I know Jack Dorsey is by Bill's side as an emotional support, or at least he should be.
Perhaps, Bill and Jack can run another fundraiser on twitter while the insurance company, and others, investigate the origins...of stuff...and get rid of the blight.
BLOOMFIELD TWP., Mich. (FOX 2) - A massive house fire broke out in a Bloomfield Township home that backed up to the Oakland Hills Golf and Country Club.
The blaze happened Friday night destroying a 7,000 square-foot residence at Lahser and Quarton. By 10 p.m. firefighters were still working on putting out hot spots. The residence is the home of Twitter philanthropist Bill Pulte's father, according to family, though police and fire did not confirm it. Pulte is the grandson of the late founder of home-building giant PulteGroup.
The good news is that nobody was injured but the home is a total loss. The couple got out and they got their puppy out too, but every picture and family memory left insideFOX 2 photographer Todd Brangen shot incredible video of the fast-moving fire.
This house fire reduced a mansion to a total loss Friday.
It all started when the owners smelled smoke from the fire which started in the garage and they called 911.
Bloomfield Twp. Fire Chief John LeRoy spoke about how the size of the house worked against those fighting the fire.
"The bigger the house the more wide-open spaces there are," LeRoy said. "They tend to move faster and there is nothing to hold the fire back. Once it gets into the house it is very difficult to stop.
"We have deployed master streams which are large volume hoses which allows us to deploy massive amounts of water and we are flowing as much water as the system will give us."
Facebook got mad and banned me for three days, the day before the 2020 Primary Election, which is highly contentious in legitimacy, considering the fact that Facebook recently testified in U.S. House Judiciary Committee that they do not suppress, shadowbanned, ban, silence, cover up, conservative accounts...yet, will bleachbit the history of my Sweetie and anything dealing with child welfare, voting rights, and anything to do with property (i.e. intellectual, real estate, land, chattel).
According to the Associated Press, Pope Benedict is not healthy.
Of course, I am the only one to be silenced, where I cannot even log in, to document the activities of the August 4th, 2020 Primary Election in Detroit.
Whatever you do, do not tell them that I have all the data to demonstrate that they were lying, bearing false witness in the public record, while engaging in commerce, generating profit, from a foreign nation, which, the last time I checked, interfered in U.S. elections, but, hey, what do I know?
I know I entered all my social media accounts into the formal record, including a court of law, so do not tell them it is all public information, just like the Mueller sealed Grand Jury information, everyone seems to be so desperate to get their hands on.
Sometimes, when money is involved in online speech, under the guise of free speech, there are some individuals, such as myself, who would consider this wire fraud, because it crosses state lines in an act of commerce, like Patreon or Superchats.
There are even those special occasions where some forms of speech in an act of engaging in commerce, for the purposes of political activities, is called propaganda.
#maytheheavensfall
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY
Issued on: May 28, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Detroit Land Bank Authority absentee ballot issue is how Trump got elected because the model was transposed to all the other fake ass land banks, which used the properties stolen by fake ass mortgage and property tax fraud schemes, in densely concentrated, targeted, geographic areas, where all "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) reside, to use the property addresses to run fake ass identities to vote out the clerks' office, where the local election commissions falsely certify, even though there are challenges to the precincts being shuttered, moved, or just unable to find, for the purposes of securing the Electoral College of those States.
Quintessentially, when you win Detroit, you win the Electoral Votes of Michigan, and the rest of the nation, because the national election is all linked to Detroit.
The rest of those highly cherished big Electoral Vote States fell, in a toggle effect, because they were busted in the fake ass absentee ballots schemes, and Trump won.
So, why did I do what I did, while continuing to do what I do?
Because the Meanies were uber mean to my Sweetie.
They were stealin' the children, land and vote, a practice known as gerrymandering.
Twat should be going into federal receivership probably under Library of Congress, making it a public forum, because twat owns all posts and communications under copyright.
It is just an issue of preserving the integrity of obviation because people lie, and so does twat.
Facebook will be next.
There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
Children should be free from sexual exploitation, but to do so would interfere in the right to engage in commerce and an invasion of privacy for the individuals who decry the Parental Right to do what they want to do with their chattels.
This is deeply woven into society and culture as a method of "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" survival.
Children are are legally determined by law as a good in the hierarchy of property, where their is financial incentive to procure and purvey tiny humans, called Child Protective Services.
The acquisition of these tiny human goods is the industry of child welfare, where it is perfectly legal to target and convert the lives of children into a sustainable livelihood through Foster Care and Adoption, all done in the best interests of the child to maximize revenues, if you are a privatized, foreign contracted NGO, or generate profit if you are incorporated, even in the stock markets.
