Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

User avatar
The Observer
Coordinator of the Grand Conspiracies
Posts: 4801
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby The Observer » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:34 pm

WILLIAM C. BULLOCK
Plaintiff
v.
BIMBO BAKERIES USA AND ANGIE LASHOMB
Defendants

Release Date: APRIL 27, 2010



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 24), recommending that the court grant the motion (Doc. 9) for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants Carlisle Foods, Inc. 1 and Angie LaShomb, and upon further consideration of the objections 2 (Doc. 27) filed by plaintiff, wherein plaintiff renews his arguments that the United States of America does not have the power to impose income tax upon its citizens and that the Internal Revenue Service may not impose a levy on the wages of non-governmental employees, 3 and plaintiff specifically objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that plaintiff could not properly maintain a private cause of action for theft under Pennsylvania criminal statutes, 4 nor could plaintiff maintain claims under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution against private actors, 5 and following an independent review of the record, it appearing that plaintiff brought the instant action to enjoin defendants from continuing to garnish his wages and to recover damages under Pennsylvania's criminal statutes relating to theft and for asserted violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and it further appearing that defendants contend that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate because plaintiff's claims are preempted by section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. section 185, that plaintiff has improperly attempted to bring claims that are premised under state-law criminal statutes, that plaintiff's constitutional claims are not cognizable because they are brought against private parties rather than governmental actors, and that 26 U.S.C. section 6332 of the Internal Revenue Code clearly insulates these private defendants from suit for complying with an Internal Revenue Service tax levy, and the court concluding that the instant case presents no issues of fact to be resolved, and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, see Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008) ("Under Rule 12(c), judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (quoting Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290 (3d Cir. 1988))), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 24) is
ADOPTED.

2. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Doc. 9) is GRANTED.

3. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter JUDGMENT
in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on all
claims.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Christopher C. Conner
United States District Judge

FOOTNOTES:


/1/ Plaintiff named Bimbo Bakeries USA and Angie LaShomb as defendants in his complaint. Defendants have noted that the proper company-defendant is Carlisle Foods, Inc., not Bimbo Bakeries USA. The court, therefore, will collectively refer to Carlisle Foods Inc. and Ms. LaShomb as "defendants." Whether Bimbo Bakeries USA is or is not a proper defendant in this case is irrelevant to the court's ultimate dismissal of the action.

/2/ Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted. Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires 'written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

/3/ In his objections to the report of the magistrate judge, plaintiff argues that (1) the United States does not have the power to impose income tax upon its citizens, and (2) the Internal Revenue Services lacks the power to place a levy against the wages of non-governmental employees. (See e.g., Doc. 27 at 2-8; 13-15). The inadequacy of these broad arguments is twofold: they lack the specificity required by Local Rule of Court 72.3, and they are utterly without merit. Accordingly, the court agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusion that plaintiff's "arguments regarding the government's power to tax are frivolous and merit no further response[.]" (See Doc. 24 at 20).

In a related argument, plaintiff takes issue with the magistrate judge's observation that "a third party potentially faces substantial liability if they elect not to comply with an IRS levy." (Doc. 27 at 9). Plaintiff asserts that "[i]f the defendants do not have in their possession property that is subject to levy[,] then there can be no liability to the IRS." (Id.) The court's conclusion that the IRS can indeed impose a levy on plaintiff's wages disposes of this argument.

/4/ Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that he cannot maintain a private cause of action for theft under Pennsylvania's criminal statutes. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that he "has every right to bring charges against the [d]efendants for theft under common law right to property. A private cause of action, [sic] implies under contract. Theft of property is not included within a contract." (Doc. 27 at 2). After de novo review, the court finds that the magistrate judge properly concluded that "the law is clear . . . [p]laintiff cannot maintain a private right of action for any of these alleged theft crimes under Pennsylvania Law." (Doc. 24 at 12) (citations omitted).

