that it will not put out most fires? That is why we have consumer protection laws (CPA) and why it is important to enforce them. An implied warranty of merchantability exists regardless of detailed product representations, why would you be in favor of a merchant selling a product that "categorically" will not perform as the merchant "claims" it will perform? Do you want to wait until people are hurt in order to force unscrupulous merchandisers to obey the law?
ReporterWard says, "I've never eaten the Costco emergency meals (not the first place I'd go to for my end-times preparations) but I assume they are safe to eat." Ward is no fool, so he makes his assumption based on the legal premise forming an implied warranty of merchantability, a warranty of fitness, consumer laws, and binding requirements of contractual equity. It would normally not occur to Ward that Costco would sell something they represent as “safe to eat,” not because Costco is a bunch of really nice guys, but because Costco’s management will have their collective a$$es figuratively kicked in court if they feed Ward a bucket of Shit and he finds out about it.
Hey Ward, normally I am with you on things but you are off base here. I know you don’t like Pope, but his point is a good one and he is doing the right thing. Black’s Law dictionary calls a frivolous lawsuit “one that is clearly insufficient on its face, . . . does not controvert the . . . opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent. This is no frivolous lawsuit.
Kick their a$$es Richard
Someone could test the product to see if it does what it claims (for average individuals), and that would be providing enough food to keep your ass alive for 3 months, while you are waiting out an emergency.
Posted by: grog on June 25, 2006 03:28 AMGood point.... You are in a small 8 x 8 room for 3 months, your not gonna burn too many calories. Perhaps it may keep you alive....
Richard....Can you prove it won't keep a person alive? Do the Test.
Is there Goverment regulations somewhere that state how much/many nutrients are required for Emergency kits??? Any laws on the books???
It's not friviolous richard, you could have given them a resonable amount of time to respond before you filed.
Posted by: Chris on June 25, 2006 07:44 AMBTW, I have some emergency survival items for sale that would be perfect for liberals like you, and at just the right price.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 25, 2006 09:32 AMHe gave Costco an hour more than the time between yours and my post. (assuming again, their office opens at 9 am)
And yes, it could be an 8 x 8 room, could it not? A small basement perhaps?
Your assumptions about me, are like my assumptions about the room size, just assumptions.
I am not a liberal, nor do I need an emergency food supply for 3 months. A few weeks perhaps, but I will prepare my own....I don't want to depend on anyone, except myself....
Posted by: Chris on June 25, 2006 10:56 AMJust one more thing... I suggest you go to work for Costco, Testing every ITEM in their store. Make sure that each and every ITEM is exactly what it states. It cannot waiver even an ounce, or gram, or mistate the total amount of Whatever it will Save, Burn, Waste, or Mow, in any way....
The consumer protection laws are there to protect, but at what point does the public become so "LAWSUIT HAPPY" and DEPENDENT on the Goverment to CONTROL and ENFORCE them....
Where is Personal Responsibilty?
Common Sense perhaps?
Check it out for yourself maybe do some research?
How about TAKE IT BACK and let the Store know what it is selling?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WE JUST file a LAWSUIT!!!
Richard has the best resource available to him right now without having to File that lawsuit. He has the LDS church. Using his skills as an attorney, he could educate each sector "church" about the "dangerous" ITEM costco is selling. He could USE the Church (as he did in his lawsuit)to pressure Costco to quit selling this item. The Mormons are BIG, and you don't need money to get the word out.....If they are serious about their faith, then they will listen. So will the MSM.
I am curious though, what will Richard buy on his next trip to Costco? I wonder if they sell " How to file a class action lawsuit within 18 hours
& babysit at the same time" in the book section....
Holding the distributor, by far less culpable (if culpable at all) than the manufacturer, solely responsible for the labeling on that product shows how poorly thought out and frivolous this is. If I find out Snickers bars have 20 more average calories than listed on the lable, does that mean I'm legit suing the family-owned corner grocery I bought it from?
Actually, I'll follow the logic here: It would be justified to sue the owner's of the corner store, but only if they donate to liberal causes. The manufacturer legally obligated to accurately label their product? Why should I sue them? Are they liberals too?
What a joke.
Posted by: MAX HATS on June 25, 2006 12:12 PMWhere is Personal Responsibility? This lawsuit is the essence of personal responsibility – put into action by someone who will not tolerate a merchant cheating people by misrepresenting a product (especially and vital life preserving one).
”Common sense” dictates that to do otherwise is manifestly irresponsible.