Children should be free from sexual exploitation but it will never happen because there is too much money to be made and no one wants to hold these institutions accountable, because it is all perfectly legal, as an act of the tax exempt god.
How about termination of the right to keep and bear the arms of the U.S.?
Child exploitation cases merit federal prosecution. My office files dozens of child exploitation cases every year. Each year, the ages of the children in the images get younger, and an increasing number of offenders use online platforms to target children.
The label “child pornography” fails to capture the true essence of the crimes.
More accurately described, our prosecutions involve images that depict sexual violence and rape of children by depraved adult perpetrators. Even one image of this violence would evoke tears, nausea or anger from a parent, grandparent or any human being. Yet federal defendants record and possess videos and images in the hundreds and thousands. They barter and trade images amongst themselves like collectible sports cards.
Adult perpetrators do not limit themselves to images of rape. Some of them creep online through social media in search of child victims. They assume a false online persona, groom victims with gifts and promises, and blackmail children by coaxing them to send embarrassing sexualized images to the perpetrators. Parents and those who try to guard against this conduct may not realize that no boundary or safety wall exists that adult perpetrators cannot cross to meet a child with the intent to sexually abuse the victim.
— Laila Mickelwait (@LailaMickelwait) May 23, 2020
During the pandemic, parents have taken on more and more during stay at home directives. Work, school and parenting blend into demanding days. With everyone at home together, we may expect that the threat of child sexual exploitation would diminish. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that COVID-19 school closings may present increased risk of child exploitation. Children will potentially have an increased online presence and be in a position that puts them at an inadvertent risk. In order for the victimization to stop, children must have the courage to come forward to someone they trust — like a parent, teacher, caregiver or law enforcement. Understandably, the embarrassment of being enticed or coerced to engage in unwelcome behavior often prevents children from coming forward.
As a community, we can take measures to help educate and prevent children from becoming victims of child predators and sexual exploitation during this time of national emergency. We should help our young people come forward and report this predatory behavior when it happens to them or their friends. Offenders may have hundreds of victims around the world, so coming forward to help law enforcement identify offenders may prevent countless other incidents of sexual exploitation.
We can discuss internet safety with children of all ages, review and approve games and apps, and generally monitor internet usage. Children should understand that images posted online exist permanently. We should assure our children that it is not a crime for a child to send sexually explicit images to someone if they are compelled or coerced to do so — sometimes fear of being “in trouble” causes a child to hesitate to tell a trusted adult, because they feel guilty about their conduct. We want to ensure that children know they should report to a trusted adult when someone asks them to engage in sexual activity.
We should not forget about physical dangers that exist offline, as well, and watch over our children as our community transitions back to more normalized activity beyond the pandemic. Let’s teach our children about body safety and boundaries. Parents should continue to be mindful and screen those who provide childcare or babysitting, and consider safety precautions during playdates and overnight visits.
The adult perpetrators are out there, and we can all do more to prevent crimes against our children.
John W. Huber serves as U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah. President Barack Obama appointed him to that position in 2015, and President Donald Trump reappointed him in 2017. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed each appointment.
The Department of Justice today withdrew the 1984 DOJ Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, and, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), released new draft 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines (draft guidelines) and seek public comment. The draft guidelines, open to comment for 30 days, describe how the federal antitrust agencies review vertical mergers to evaluate whether the mergers violate antitrust law. Vertical mergers combine two or more companies that operate at different levels in the same supply chain. The draft guidelines outline the agencies’ principal analytical techniques, practices, and enforcement policy for vertical mergers.
The agencies will review and consider the public comments before issuing final Vertical Merger Guidelines. The agencies cooperated closely in preparing the draft guidelines, which reflect the agencies’ significant experience in analyzing vertical mergers. The guidelines are intended to assist the business community and antitrust practitioners by providing transparency about the agencies’ antitrust enforcement policy with respect to vertical mergers.
“I appreciate the Antitrust Division working to update this decades-old statement regarding the practices and policies of the federal enforcement agencies in this critical area, in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen. “As this effort demonstrates, the Department of Justice is committed to principled and transparent antitrust enforcement, which promotes free enterprise, market competition, and ultimately the welfare of American consumers. We look forward to public input and finalizing this important work, along with the FTC.”
