Apotex - contamination www.apotexterror.homestead.com www.pharmaholocaust.com
I live like a walking death in twilight zone / some where in between death and a life being deprived of all Human Rights and Constitutional / Law
protection by habitual offenders. I was assessed by three (3) independent psychiatrists to eliminate offender's speculations about my insanity
prompting "delusions" etc. All psychiatrists stated clearly, that I am sane /I do NOT have/had any mental illness. No family history of any.
Dear Sir / Madam,
When injustice becomes the rule of law...disobedience becomes a duty.
In other words...injustice breeds contempt.
Dear Sir / Madam,
This is scandal!
Apotex did not demonstrate any remedies to prevent re-occurrence of contaminations and/or obedience to GMP/SOP , FDA REGULATIONS etc.
Looks to me , like lift of restrictions was accomplished by some FINANCIAL means to FDA.
What about millions of sick people which DEFINITELY had to suffer substantial side effects due to contaminations which are frequent at Apotex.
Many , many compromised by sickness people had to be pushed over the edge by contaminations and most certainly many did die!
This are casualties which Apotex will never will be held accountable / liable for.
FDA DID NOT PROTECT SICK PEOPLE / GENERAL PUBLIC.
This is unsolved crime for which no one was punished.
It is a shame!
Remember, that in the future you personally or member of your family, a friend or follow Citizen may be victimized.
We as a General Public / Society must reassure that there are some mechanisms in place to deal with prosecution of offenders to the fullest extend of the Law to deter any one from future violations.
FOR ANSWERS TO MANY OF YOUR DOUBTS / QUESTIONS PLEASE SCROLL : pharmaholocaust.com
(Apotex's / WSiB's / Counsel's, Carl Peterson (Filion Wakely Thorup
Angeletti LLP) / Government's of Ontario victim)
Article: Insuring Corporate Crime
83 Ind. L.J. 1035
Miriam Hechler Baer*
Since 1909, federal courts have widely accepted the maxim that corporate organizations may be held vicariously liable for their employees' crimes.
There is far less consensus, however, that corporate liability deters crime.
This Article suggests that corporate criminal liability inherently encourages entities to overpay for their employees' actual and feared criminal conduct. Because the current corporate criminal liability standard is so broad and the collateral consequences of a criminal indictment are so devastating, entities will attempt to avoid formal charges ex ante by investing in "compliance" products intended to impress prosecutors in the future, even if these programs are more costly than effective.
Risk averse corporate managers may further attempt to avoid entity-based criminal liability by declining otherwise beneficial investments simply because they seem too risky.
Once the government learns that a corporation's employee has violated the law, companies will "pay" far more than investing in showy compliance products to avoid a corporate indictment.
This is so because the costs of a criminal indictment to a corporate entity are so great and because the corporation's legal liability for its employees' crimes is so broad.
Indeed, as a legal matter, the government may convict the entity for nearly any employee crime, provided the employee was acting within the "scope of his authority" and acted with "an" intention to help the company, even if the employee was violating express directions or corporate policies. As a result, the company whose employee (or even some ...:).