I looked at the notice and pleading and I am well enough versed in law, emergency planning, and nutrition to be dangerous in opposition to anyone who calls Pope’s claims frivolous. Personally, the more I look at this . . . the more I’d like to argue this case myself.
For some reason that mystifies me, you miss the point here. Conservatism is about the personal and public responsibility to act honestly and demand high ethical and moral standards of society. That includes merchants and those who we must trust to tell the truth about the products they sell us. Conservatism also recognizes the essential and practical fact that people are imperfect who without laws to prevent them from mischeif will hurt others for profit or personal gain. Defrauding comsumers on emergency supplies is near-to the lowest a merchant can go. Even with consumer laws in place, the vigilance of consumers to recognize fraud, and their insistence that merchants abide by laws made to protect consumers is essential.
This Pope v. Costco lawsuit is appropriate, admirable, and well grounded, and I hope Richard Pope succeeds in having the product removed from the shelves for the sake of the many who don’t know better or pay close enough attention to care until it may be too late.
Go get em Richard . . .
. . . and any other general or equitable relief the court may deem appropriate.
Only a moron like you would buy Snickers bars to subsist in an emergency.
and yes . . . you are a joke.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 25, 2006 02:52 PMAnyway, as I was saying the lawsuit is pretty obviously bunk and will be shredded by Costco's army of lawyers, but that's not the point, is it? The point is to abuse the legal system to strike back at an ideological enemy, and then once it flames out post all over the internets about how you went all William Wallace against the mighty liberal overlords of bulk retail. How can republicans sleep soundly knowing that although they control the entirety of the federal government, somewhere, somehow, a private entity may be (*GASP*) donating to the Sierra Club?
Way to put your foot down, even if it means violating a few of those pesky 'conservative principles.' It seems like only a few months ago (-ed note: it was) that we were hearing about the need for tort reform, but times change, people change, and how's a modern rugged conservative supposed make it in a world where a retailer doesn't personally verify the veracity of all 95,000 product labels on the shelves?
You go, girl.
Posted by: MAX HATS on June 25, 2006 06:19 PMYou bet, I may -- in your parlance -- be ”threated [sic] by alternate viewpoints” like yours. Your foolish line of reasoning is a perfect illustration of petty liberal misdirection and substitution of extraneous nonsense for analysis. You have a viewpoint -- and you have presented it.
According to you, a merchant who cheats and defrauds people should not be held accountable with legitimate claims because they might be called "partisanship?" You never argue the merits – brushing them aside with peremptory disdain by saying ” that's not the point, is it?” All that's left in your mind is the partisan imperative. I never heard of a conservative principal that encouraged people to blindly trust merchants (especially liberal ones) by ignoring obvious fraud because they might vote like you. The claim against Costco is legitimate and your mindless comments about Republicans, William Wallace, and the Sierra Club are typical nonsensical daubery used to cover the fact that you have no point.
You assume the case is over and Costco won because of their liberal “army of lawyers.” More likely they will settle out of court because Costco is absolutely caught flat-footed and dead to rights defrauding people and breaking consumer laws and they know that the liberal MSM will not cover this up for long. Given unforeseen prospects and the number of insane judges we have in our area, it could go another way. Even at that, pointy headed liberals like you are beginning to quietly wonder what other innately defective and less immediately benign products Costco is hawking with impunity. If Costco will stand by this -- what else?
Liberals like you openly protect those who intentionally swindle innocent consumers and constituents because they may support the same political nonsense you beleive in.
Where will you go with this?
You cannot argue the case on its merits because the facts are certain, and they are inarguably against you (you would just make a bigger fool of yourself).
You already took your best shot here with misdirection and cheap nonsense (and made a fool of yourself).
All you have left is to say nothing or . . . make a bigger fool of yourself.
Given the the record so far . . . I’ll bet the latter.
Also, I don't thnk this thing was being sold as a gourmet pack. It is an emergency pack - to get you through 3 months. It may not be delicious, or everything desired, but it will sustain you for the time period - the goal of the product.
Posted by: Fred on June 26, 2006 08:44 AMTell you what - I'll stake ya to the cost of this "product" if you'll promise to live on it for the next three months.
Your next of kin can report back on how well you fared...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 26, 2006 10:30 AMAgreed genious, if the product consisted of what it claimed, Pope would not have a case.
You cannot possibly be the Fred that used to comment here . . . he had a brain.