/5/ Plaintiff finally objects to the magistrate judge's determination that he cannot maintain claims under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution against defendants because they are private parties, not governmental actors. Plaintiff asserts that "as long as the [d]efendant's [sic] try to hide behind the IRS Levy as their defense, they are making them selves [sic] Government actors and the [p]laintiff will treat them as such." (See Doc. 27 at 8). "By using this IRS Levy as their defense they are saying that they work for the federal government." (Id.). Although plaintiff did not previously raise this theory to support his claims, the magistrate judge aptly predicted that it would subsequently be raised. The magistrate judge concluded that "the fact that [d]efendants are alleged to have complied with a levy issued by the IRS by garnishing [p]laintiff's wages is insufficient to characterize [d]efendants as governmental actors amenable to suit under the Fourth or Fifth Amendments." (See Doc. 24 at 14) (citations omitted). After de novo review, the court adopts the magistrate judge's conclusion.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5751
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:11 pm

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby Demosthenes » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:53 pm

Every time I'm in Mexico, I get a chuckle out of the Bimbo bread delivery trucks.
Demo.

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4436
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: West of Provincetown, but east of North Adams. South of Salisbury, but north of Aquinnah.

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:17 pm

Bimbo (pronounced "beembo") just started advertising in Massachusetts.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby webhick » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:43 pm

Pottapaug1938 wrote:Bimbo (pronounced "beembo") just started advertising in Massachusetts.


They now own Freihofer's bread outlet here in Concord NH.
“He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.” - Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 2821
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby grixit » Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:00 pm

"Bimbo" just means "baby" and for a long time it was slang for "fool" and was mostly used for men. Which makes sense, a woman would be called "bimba".

As for the company, they make mexican style pastries, cookies, and fruit pies and are part of the same conglomorate as Orowheat.
Read, like there won't be a movie
Game, like the die rolls don't matter
Filk, like everyone is tone deaf anyway

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Contact:

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby Gregg » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:30 pm

All well and good, myself I like a fresh bimbo now and again, but being single that's socially acceptable. But the big thing is I think in this case we may have come across the real life identity of my favorite legal genius, SkankBeat. Look at the arguements and look at what 'ol skank has been shoveling lately, and it looks pretty familiar to me....
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force

webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby webhick » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:38 pm

Gregg wrote:All well and good, myself I like a fresh bimbo now and again, but being single that's socially acceptable.


That's not what we heard...
“He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.” - Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Contact:

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby Gregg » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:41 pm

webhick wrote:
Gregg wrote:All well and good, myself I like a fresh bimbo now and again, but being single that's socially acceptable.


That's not what we heard...


??? I'm sure the check cleared...

Private information redacted relating to prior dissolution.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force

webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby webhick » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:50 pm

Gregg wrote:
webhick wrote:
Gregg wrote:All well and good, myself I like a fresh bimbo now and again, but being single that's socially acceptable.


That's not what we heard...


??? I'm sure the check cleared...

Private information redacted relating to prior dissolution.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4952&p=80321&p80321#p80321
“He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.” - Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby The Operative » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:53 pm

Gregg wrote:
webhick wrote:
Gregg wrote:All well and good, myself I like a fresh bimbo now and again, but being single that's socially acceptable.


That's not what we heard...


??? I'm sure the check cleared...

Private information redacted relating to prior dissolution.


But I thought you recently had a hot chick hanging around that you were hoping to get drunk enough to marry you?
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Contact:

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby Gregg » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:21 pm

I stand at least by the spirit of the law corrected... I thought someone thought I was married still.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force

User avatar
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1537
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby Quixote » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:32 am

The inadequacy of these broad arguments is twofold: they lack the specificity required by Local Rule of Court 72.3, and they are utterly without merit.


Woohoo! New sig line.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat

Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3217
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby Judge Roy Bean » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:20 am

If memory serves, Bimbo makes more tortillas than anyone in the world. They even custom-grind flour based on regional consumer expectations.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three

User avatar
The Observer
Coordinator of the Grand Conspiracies
Posts: 4801
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby The Observer » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:48 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:If memory serves, Bimbo makes more tortillas than anyone in the world. They even custom-grind flour based on regional consumer expectations.