“While many vertical mergers are competitively beneficial or neutral, both the Department and the Federal Trade Commission have recognized for over 25 years that some vertical transactions can raise serious concern,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The revised draft guidelines are based on new economic understandings and the agencies’ experience over the past several decades and better reflect the agencies’ actual practice in evaluating proposed vertical mergers. Once finalized, the Vertical Merger Guidelines will provide more clarity and transparency on how we review vertical transactions. I look forward to receiving comments on these draft guidelines and working with the Federal Trade Commission in finalizing them.”
“Challenging anticompetitive vertical mergers is essential to vigorous enforcement. The agencies’ vertical merger policy has evolved substantially since the issuance of the 1984 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, and our guidelines should reflect the current enforcement approach. Greater transparency about the complex issues surrounding vertical mergers will benefit the business community, practitioners, and the courts,” said FTC Chairman Joseph J. Simons. “We invite comments from all stakeholders to help ensure that the guidelines clearly and accurately convey the agencies’ antitrust enforcement policy with respect to vertical mergers.”
The draft guidelines adopt the principles and analytical frameworks in the agencies’ Horizontal Merger Guidelines, including market definition, the analytic framework for evaluating entry considerations, the treatment of the acquisition of a failing firm or its assets, and the acquisition of a partial ownership interest. The draft guidelines describe the analytical and enforcement considerations that are specific to vertical mergers.
The draft guidelines:
describe potential anticompetitive effects resulting from vertical mergers, which may include both unilateral and coordinated effects;
identify foreclosure and raising rivals’ costs and access to competitively sensitive information as potential elements of antitrust harm under unilateral effects;
describe an analytic framework for analyzing potential anticompetitive effects of foreclosure and raising rivals’ costs;
discuss how the elimination of double marginalization may mitigate or completely neutralize the potential anticompetitive effects of vertical mergers;
discuss cognizable merger efficiencies that are specific to vertical mergers;
provide a number of examples to provide more clarity about the agencies’ analytical methods in evaluating vertical mergers.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice. Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.
“With a Little Help from My Friends”: Using Principles of Comity to Protect International Antitrust Achievements
It is an honor to be here again at this great event. I always enjoy coming to Fordham and seeing so many friends, colleagues, and familiar faces.
Those of you who heard me speak last year may have picked up on the fact that I enjoy history. As one of my predecessors, former AAG Wendell Berge, commented, “[i]t is valuable to revisit the past . . . because we can acquire some insight into what might happen in the future.” With that in mind, I’d like to spend my time with you today discussing where we’ve come from in the field of international antitrust. Then I’d like to focus on how we can protect against losing the progress that we’ve made, and work towards strengthening our bonds in furtherance of our mutual goals of free and competitive markets.
The Division has long advocated for the market, not the government, to decide winners and losers. Our role is to protect the conditions under which competition can thrive to the benefit of consumers. As my friend and then-AAG John Shenefield remarked in the 1970s, “[e]conomic regulation has been a failure in U.S. domestic markets; it is one of the few things we should not try to export.” We’ve made significant progress at harmonizing international antitrust practices and minimizing conflict over this view. This progress did not come without sustained international effort, including from many in this room.
Let’s start by going back to a time when antitrust was the least of the international community’s concerns. As I was preparing today’s remarks, I read a speech given by former AAG Berge in 1945. Its opening line was “We are approaching the time when Japan will join Germany in unconditional surrender. This climax of a war which has absorbed so completely the lives and energies of millions of people will mark the beginning of a new phase in modern history.”
Almost 75 years later, that’s still about as attention-grabbing of an introduction as I’ve seen in an antitrust speech. It also communicates the optimism of the time that the world had turned a corner and could start building something new. Unsurprisingly, World War II caused a sea-change in the way that the United States viewed the global community. Isolationism was not just an increasingly difficult task. It was dangerous. As a result, international issues more and more came to the forefront of the Antitrust Division’s thinking. Antitrust had an important role to play in making sure that we did not replace military conflict with economic conflict.
Cartels were central in the Division’s crosshairs. While the goal of eliminating cartels sounds uncontroversial today, it was not widely shared at the time. Many countries credited industrial cooperation and organization with pulling them out of the depression. Rather than disbanding cartels in favor of competition, these countries tried to prevent abuse by imposing bureaucratic review of pricing and other practices. Even when there was abuse, these jurisdictions frequently turned a blind eye if it benefitted firms within their own country.
By making it the stated policy of the Antitrust Division to open up global economic markets, the United States was bound to come into conflict with other countries. Many countries did not yet have competition laws. Some prioritized protectionism over competition. Others objected to the United States’ attempts to apply its laws to conduct occurring outside of the United States’ borders.