Could you possibly make a more inanely asinine comment? It's hardly possible.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 26, 2006 10:48 AMSecond, I think it's the manufacturer more at fault here than Costco - afterall it's not Costco's job to justify every claim made on packaging. However, I know Costco uses contract manufacturers to sell products under its own Kirland brand, and if that is the case here, then I think their responsibility goes further than just a reseller.
Finally, I don't see anything frivolous about truth in advertising. Products should do what they claim to do, otherwise they should be removed or the copy should be changed. This is an important consumer safeguard, and without people bringing suits like this, it goes unchecked.
Posted by: Palouse on June 26, 2006 04:01 PMYou are not telling the truth.
You say "I know several people who, under close medical supervision were on 330 calorie daily intake diets - almost all from protein, because they were still leading active lives ... and they were on these diets for 6 months or more to lose significant weight ... and they did so, successfully ..."
The diet you describe would never be advisable for anyone even someone severely obese because it would cause severe physical, emotional, and neurological problems well before the duration of six months in all but some rare cases. Such damage is a certainty beyond six months.
You are intentionally leaving out vitally important facts.
You obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of nutrition or you wouldn’t make this comment. Calories are simply a way of measuring useful energy in units of chemical energy released as heat. A 150 pound man burns about 560 calories in an eight hour period merely sleeping. The same man will burn about 960 calories sitting quietly for the same eight hour period or 2,880 calories per day. Professional athletes (I was one) know that one must adjust the number of calories to activity levels and active sports that can require upwards of 4000 to 5000 calories per day with zero weight gain. Marathon runners eat considerably more just before a race.
Further, you say ”almost all from protein.” The same 150 pound man needs approximately 70 grams of protein per day to stay healthy with a minimum of 50 grams plus per day. Absent significant activity, the components of complete proteins or amino acids are vital to neurological health and lacking the minimum quantities of certain ones over a fairly short period causes dementia, catatonia, tremors among many other things and ultimately death. Your associates were given careful doses of certain amino acids, vitamins and other nutritional alternatives that cannot be otherwise displaced or exempted in a diet without severe health repercussions and death.
YOUR EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE
Given the average need for about 2000 calories per day and 50 grams of protein, the 455 calories per day, and 18 grams of protein provided by the 3-month emergency food supply is no where near enough nutrition for an average consumer to survive.
Your comments are not based on a reasonable analysis of reality or science.
No matter how you slice it, Richard Pope’s lawsuit is a well founded one based on reality, science, and simple common sense.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 26, 2006 04:22 PMA sane voice in the darkness.
"The only thing that is going to get that done is a lawsuit."
The bad is on Costco because they should know better once they've been adequately informed.
Exactly, and well-said.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 26, 2006 04:29 PMYou keep missing the distinction between manufacturer and distributor. It's a critical one, and obvious.
Posted by: MAX HATS on June 26, 2006 05:40 PMA purely rhetorical question but . . . do you have any idea what legal standing or privity are?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 26, 2006 07:21 PMHow come your arguements seem more an more liberal as days go by? It seems you seem to like to call those with conservative opinions liberals if their opinion differs from yours.
Here's a hint on how to correctly win an arguement, interpret your opponent's arguement in the strongest way possible, not the weakest. By showing that you can formulate a weak arguement from your opponent's words and easily debunk it, you have won over only the sheep and wasted the time of yourself and those who matter. However, if you formulate the strongest possible arguement and are still able to show that thier argument is unsound or invalid, please do so. Otherwise, you are merely battling a straw man of your own creation, and that gets you, us, and the discussion no where.
BTW, nitpicking spelling errors for in a forum where the method of submission does not include a spell check makes you look like an ass. When I say ass I mean the donkey that represents liberals.
Posted by: grog on June 27, 2006 12:45 AMHold on there Bubba-Louie, one item of nonsense at a time.
Your fine sage tutorial (diversion) about “arguements” [sic] notwithstanding, how is it a conservative principal to encourage people to blindly trust merchants (especially liberal ones) by ignoring obvious fraud? Since you can apparently read, review the attached materials and then . . . think . . . before you comment. In other words . . . take your own advice.
Despite the simple and clear scientific facts that support Pope’s case you say at June 25, 2006 03:28 AM,” Someone could test the product to see if it does what it claims (for average individuals), and that would be providing enough food to keep your ass alive for 3 months, while you are waiting out an emergency.”
Grog, you could also do the “Viva towel test,” or hold a lit M-80 in your mouth, but only if you are a liberal blockhead. Figuratively, it might "keep your [dumb] ass alive" for 3 months, but the rest of you would wither and die. Given the clear evidence provided, your suggestion is dunderheaded in a typically nonsensical liberal fashion.
