Posts

Angel Ronan™: We support "Human lives matter" with purpose, celebrating talent and the Kiwanis Club

She never went back to the restaurant after being "trespassed" not to return the restaurant ONLY. There are other businesses in the restaurant. She pulled back into the plaza to call her sister and not drive and talk. She did not offend the honourable command of the officer.

on
 
0

A pardon does not prevent you from being compelled to speak by Congress but you can choose just what to say. You don't have to say much. You could say the US Government that I worked for is an A-s and will be sued since it is responsible for the fraud of COVID in America but what do you want to really know?

on
0

Under the landmark Supreme Court precedent *Brown v. Walker* (1896), once a person receives a full and unconditional pardon for an offense, **they no longer face criminal jeopardy for that crime.** Legally, they stand as if the offense had never been committed. Because the Fifth Amendment exists solely to protect against *self-incrimination* that could lead to criminal punishment, **the privilege evaporates** regarding those pardoned facts, and a person can legally be compelled to talk. You would be required to talk about the offense and its facts in scenarios where the legal justification for silence no longer applies: ### 1. When Legal Jeopardy Has Been Completely Extinguished If a competent authority (such as the President for federal crimes) issues a valid, accepted pardon, and **no other legal risks remain**, the protection of the Fifth Amendment ceases to exist. If subpoenaed by a court, a grand jury, or a congressional committee, you cannot refuse to answer questions about the pardoned matter simply because you find it embarrassing or unfavorable. Refusing to answer after the threat of prosecution has been legally removed can result in being held in **contempt of court** or contempt of Congress. But if there is no jeopardy of prosecution, then you use candidness and be polite about your answers. COVID was a horrible fraud and we suffered together as a nation. It was not a disease but the international fear or hysteria of a disease that truly did not exist and this would probably lead us all to ask what any of us understood about anything. We could now sue the US for being compelled to take tests before a flight or being compelled to take shots since the test or shot is a medical procedure that requires our consent and we have a right to deny that consent under US law. So what do you want to really know? Click here.

on
0

The **1911 trial** marks the initial courtroom battle of the famous *United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola* litigation. It took place in a federal court in Chattanooga, Tennessee, following the government’s 1909 seizure of a truckload of Coca-Cola syrup crossing state lines. Click here. ### 1. The Legal Charges Spearheaded by Dr. Harvey Washington Wiley of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Chemistry, the government prosecuted the shipment under the **Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906**. The lawsuit alleged two primary violations: * **Adulteration:** The government argued that caffeine was an "added poisonous or deleterious ingredient" that could negatively impact public health—particularly children, who were increasingly consuming the beverage. * **Misbranded:** The government claimed the name "Coca-Cola" was deceptive because the syrup contained no actual coca and little-to-no cola, making it an imitation sold under a false name. ### 2. The Defense and the Birth of Modern Caffeine Research Recognizing that existing scientific literature on caffeine relied heavily on animal studies and lacked human data, Coca-Cola's attorneys enlisted psychologist **Harry Hollingworth** (alongside his wife and collaborator, Leta Hollingworth) to conduct rigorous, double-blind human trials. Click here.

on
0

Analyzing the 1858 Bradford sweet poisoning through the legal lenses of ***George v. Skivington* (1869)** and ***Donoghue v. Stevenson* (1932)** highlights a fascinating intersection of public health history and the evolution of product liability in English tort law. Though the Bradford disaster occurred a decade before *George v. Skivington* and over seventy years before *Donoghue v. Stevenson*, it encapsulates precisely the types of systemic gaps in legal accountability that these landmark cases later sought to fix. ### 1. The Legal Reality at the Time of the Bradford Poisoning (1858) When the Bradford sweets disaster occurred, the legal framework governing consumer safety was heavily shackled by the doctrine of **privity of contract** (famously reinforced by *Winterbottom v. Wright* in 1842). * Under this doctrine, if you did not have a direct contractual relationship with the person who caused the harm, you generally had no recourse in law. * William Hardaker ("Humbug Billy") bought the adulterated mixture from the wholesale chemist via an intermediary supplier, and the consumers who bought the humbugs from Hardaker had no contract with the chemist or the manufacturer. This explains why the 1858 criminal trial and subsequent legal inquiries resulted in acquittals; the Victorian legal system struggled to find a mechanism to hold manufacturers or compounders accountable for negligence toward remote, anonymous consumers. ### 2. *George v. Skivington* (1869): The First Crack in Privity Just eleven years after the Bradford tragedy, the Court of Exchequer decided ***George v. Skivington*.** Click here for more.

on
0

## The Criminal Case The primary criminal trial resulting from the 1858 Bradford lozenge poisoning is recorded as ***Regina v. Charles Hodgson***. Initially, three men involved in the tragedy were arrested and faced charges of manslaughter: * **Charles Hodgson:** The Shipley druggist who owned the pharmacy. * **Joseph Neal:** The sweetmaker who ordered the "daff" to cut his sugar costs. * **William Goddard:** The young assistant who accidentally fetched the arsenic. ## Trial and Verdict Before the principal trial concluded, the prosecution withdrew the charges against the sweetmaker, Joseph Neal, and the assistant, William Goddard. Charles Hodgson stood trial alone at the York Winter Assizes on December 21, 1858. To represent the broader tragedy, he was specifically indicted for the manslaughter of one of the victims, a seven-year-old girl named Elizabeth Mary Midgley. Ultimately, Hodgson was acquitted and found not guilty. The court determined that while the deaths were a horrific tragedy, they were the result of an unintentional accident and a "chain of unfortunate oversights" rather than criminal manslaughter. Because the case ended in an acquittal at the trial level, it did not advance to an appellate court. Therefore, there is no formal appellate citation (such as those found in the English Reports) for this trial. It is most commonly referenced in historical and legal texts simply as the 1858 York Assizes trial of Charles Hodgson. Wikipedia Search User menu 1858 Bradford sweets poisoning Article Talk Language Download PDF Watch Edit Proud host of Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects Maybe later I already donated Close In 1858 a batch of sweets in Bradford, England, was accidentally adulterated with poisonous arsenic trioxide. About five pounds (two kilograms) of sweets were sold to the public, leading to around 20 deaths and over 200 people suffering the effects of arsenic poisoning. 1858 Bradford sweets poisoning A skeleton is dressed as a sweetmaker, surrounded by tubs and boxes labelled "plaster of Paris", "arsenic", etc. Cartoon in Punch, November 1858 Date 30 October 1858 Location Bradford, England Cause Arsenic poisoning Deaths 20 or 21[a] Injuries 200+ The adulteration of food had been practised in Britain since before the Middle Ages, but in the nineteenth century, with increasing urbanisation and the rise in shop-purchased food, adulterants became a growing problem. With the cost of sugar high, replacing it with substitutes was common. For the sweets produced in Bradford, the confectioner was supposed to purchase powdered gypsum, but a mistake at the wholesale chemist meant arsenic was purchased instead. Three men were arrested—the chemist who sold the arsenic, his assistant and the sweet maker—but all three were acquitted after the judge decided it was all accidental and there was no case for any of them to answer. The deaths led to the Adulteration of Food or Drink Act 1860, although the legislation was criticised for being too ambiguous and the penalties for breaching it too low to act as a deterrent. The deaths were also a factor in the passage of the Pharmacy Act 1868.

on
0