What followed was a period of international antitrust characterized by conflict of laws. The United States sought active extraterritorial enforcement of its antitrust laws. In response, other countries adopted so-called “blocking statutes” that prevented access to the evidence necessary for a successful prosecution. This conflict did not just prevent the Division from achieving its goal of eliminating cartels. It also required American businesses—which were still subject to U.S. antitrust laws—to compete on an uneven playing field. Finding that our efforts were creating the very conflict we were trying to avoid, the Division set out to take a different tack.
Following World War II, the United States had become heavily involved in multilateral organizations. In the 1950s, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation provided one of the first opportunities for the U.S. to exchange its views on competition issues. It sponsored a group of experts in their work on restrictive business practices, and published a guide on competition laws around the world.
The Organization for European Economic Cooperation eventually became the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or the OECD. In 1961, the OECD established the first predecessor to the Competition Committee that exists today. This Committee was a high priority for the United States. AAG Lee Loevinger attended its first meeting in December 1961, and then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy enthusiastically supported the Division’s participation.
The commitment to come together and discuss antitrust issues started to bear fruit. As early as 1967, the OECD’s Competition Committee produced a recommendation on international cooperation in competition enforcement. A central feature of that recommendation was the requirement that agencies notify each other of investigations that might affect each other’s territory or interests. This was largely a defensive interest; a way of protecting one’s businesses from the extraterritorial reach of foreign enforcers. But this recommendation proved to be an important stepping stone. Over a series of five revisions, the notification provision has continuously shrunk, as cooperation, coordination, and investigative assistance provisions have expanded.
Today, communication and cooperation are a given in the international antitrust community. In 2001, top antitrust officials from 14 jurisdictions, including the U.S. Department of Justice, established the International Competition Network, or ICN. ICN now includes more than 140 member agencies. International cooperation is a top agenda item for each of the ICN’s working groups. It is also a top priority for the Intergovernmental Group of Experts of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. At its meeting in July this year, that group agreed on a set of guiding policies and procedures for facilitating cooperation among UN member agencies. These polices are set to be adopted next year at the UN’s Eighth Conference to Review the UN antitrust rules.
This commitment to international engagement reflects our belief that when foreign governments understand what we do and why we do it, their concerns substantially diminish. These multilateral organizations were not formed to pursue any specific policy goal. Instead, they were founded on the premise that regular conversations can identify the best answers. This approach has deep roots in American ideals, particularly in our First Amendment. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, the “only test of truth is its ability to get itself accepted in the marketplace of ideas.” Just as the truth will emerge from an open and transparent discussion of ideas, our hope and experience has been that a robust vetting of competition policies will produce the best practices.
Having opened an international dialogue, the Antitrust Division of the DOJ was able to begin working with the international competition community to converge our substantive competition rules. This was a longstanding and important goal. Former AAG Rule noted back in the 1980s that “[i]n a one-world economy, conflicting competition regimes threaten to create a regulatory ‘Tower of Bab[el].’” These international conflicts were not just inconveniences. They deprived consumers of efficiency-enhancing mergers. As then-AAG Rule explained, “[t]he complexity of dealing with so many overlapping but at times inconsistent rules and regulations will surely make some otherwise worthwhile economic transactions prohibitively expensive.”
One of our most important and productive steps forward came during the tenure of AAG Jim Rill. He initiated our serious substantive engagement with new antitrust enforcers after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Working with our colleagues at the FTC, he established technical assistance programs in countries that were transitioning to a market-based system. Under these programs, the United States offered technical advice on the role that antitrust law could play in protecting competition in newly opened markets. These technical assistance programs continue to this day. The Antitrust Division regularly sends lawyers and economists to antitrust agencies around the world to share our learnings from decades of experience. All of this is done to further the goal set by then-AAG Rill in 1991: “[I]n an increasingly transnational business environment, the rules of the game should be as consistent as possible from place to place.”
Our continued engagement led to progress. By 2004, then-AAG Hew Pate noted that “[t]he search for objective, non-political principles for competition law has meant that over the last few decades antitrust has become increasingly about economics.” This statement highlights a few key aspects of effective rules for antitrust enforcement. If we want to approach international consensus on antitrust issues, the rules must be objective, and they cannot be political.
This is an important lesson to remember in light of suggestions that we incorporate other areas of law or general issues of social welfare into our antitrust analysis. With global businesses and near-global antitrust enforcement, consistency is important. We cannot expect that all countries or political parties will share the same view of a desired social outcome or agree on all substantive areas of law that might interact with the antitrust laws. We can, however, limit the inconsistency when the touchstone of our antitrust analysis is fundamental principles of economics.