Who’s “argueyments” are liberal?
Since that is the best argument you can muster, I will stick with the sensible, realistic, conservative line of reasoning and support Richard Pope’s claims because they are very good ones.
Hold on there Bubba-Louie, one item of nonsense at a time.
Your fine sage tutorial (diversion) about “arguements” [sic] notwithstanding, how is it a conservative principal to encourage people to blindly trust merchants (especially liberal ones) by ignoring obvious fraud? Since you can apparently read, review the attached materials and then . . . think . . . before you comment. In other words . . . take your own advice.
Despite the simple and clear scientific facts that support Pope’s case you say at June 25, 2006 03:28 AM,” Someone could test the product to see if it does what it claims (for average individuals), and that would be providing enough food to keep your ass alive for 3 months, while you are waiting out an emergency.”
Grog, you could also do the “Viva towel test,” or hold a lit M-80 in your mouth, but only if you are a liberal blockhead. Figuratively, it might "keep your [dumb] ass alive" for 3 months, but the rest of you would wither and die. Given the clear evidence provided, your suggestion is dunderheaded in a typically nonsensical liberal fashion.
Who’s “argueyments” are liberal?
Since that is the best argument you can muster, I will stick with the sensible, realistic, conservative line of reasoning and support Richard Pope’s claims because they are very good ones.
More likely, they will settle because neither one of them is completely right...
If Pope's logic runs true (that words printed on a label = an express warranty) then pretty much everying thing you see on QVC or in "As Seen On TV" is actionable... the difference here? Costco's deeper pockets...
I say it's all puff. plain and simple. there's no warranty here... certainly not express... implied warr for a particular purpose is probably Pope's best bet but the merchant must have actual knowledge that the buyer is relying on the particular warranty, and that buyer must in fact so rely...
Instead, the only person that wins in class action suits is the plaintiff's atty. Why do you think there are massive law firms built on nothing but? You don't really think they're out for the little guy, do you? (Don't believe me? Those of you that have been involved as plaintiffs in any class actions - have you ever seen more than a double-digit settlement come into your hands? Now ask how many plaintiff atty's of those same lawsuits have ever seen less than a 6-figure settlement come into theirs for those same lawsuits?)
and lest you think I'm just an attorney basher... I am actually an attorney myself... er... wait... I'm a little premature... If I get off this blog and back to studying for this summer's bar exam... I WILL be one (that is, unless I bomb contracts & Article 2 of UCC b/c my warranty analysis is terribly off course).
but I digress... severely.
Posted by: bitter about the bar on June 27, 2006 08:24 PMLast Friday, Reporterward said
In the meantime I'm getting as far upwind as I can on this frivolent issue.
A typical liberal response to detecting something that smells funny is "well... at least my a$$ don't smell." Well I gotta tell you Ward, something evil has been blowing my way since about last Friday. Ohmagosh!
Posted by: huckleberry on June 27, 2006 08:28 PMFor a law student, your own logic lacks coherence. You say that ”If Pope's logic runs true (that words printed on a label = an express warranty) then pretty much everything thing [sic] you see on QVC or in "As Seen On TV" is actionable...” Let's see . . . you claim that based on the vague throw-away notion that other products might have fraudulent labeling, . . . product labeling is not an express warranty?
I have not researched the case law and you may be correct about express warranties, but certainly not for the silly half-baked reason you provide. If in fact as you say ”everything thing you see on QVC or in "As Seen On TV" are labeled to intentionally defraud consumers, you and Richard Pope have your work cut out for you . . . be straightforward . . . go get em’.
You assert that a product -- marketed to perform a specific function -- that has a label placed prominently on it, expressly listing in detail the specific quantitative and qualitative properties of that product in support of its stated capacity to fulfill it’s specifically intended function . . . has no express warranty?
You believe that a stated claim of facts proving deception based on express warranty is ”all puff, plain and simple?” Indeed, a merchant must have actual knowledge that the buyer is relying on a particular warranty. However it is well settled that such knowledge can easily be inferred from the information clearly printed on the label. A buyers’ reliance on the representations printed on a product label speaks for itself.
Starting out in the legal field with a jaundiced preconception about the profession itself combined with such hackneyed lines of reasoning doesn’t bode well for you or those who might place trust in your professionalism.
