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