As we converged on a common substantive approach, we opened new opportunities to work together. Over the past 25 years, it has become increasingly common for the Antitrust Division to coordinate closely with international enforcers. This cooperation benefits the enforcement agencies, the business community, and consumers, as we are able to share views of the evidence, expected timelines, and evaluations of potential remedies.
As just one example, the Antitrust Division recently investigated the Thales/Gemalto merger, which involved components used in complex encryption systems. After completing its review, the Division decided that a divestiture was necessary to remedy the harms that would otherwise flow from that merger. Because the Division had worked closely with the EC throughout its investigation, we understood that the EC shared many of our concerns, and would also likely require a divestiture. Thales and Gemalto both had multinational customers and distributed their products globally. Splitting the divestiture so that there was one buyer in America and a separate buyer in Europe would have made it more difficult for the divestiture buyers to compete. Recognizing the importance of finding a single purchaser, we at the Division decided to depart from our normal practice of requiring an up-front buyer. We were able to use the extra time to work with the parties and the EC to find a single purchaser that was acceptable to everyone. Our close cooperation made it possible to align on timing, provide more effective antitrust enforcement, and fully protect American consumers.
Cooperation in our cartel matters also remains of critical importance, particularly on leniency issues. The modern version of the Division’s leniency policy has been in place for over 25 years. The idea is simple: it is easier to uncover and prosecute international cartels if participants have real incentives to self-report. While the language of the leniency policy has not changed since the 1990s, we have continuously evaluated the program to ensure that incentives remain in place to encourage self-reporting. To that end, in 2004, the U.S. Congress added incentives to self-report in ACPERA—the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act—by reducing civil damages exposure for companies that successfully apply for leniency and cooperate with civil claimants.
In the 25 years of our current leniency policy and 15 years of ACPERA, the Division has learned that leniency programs thrive when they are predictable and transparent. As the number of countries around the world that investigate and prosecute cartels has increased, the Division has worked to share these lessons with the international enforcement community. If one country’s leniency program is unpredictable and lacks transparency, it could undermine our collective efforts at prosecuting international cartels. Similarly, if cooperating with multiple countries becomes too difficult or expensive, we risk unnecessarily deterring self-reporting and cooperation.
All of this means that our work isn’t done. We should continue our efforts, with a renewed focus on cartel issues. We should ensure that leniency applicants can meet the competing demands of all jurisdictions where they have exposure. For example, we have found that small steps, such as coordinating witness interviews and focusing our investigations on the harms within our respective jurisdictions, can have a large impact on the costs of self-reporting. We are developing our own internal best practices at the Division, and engaging in a constructive dialogue on this topic with our enforcement counterparts. An important forum for this dialogue is the ICN Cartel Working Group, which currently is developing ways to enhance coordination on leniency matters. This project will provide practical guidance on best practices for cross-border leniency coordination, with the goal of making enforcement more effective and efficient.
Coordination and cooperation, however, is only the first step. Ensuring a set of due process rights and agreeing on a set of basic procedures can be just as important.
Agreement within the competition community on antitrust process has been easy on some fronts. For example, merger notification and review procedures were one of the first subjects discussed among the ICN members. ICN has also adopted recommended practices for transparency, engagement, and confidentiality during the investigative process. Similarly, OECD has been a productive forum for discussions. Then-AAG Varney presided over a series of roundtables just a decade ago when she chaired OECD’s Competition Committee Working Party 3. These roundtables helped pave the way for our more recent efforts.
When I became AAG, I made it a priority for the Antitrust Division to take these discussions to the next level. To that end, the Division led an initiative for the first-of-its-kind multilateral agreement on due process that turned into the ICN’s Framework for Competition Agency Procedures, or the “CAP.” The CAP sets forth a series of fundamental due process norms such as non-discrimination; transparency and predictability; timely notice and resolution; avoidance of conflicts of interest; right of defense; and right to counsel and privilege protections. As the Head of the International Relations Unit for DG Comp recently described it, the CAP creates a “fundamental counterbalance” for parties appearing before antitrust enforcers. I was very pleased that the CAP opened in Cartagena, Colombia in May with more than 60 original signatures. As of today, over 70 countries have signed on. This agreement will make us more efficient and effective competition law enforcers, and will continue to build confidence in our enforcement actions.
The CAP also builds upon our learnings from other areas of international cooperation. It includes a series of review and consultation mechanisms that will continue and even deepen the dialogue between us. Our colleagues in Europe recently encouraged companies to raise any violation of the CAP with their domestic enforcement agency, which can then address the issue directly in bilateral conversations. I join in that encouragement, and hope that companies that experience due process violations abroad will bring those issues to the Antitrust Division, so that we can take appropriate action.