Let’s hear a more scholarly treatise on express warranties or quit trying to B.S everyone with inane nonsense.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 28, 2006 11:21 AMThe Nazi example Pope gave begs the question. Those poor souls were being required to work upwards of 20 hours a day, clearly expending all the calories they were given and then some (The calorie count Pope gave on this was wrong too- it averaged 350-1000 see http://www.motl.org/resource/curriculum/curriculum_8.htm for a description of the meals they ate and http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=ivKVLcMVIsG&b=476143 for actual calorie counts). This is likely NOT the circumstances someone living through a disaster would find themselves in.
The point is - this suit is baseless. There is no prima facie evidence that the bucket does not do exactly what it says it does- sustain you for 90 days. It is highly unlikely that a person of average health eating 455 calories a day would die in 90 days. It is not ideal- but neither is trying to survive through a disaster.
Pope should channel his energy on more important things- like people who have ACTUALLY suffered an injury. What a waste.
Posted by: itsallaboutbalance on June 29, 2006 02:28 PMAmusingly obtuse.
A successful 43 day hunger strike proves that someone can live for 90 months on 455 calories? Did you make a mistake, or are you a Costco executive
. . . or both . . .
For the sake of argument, human caloric intake and expenditure is a scientifically observable certainty. Just like water, humans must have calories or they die. If a human is denied the minimum caloric intake, his body will draw upon reserves. When those reserves are depleted sufficiently, the human DIES. Assuming ZERO activity, at a rate of one pound per every 3.35 days it would take less than 6.5 months to reduce a 150 pound man’s body weight by half and a 225 lb one by a third. Humans rarely survive such damage to their bodies, and this very problem kills many thousands of senior citizens in hospitals every year.
You completely twisted the evidence about nazi death camp prisoners. It is a rank absurdity on your part to say that ”This is likely NOT the circumstances someone living through a disaster would find themselves in.” In terms of energy expenditure and human caloric necessity for survival, the analogy understates the key elements to an extreme. What kind of emergency are you anticipating—a cable TV outage?
Given the arduous activities associated with nearly all disasters, the rate of caloric deficit increases five fold or more. Three months of such nutritional damage can easily cause death. Wise-up.
At any rate, all of this evades the real issue. The point is - this suit is very well-founded. There is considerable prima facie evidence that the bucket would not do what it says it would- sustain you for 90 days. Based on well recognized scientific “evidence, good and sufficient on its face” the product cannot possibly fulfill its advertised and clearly warranted purpose. Richard Pope claims that by selling this product, Costco is cheating people because the label warrants a claim that is false. If you are dim-witted enough to be deliberately hosed by Costco, fine. This lawsuit demonstrates honest concern for the rest of us.
If you had a legitimate objection to the lawsuit, you would have made it. The fact that you nibble feebly around the fringes of this issue shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and you insist on telling us so.
Costco will settle out of court and remove the product from its shelves because Richard is doing the right thing.
If you become really desperate for a bucket of nutritionally doubtful stuff to eat, I can hook you up.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 29, 2006 07:37 PMI agree with you that this is entertaining. The only horse I have in this race is the truth. I find it curious when people defend large companies who unduly profit at the expense of others through dishonesty. Many of the same people who defend Costco, attack Wal-Mart for absurd charges like offering people non-union jobs. Wal-Mart wouldn't be expolited by unions and they wouldn't sell this product.
I learned about survival from training, the disgusting consequences of nazism from liberal Democrats, and how not to be taken in by this emergency food supply scam from common sense. Still, all of us are prey to false advertising. Otherwise liberals would never be elected into office, and we would live in a freer, safer and more civilized country.
Why not contact Costco and ask them about this yourself. Let us know what you find out. I'm curious.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 29, 2006 11:22 PMYour response makes it clear that you are inacapable of acknowledging a valid counterpoint to your (and Pope's) argument. You can disagree without being disrespectful.
Neither you or Pope have stated any proof, besides your opinions, that this bucket will not do what is says it does. I reiterate my previous point: It is not ideal to surive on 455 calories for 90 days- but it can be done. (The Guinness Book of Records lists the world record in hunger strike (without forced feeding) as 94 days, which was set from August 11 to November 12, 1920 by John and Peter Crowley, Thomas Donovan, Michael Burke, Michael O'Reilly, Christopher Upton, John Power, Joseph Kenny and Seán Hennessy at the prison of Cork) And yes, I think that showing a hunger strike can last for 94 days (with ZERO calories) proves that someone can live for 90 on 455 calories a day. To conclude otherwise is illogical.
