Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 55


     
     1        to us.  I now know that perhaps in McDonald's eyes it was
     2        not concluded, and we may have erred because we did not
     3        force McDonald's to sign a permanent injunction to that
     4        effect.  But at the time we trusted that all we needed to
     5        do was to bring the campaign to a stop and move on.
     6
     7        We were not out for blood; we were not out for
     8        retribution; we only wanted the assurances that we
     9        believed we had received from McDonald's that it had
    10        stopped the campaign and was not going to continue them.
    11        It is my experience time and time again in dealing with
    12        companies that, by something of a coincidence, they almost
    13        always tell us that they had decided to terminate the
    14        advertising at issue within moments prior to receiving the
    15        letter we sent to them, so that branded me with a
    16        significant cynicism regarding accepting at face value
    17        companies' assertion that:  "Oh, this advertisement is at
    18        an end".  We always heard it; we knew that was not always
    19        the case.  In this instance we did not need to get into
    20        that discussion and did not; we got assurances that it had
    21        stopped at the time.  I did not really care why.  But I do
    22        not agree with your conclusion, Mr. Rampton.
    23
    24   Q.   Then if we may go backwards to 1986, Mr. Gardner:  You
    25        were an Assistant, have I got it right, Attorney General
    26        in the office of the Attorney General of Texas; is that
    27        right?
    28        A.  Yes, sir.
    29
    30   Q.   You will correct me if I am wrong, the jurisdiction of the
    31        Attorney General of Texas is, in broad terms, confined to
    32        matters within the state, is that right, the state of
    33        Texas?
    34        A.  What do you mean by "matters within the state",
    35        Mr. Rampton?
    36
    37   Q.   I am not suggesting that the Attorney General of the state
    38        Texas may not have some long arm jurisdiction, it may do;
    39        let me put my question directly.  Did the Attorney General
    40        of Texas in 1986 have jurisdiction to compel McDonald's to
    41        do anything on a nationwide basis?
    42        A.  I can only answer that as to the laws with which I am
    43        familiar.  Are you talking about our Deceptive Trade
    44        Practice Act?
    45
    46   Q.   I am asking you whether the Attorney General had
    47        jurisdiction or the Texas court had jurisdiction to order
    48        McDonald's to publish nutritional brochures throughout the
    49        United States of America.
    50        A.  Certainly, a Texas court would have that 
    51        jurisdiction.  If McDonald's is properly before the court, 
    52        our courts were competent to issue orders of that nature. 
    53        Because you asked me a two-part question, if I may, I will
    54        answer the other part of it as well.
    55
    56        It is my opinion that in this instance with an out of
    57        state corporation, a non-Texas corporation, engaging in
    58        acts and practices that did infringe upon the legal rights
    59        of Texas citizens and that did violate Texas law, the
    60        Attorney General of Texas acting alone could obtain a

Prev Next Index