Of course, our hope is that CAP fosters a positive dialogue as well. Competition agencies around the world operate in different legal and political systems. The mechanics of antitrust enforcement in a common law or prosecutorial system differ from enforcement in a civil law context where there are specialized tribunals. The CAP requires that signatories publicize templates summarizing national procedures and practices. This transparency will allow the Division to understand more readily a specific jurisdiction’s policies, and will help us evaluate our ability to cooperate with that country on an investigation. My hope is that the CAP will help create a feedback loop where procedural transparency and convergence creates opportunities for additional case cooperation and further substantive convergence as well.
The CAP is still in its early stage, but I have been greatly encouraged by the international reception of the agreement. It has the potential to become one of the competition community’s most significant achievements in promoting due process. Still, we hear complaints that there are agencies that use the competition process to forward blatantly national goals. These complaints center on issues during the investigative process. We have more work to do. It is my hope that every major trading partner with a competition enforcer joins in efforts to improve procedural due process moving forward.
Now that we’ve taken this whirlwind tour of international antitrust history, it’s time to ask what’s next. Business continues to become more global, and additional countries continue to develop and ramp up their antitrust enforcement. Each of these factors makes international cooperation in enforcement a matter of increasing importance. As then-AAG Pate noted 15 years ago, “[a] global antitrust system in which each agency simply lines up to take its whack at the piñata is not a model that is going to serve us, or the market, very well.” He described the danger of such an approach when he noted that “an international system of seriatim review of controversial matters by different authorities that enables opponents of a transaction to skip across the globe until they get an answer that they like is unacceptable.” A few years before these comments, then-Acting AAG Doug Melamed similarly highlighted that a failure to work together with our international counterparts “risks not only needless burdens on businesses and suboptimal antitrust enforcement, but also the international politicization of antitrust disputes.”
This is a particular concern with intellectual property, where decisions made in one country can set the norm for global operations. The most obvious example of this phenomenon may come from outside the antitrust arena. In May of 2018, the European General Data Protection Regulation went into effect. This law required, among other things, that companies disclose if they use cookies on their websites. Despite no such law in the United States, we now constantly see such notifications appearing when we access the web as well. While this example seems likely to be benign, others are not. For instance, we have seen countries require global licensing of U.S. patents as a remedy. Such decisions have the real potential to decrease incentives to invest and to innovate. When a foreign enforcer imposes such a remedy globally, it takes away the Antitrust Division’s ability to reach a different conclusion and risks harming American consumers. It also takes away the ability of every other jurisdiction to reach a different conclusion.
So, what is the solution? I think it is time to return to a topic that then-AAG Rill popularized for the antitrust community in the early 1990s: comity. Comity promotes efficiency for international businesses by avoiding unnecessary conflicts. For example, the Division has been clear that we will not seek world-wide relief where a narrower scope proves adequate. Our role is to protect competition for American consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs. It is not to play international antitrust cop where U.S. commerce is not affected. Consumers and businesses alike are best served when countries avoid using the antitrust laws to expand their sphere of influence. As our Supreme Court explained in Empagran, principles of comity do not permit “legal imperialism” when a country’s “antitrust policies could not win their own way in the international marketplace for . . . ideas.”
Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a former AAG of the Antitrust Division, recently co-wrote an excellent article on the dangers of overly broad relief, titled “The Enduring Vitality of Comity in a Globalized World.” I encourage you all to read it, if you haven’t. As he explains, “comity requires more than avoidance of conflicting outcomes and remedies; it also requires respect for differences in the scope and commercial effect of the laws of foreign sovereigns.” Judge Ginsburg persuasively argues that comity is necessary if we do not want to create a race to the bottom where antitrust becomes a tool for industrial policy. In other words, comity is a necessary principle to consider and apply if we do not want to undo all of our hard work over the last 75 years.
It is important to emphasize, however, that employing principles of comity does not mean that we are tying our hands. As our Supreme Court explained more than a century ago, “‘[c]omity’ . . . is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will upon the other.” Our Supreme Court reiterated that comity is not an all-encompassing obligation in Hartford Fire. That opinion accepted that comity had a role to play when thinking about the Sherman Act’s application to foreign conduct, but it limited comity’s role to situations where it was truly necessary to resolve a conflict. Most recently, in the Vitamin C case, the Supreme Court just last year unanimously rejected the view that comity required deference to foreign interpretation, again emphasizing the flexible nature of the comity inquiry. As the opinion notes, “a federal court is neither bound to adopt the foreign government’s characterization nor required to ignore other relevant materials. No single formula or rule will fit all cases . . . .”
The Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation make clear our ongoing commitment to applying principles of comity to our own decision making. We need to ensure, however, that comity is a two-way street. We cannot agree to subject American companies to unfair treatment under foreign laws in the name of comity and avoidance of conflict.
Any application of comity has to take into account the particular enforcer, including any history of discrimination in favor of its own domestic companies or against foreign companies. We will not defer our own investigation unless we are certain that our foreign counterparts will conduct a full and fair investigation of their own.
With these principles in mind, I have directed the Division to undertake a review of our International Guidelines. We will make sure that these Guidelines: (1) first, accurately reflect the latest guidance from our Supreme Court and lower courts; (2) second, adequately reflect the importance of comity to our relationships with international competition enforcers; and (3) third, adequately convey the symmetry that we expect from our international counterparts. In doing so, we hope to further strengthen our invaluable relationships with our international colleagues, as we all pursue the common goal of protecting competition.
I want to again express my appreciation for the invitation to speak today. International antitrust issues remain vitally important to the work that we do at the Antitrust Division. I commend this event for drawing attention to these topics and providing the opportunity to engage in a dialogue regarding these issues. Thank you.
Mike Duggan took over the Blight Demolition Program through the Detroit Land Bank Authority, which never incorporated, but the LLC was dissolved by Bill *Smooches* Schuette, the Former Michigan Attorney General, and ended up in an ongoing SIGTARP investigation.
Then, Bill Pulte hooked up with Jack Dorsey to run another TARP gerrymandering scam in St. Louis.
And that ends my tale of why Bill Pulte Sucks.
Defango has another tale of why Bill Pulte Sucks.
Who is Bill Pulte? He's the Grandson Of Real Estate Magnate Is Trending On Twitter For Giving Out $100,000 and more. He's connected to one of the biggest housing builders in the United States with a rather unsavory reputation. Deep Diving into the money give away is only part of the puzzle of what is going on here. Did you know you have to pay 10 bucks to become a Teammate to collect if you win the prize? How about the horror stories off all the people talking about getting blocked by him for speaking up.
Businessmen connect over social media platform
Both men contributed for the roughly $500,000 effort in St. Louis
Pulte also running direct giving campaign on Twitter.
Bill Pulte & Jack Dorsey
Bill Pulte (left) is taking his Blight Authority program to Twitter CEO's hometown of St. Louis. The men connected on the social media platform.
Bill Pulte's blight removal efforts are getting the help of Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey in St. Louis.
Pulte, managing partner of Pontiac-based Pulte Capital Partners LLC and grandson of the late homebuilding legend William J. Pulte, is using his Pontiac-based Blight Authority nonprofit to eliminate blight on more than 150 properties in the Wells-Goodfellow neighborhood in St. Louis along with Dorsey, a native of the city.
"I got connected with him and he seems like he really wants to give back and he was very interested in the blight work we have done in Detroit and Pontiac," Pulte said Thursday. "He and I had a conversation, and I said, 'What about St. Louis?' Without hesitation, Jack was like, 'Let's do it.'"
A formal announcement is expected Friday.
Both men contributed to the Blight Authority for the roughly $500,000 effort after being connected over Dorsey's social media platform, Pulte said.
Demolition in St. Louis has begun and Pulte said he believes "a significant amount" should be done by the end of the day Friday.
The efforts in St. Louis model the work Pulte has done in Pontiac and, earlier, Detroit.
In those cities, primarily Pontiac, the cost of blight removal was lowered because the Blight Authority would target heavily blighted areas and clear it all out at once, achieving economies of scale and reducing costs.
Pulte, whose blight removal efforts in Detroit began in 2013, stopped doing demolition work in the city at the request of officials there and in 2014 started working in Pontiac.
In November, Pulte and Pontiac and Oakland County officials said residential blight in the county seat is expected to be eliminated by the end of this year. At that time, there were 99 homes left to be demolished out of the 916 when the effort started. It cost about $12,400 per home to demolish, putting the project at about $10 million currently.
Pulte, 31, has long talked about expanding the blight removal efforts to other cities around the country, including Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, Miami and several in Ohio.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Friday that there are "some 7,000 vacant buildings, most beyond repair, and over 10,000 vacant lots" in the city of about 300,000.