What does that have to do with Local Rule of Court 72.3? The "tortilla" argument is just another frivolous position, equally meritless.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff



"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 2821
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby grixit » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:59 am

The Observer wrote:
The "tortilla" argument is just another frivolous position


No, it's a frijoles position.
Read, like there won't be a movie
Game, like the die rolls don't matter
Filk, like everyone is tone deaf anyway

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
The Observer
Coordinator of the Grand Conspiracies
Posts: 4801
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby The Observer » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:33 pm

And our defiant TP makes another attempt in court...

WILLIAM C. BULLOCK, SR.,
Appellant
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; HENRY SLAUGHTER;
DEANN BENDER; MARY HANNAH; B. CLARK

Release Date: FEBRUARY 11, 2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-12-cv-02266)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 24, 2014

Before: RENDELL, GREENAWAY, JR. and
SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 11, 2015)

OPINION/*/

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant William Bullock appeals the District Court's order denying his motion for a default judgment and granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm the District Court's judgment.

Bullock instituted this action in 2012, filing a complaint that named the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and four of its employees as defendants. The complaint presented standard tax-protestor claims, including the following: (1) domestically earned wages of U.S. citizens are not taxable because they are not listed in 26 U.S.C. section 861; (2) the Constitution does not permit a direct, non-apportioned income tax; (3) only residents of Washington, D.C., and other federal enclaves are subject to the federal tax laws; (4) the United States cannot tax the fruits of Bullock's fundamental right to work; and (5) the United States must tax Bullock's "gain" -- the income he earns after subtracting the value of his labor -- rather than his income. 1 When the defendants did not file a responsive pleading within the prescribed period, Bullock filed a motion for a default judgment. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss.

A Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court deny Bullock's motion for a default judgment and grant the defendants' motion to dismiss. More particularly, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Bullock had failed to state a claim as to the individual defendants, and that his claims against the United States were barred by sovereign immunity. The District Court approved and adopted this report and recommendation, and Bullock filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291. We review the District Court's denial of Bullock's motion for a default judgment for abuse of discretion, see Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000), and exercise plenary review over the District Court's order dismissing Bullock's complaint, see Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

We agree with the District Court's disposition of this case. As an initial matter, the Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bullock's request for a default judgment. In short, none of the relevant default-judgment factors militate in Bullock's favor -- he was not prejudiced by the defendants' tardy filing, there is no indication that the defendants were culpable, and, as will be discussed below, the defendants had litigable defenses. See Chamberlain, 210 F.3d at 164. We therefore affirm the District Court's denial of this motion.

Nor did the District Court err in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. As the Court explained, absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields from suit the United States, FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994), its agencies, Beneficial Consumer Disc. Co. v. Poltonowicz, 47 F.3d 91, 94 (3d Cir. 1995), and its employees sued in their official capacities, see Chinchello v. Fenton, 805 F.2d 126, 130, n.4 (3d Cir. 1986). Consent to suit "must be unequivocally expressed" in statutory text, and cannot simply be implied. White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted).

In his complaint, Bullock identified two statutes in which Congress has waived the government's sovereign immunity in tax matters. First, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 7433, a taxpayer may sue the United States to challenge the "collection of Federal tax." Second, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(1), a taxpayer may sue the United States for the "recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected." 2 However, both of these statutes require a taxpayer to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit in federal court. See United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 602 (1990) (discussing exhaustion requirement for actions under section 1346(a)(1) (citing section 7422(a)); Venen v. United States, 38 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing exhaustion requirement for actions under section 7433 (citing 26 U.S.C. section 7433(d)). Bullock has acknowledged, in both the District Court and this Court, that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. He contends that exhaustion would have been futile because he would have been denied relief, but that is not a legitimate excuse for failing to exhaust. See Bartley v. United States, 123 F.3d 466, 469 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that "this kind of argument was long ago rejected by the Supreme Court"). Bullock's failure to exhaust is fatal to his claims under section 7433 and section 1346(a)(1). 3

Moreover, to the extent that Bullock sought to sue IRS employees in their individual capacities, his claims fare no better. We have squarely held that, given the existence of various statutes permitting taxpayer suits -- including section 7433 and section 1346(a)(1) -- "a Bivens [v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)] action should not be inferred to permit suits against IRS agents accused of violating a taxpayer's constitutional rights." Shreiber v. Mastrogiovanni, 214 F.3d 148, 152 (3d Cir. 2000). Bullock has identified no other statutory authority for his claims against the individual officials.