Using frail senior citizens as your example is using a faulty premise to prove your conclusion. CLEARLY anyone in frail health would not be advised to eat only 455 calories a day. Further, by stating "Just like water, humans must have calories or they die. If a human is denied the minimum caloric intake, his body will draw upon reserves. When those reserves are depleted sufficiently, the human DIES. Assuming ZERO activity, at a rate of one pound per every 3.35 days it would take less than 6.5 months to reduce a 150 pound man’s body weight by half and a 225 lb one by a third." proves my point. Yup your right- in 6.5 months (twice as long as recommended on the bucket)these people would be dead- not in 90 days.
My objection is that this is frivolous lawsuit and a waste of Pope's and Costco's time. I agree with bitter with the bar- this is puff and did not form the basis of the contact. Does anyone (besides Pope) really believe that a 90 day supply of food is contained in a 5 gallon bucket?
I am as conservative as the next guy- but this suit is baseless and a waste of time.
Posted by: itsallaboutbalance on June 30, 2006 04:16 PMYour response makes it clear that you are incapable of understanding or making a valid argument. Pope stated more than enough evidence to prove to any sane person with a brain that the product will not do what it claims it will do.
BTW you stupid bastard, I cited senior citizens as evidence that malnutrition kills people, not that they would make candidates for survival food. Learn to read, I already discussed reserves and you completely missed the point. Given the arduous activities associated with nearly all disasters, the rate of caloric deficit increases five fold or more from that of zero activity reducing the survival time on 455 calories from 6.5 months to 30-60 days. That you know nothing about nutrition, survival, or science is obvious, but that isn't the point. You don't give a damn.
Since you are so obtuse as to refuse to accept the scientific FACTS about the product as offered then no rational arguments will work with you. Your obdurate defense of obvious stupidity and willingness to buy into anything so long as there are no facts associated with them is typical of the liberal nitwits that come here from time to time.
I am happy that you are so easily satisified with your opinions, and so am I.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 1, 2006 01:55 PMI hate to point this out to you, but your opinion does not constitute facts neither does Pope's. You are making assumptions about calorie expenditure during a natural disaster to prove your conclusion- which is a flaw in your argument.
That being said, don't bother writing back. I am done responding to someone who clearly doesn't think anyone has a valid opinion other than himself (and thus being able to engage in intelligent, rational discourse). It is "conservatives" like you that make the rest of us look like zealous, attacking rabid dogs. Try responding to arguments -not personally attacking people. It is far more effective.
Posted by: itsallaboutbalance on July 1, 2006 02:35 PMYou only hate losing an argument when you are obviously wrong and being the egotistical nitwit you are . . . completely incapable of admitting it and . . .
. . . you just clearly proved it.
Scientific facts are not assumptions, and for someone incapable of reading simple facts, interpreting them, and responding with an actual rational argument, you are hardly fit to judge my comments. If you had found a flaw in my arguments you would have said what the faulty "assumption" was. Bullshit.
You had ample opportunity to argue the factuality of my opinions earlier and instead chose to prove explicitly that you completely misapprehended all of them. All you did in your last installment was twist my comments piecemeal into bullshit in the image of your foolish nonsensical construction. Since you are that stupid, don't bother showcasing it here -- or I will gladly exploit your silly ramk stupidity and mash your tiny mushy little insect brain under my shoe like a june bug.
Lacking the minimum quantities of certain amino acids over a fairly short period causes neurological disturbances and mood disorders, including acute indignance, inflated self righteousness, exaggerated self importance, and dementia among many other things, and it appears quite clear that you are in dire need of increased protein in your diet.
Whatever supplement you use to restore it, stay true to form and make damned sure you don't read the label.
Thanks for the fun.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 1, 2006 05:53 PMAt June 30, 2006 04:16 PM, itsallaboutbullshit supported his ludicrous argument by citing the Cork Prison hunger strike of 1920 that lasted for 94 days. As one might expect, he neglected to mention that it was called off after three of it's participants died.
By these presents he proves that the Costco emergency product might be nutritionally sustainable if the users sit quietly in prison cells during an emergency and accept a 25% death rate in 90 days. This is the very type of strained illogic anyone would expect from a liberal.
It is difficult to imagine why people are so dead set against doing the right thing.
BTW Many have mentioned that Richard pope is moving too fast. WRONG. Richard Pope's timeliness is an important thing. If Pope waits around knowing that the product is being sold fraudulently, through inaction his motion quickly becomes a stale claim. Since Costco has all they need to know in order to act appropriately on the information given them, they are failing to mitigate damages. If Costco simply removes the product and agrees not to sell it in the future, no harm done.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 1, 2006 07:45 PM