Dorsey co-founded Twitter (NYSE: TWTR) in San Francisco in 2006 and it has a market capitalization of $28.95 billion. Dorsey is worth $5.7 billion, according to Forbes. Dorsey is also a co-founder of Square, a mobile payment company.
Twitter philanthropy
Pulte has also made news recently for his direct giving on Twitter.
Last week, he announced that he would give away $100,000 by the end of the year.
Almost immediately after that, President Donald Trump retweeted Pulte's pledge to give $30,000 to a veteran with a presidential retweet.
On Friday, Pulte honored that pledge by giving a $20,000 Chevrolet Trax and $10,000 in cash to a veteran in need of a vehicle.
He has also made appearances on Fox News and been pledging donations in exchange for retweets by celebrities including Kim Kardashian, Kanye West and others.
"I'm well over $40,000," he said of his giving.
Pulte also said his campaign has spurred other people to donate in amounts small and large on Twitter.
Due to a recent influx of creepy feral humans who enjoy psychosexual cyber-engagements with the 17th letter of the alphabet, I have deactivated my Twitter account of over 10 years.
It does not really matter because I was shadowbanned for 9 of those years.
Besides, only my trusty bot uses it and I only recently broke 400 followers in over 10 years.
Have no fear for I have 30 days to reactivate and I believe, at that time, I shall no longer have to worry about them as they shall be intensely focused on their freedom, liberty and life, in a treasonous kind of way.
I shall be watching, for intelligence is an omitted element in their actions.
Twitter is also a Meanie because it beared false witness into the public record in Judiciary because it never told the data tale of how it was mean to my Sweetie.
I got the Saddy Face.
It would be quite uncomfortable for Twitter to take retaliatory action against a federal whistleblower from Detroit, but hey, what do I know?
SYNOPSIS: Mike Cernovich obtained classified congressional documents, that may or may not be real, was paid to "leak" on social media, which resulted in a sitting member of congress being forced to resign for a sexual harassment scandal without any due process, after it was denied in the public record through an attorney hired in the personal capacity of the member.
There is also speculation this was done to intentionally take out the civil rights icon to continue to cover up the real situation going on behind the scenes of Watergate and Whitewater because that member of congress was the one who called for the current investigation of the FBI and DOJ.
What was being covered up was child welfare fraud because Watergate was the cover to launch CAPTA.
Whitewater was the cover for ASFA.
Now, we deal with the covers of DACA and DAPA.
Cerno, my name of endurement for him, may want to contact Alan Dershowitz.
I hope he finds excellent legal counsel to defend his honor.
Here is a link to all the background to the Cerno, but make sure to have a few shots of tequila with freshly fried tortilla chips and salsa before you start.
On January 3, 2019, U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, formally invited President Trump to deliver the State of the Union Address in the congress.
On January 16, 2019, Nancy issues a letter of rescission of invitation to deliver the 2019 SOTU address, citing security concerns, and instead, referencing the established tradition of Woodrow Wilson delivering it through the written form of a letter.
I do not know the timeline, but a few moments (minutes) later that day, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, shared a tweet of reassurance in any issues of national security for SOTU.
I bet Trump uses Twitter, livestreamed being picked up on multiple platforms, including independent media, through social media, via the networks of the friends and families of the world in the blockchain being constructed.
Today we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the 50th anniversary of his assassination. Earlier this year I spoke about Dr. King’s legacy of justice and peace, and his impact on uniting Americans. #MLK50 Proclamation: https://t.co/XXtPO0VX5Apic.twitter.com/SH0esMSyMT
WASHINGTON—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Wednesday night she “doesn’t care” if the Secret Service said it was prepared to appropriately secure the State of the Union address despite the partial government shutdown.
Instead, she stood firm in her resolve to delay the January 29 event until the government completely re-opens.
In a letter to President Trump, Pelosi claimed the lack of funds to Homeland Security posed a risk to the White House and the Congress during the event, but the Department of Homeland Security Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen released a statement refuting that. She shared that statement in a Tweet:
The Department of Homeland Security and the US Secret Service are fully prepared to support and secure the State of the Union. We thank the Service for their mission focus and dedication and for all they do each day to secure our homeland.
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn agreed with Pelosi, telling The Daily Caller, “I just happen to be reading about Woodrow Wilson’s 1913 address and it is the first time since eighteen hundred that it was delivered in person. So there’s ample precedent for the State of the Union to be delivered in writing.”
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise called Democrats’ security concerns nonsense, telling reporters on Wednesday, “There are no security concerns that have been raised and that has nothing to do with that. Ironically, it seems like she’s only concerned about security when it’s a State of the Union that will expose what this fight is all about.”