Finally, the District Court did not err in denying injunctive relief to Bullock. As the Court recognized, the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. section 7421(a), states that, with limited exceptions not applicable here, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." Bullock does not contest this ruling on appeal, and we therefore need not discuss it further. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's judgment.

//*//

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.


FOOTNOTES:

/1/ These claims have been characterized as "universally discredited," United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474, 476 (3d Cir. 2005) (claim 1); "devoid of any arguable basis in law," United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (claim 2); "frivolous squared," United States v. Cooper, 170 F.3d 691, 691 (7th Cir. 1999) (claims 3 and 5); and, simply, "frivolous," Funk v. Comm'r, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); see generally United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 944 (3d Cir. 1990) ("We take this opportunity to reiterate that wages are income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Unless subsequent Supreme Court decisions throw any doubt on this conclusion, we will view arguments to the contrary as frivolous, which may subject the party asserting them to appropriate sanctions.").

/2/ In his complaint, Bullock also premised jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. section 1331, 28 U.S.C. section 1346(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. section 1491, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The District Court concluded that none of these statutes permitted Bullock to proceed in these circumstances. He has not challenged these conclusions on appeal, and has thus waived any claim of error. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993).

/3/ We have previously characterized the section 7433 exhaustion requirement as "jurisdiction[al]." Venen, 38 F.3d at 103. Other Courts have concluded that, in light of Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), the exhaustion requirement should be viewed as mandatory but not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Gray v. United States, 723 F.3d 795, 798 (7th Cir. 2013). This distinction is of little consequence here because, under either approach, Bullock's failure to exhaust is fatal to his claims. Moreover, given that Bullock acknowledges his failure to exhaust and interposes only a legal defense, it was permissible for the District Court to consider this issue at the motion-to-dismiss stage. See id. at 799 n.1.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff



"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

darling
First Mate
 First Mate
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby darling » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:30 pm

Tl;dr: it's a load of bullocks.

.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:06 am

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby . » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:58 am

The 3rd CCA says in their footnotes (I paraphrase and condense,) surprising absolutely no one other than goofy TPs:

The 861 BS is universally discredited.
The 16th amendment BS is devoid of any arguable basis.
The fundamental right to work without tax BS is simply frivolous.
The DC/enclaves BS and the deduct the value of your labor BS are frivolous squared.

So, any guesses as to which court will be the first to call any of the standard, idiotic TP arguments "frivolous cubed" and which argument will then have the distinction of being the most likely to net a TP a sanction of $29.24 cubed?

Or, have the appellate courts no sense of humor?
Last edited by . on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.

.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:06 am

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby . » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:17 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:If memory serves, Bimbo makes more tortillas than anyone in the world. They even custom-grind flour based on regional consumer expectations.


On another totally extraneous note, Grupo Bimbo bought a small piece of the bankrupt Hostess Brands a couple of years ago -- the Beefsteak bread brand -- for about 32 million.

Flowers Foods bought the other 5 Hostess bread brands (including Wonder,) a bunch of bread plants and other stuff two years ago for 360 million.

The rest of Hostess -- all of the snack-cake brands -- was bought by two main buyers for 410 million and that whole thing is again for sale, Twinkies fans.

1.6 billion ought to do it, scrape up your loose change. Flowers Foods and Grupo Bimbo are your most likely bidding competition. Everyone wants Twinkies.

From bankrupt to 200 mill/year of EBITDA earnings on just the snack portions of the business in two years. Not bad. The bankruptcy liquidation dumped a billion of debt and their union contracts (the bakers were willing to take a hit to survive, the Teamster drivers weren't having any of that and forced the liquidation and they both lost.)

Through two bankruptcies (first a reorg, then the liquidation) Twinkies survived and thrived and live on!
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.

darling
First Mate
 First Mate
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Bimbos Understand The Law Better Than TPs

Postby darling » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:18 pm

. wrote:Through two bankruptcies (first a reorg, then the liquidation) Twinkies survived and thrived and live on!


To be fair, Twinkies would probably survive Armageddon.


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest