Tales Of The New Crown: What Do A Dawn Wooten, Uterus, ICE, Fat Ass, USCCB & Detroit Land Bank Authority Have In Common?

Q: Why did ICE fail to get consent to remove a uterus?

A: Chattel law.

Praise the lord for there is no informed consent when you are considered "alien child".

Q: What do Dana Wooten, Uterus, ICE & Detroit all have in common?

Let us start my Post Traumatic Fraud Disorder regression session to see what I can claim needs to be healed, and answer this in my findings, below.

Now, I have to stand back and take pause, for the simple fact that this document is dated Fall 2010, and this whistleblower seems to have been waiting for the proper moment to come out and report this in the media.

So, after taking a few moments to tilt my head to the right, I saw Detroit.

Yes, that is correct, this whistleblower letter to our federal immigration agencies, by a registered, licensed nurse, Dawn Wooten, waited all this time to not go through the formal reporting of fraud channels, to get picked up on the news wires, about something that may or may not have happened to unnamed women, of which we have no formal testimony, affidavit, video, relative, or any other human rights and/or christian organization to protest the lack of action in the performance of experimental medical procedures on wards of the state.

I did not see Detroit just because Bethany Christian has the trafficking tiny humans contracts with ICE in Foster Care and Adoption (actually, it is only adoption, but do not say anything or they might get busted filing false claims in Medicaid), but there was no mention that it would be the State of Texas who would have jurisdiction over the women and children.

It is just a Parental Rights legal thing.

Anyway, I decided to take a deep breath to see if I could disprove my prescient visions of Detroit, where, lo and behold, I could not.

As part of the planning towards the second U.S. Social Forum in Detroit, Project South partnered with Detroit community organizations to initiate the Up South Down South exchange. Through Peoples Movement Assemblies that connected elders to young people in both regions and through community exchanges over several years, the Up South Down South relationship re-generates the legacy of families and experiences that participated in the Great Migration for many reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_South_(organization)#:~:text=Project%20South%3A%20Institute%20for%20the,into%20education%20and%20organizing%20projects.&text=The%20organization%20was%20founded%20in,Scott%20and%20Walda%20Katz%2DFishman.

I remember that U.S. Social Forum came to Detroit, where just about no one from Detroit showed up because all the "Elected Ones" were at the Michigan Democratic Convention, where they merged with the crowd to make it look like they had lots and lots of people in their movement to set up the big event.

The 2010 US Social Forum took place in Detroit, Michigan from the June 22–26^[1] in the Northwest Goldberg area.^[6] More than 20,000 people attended.^[8] Detroit was chosen in part because of its activism in community building resulting from the lack of support from the Federal government of the United States. Organizers hoped that half of the 15,000 participants they had predicted would be from the Midwest.^[9]
Organizers planned on supporting and beautifying the neighborhood. Thousands of bicycles used during the forum were to be donated to the residents afterward. Some attendees bought vacant homes that were donated to a local organization after the Forum. The Detroit Liberation Library was created from hundreds of books collected from USSF participants from all over the country and later offered throughout the city.^[10]
Supporters of the Forum were encouraged to create Peoples Movement Assemblies in their own communities.^[6]
Activists at the gathering participated in more than 1,000 self-organized workshops.^[11] One of the most well attended events was a conversation between Grace Lee Boggs and Immanuel Wallerstein.^[8] Thousands of Social Forum participants marched to occupy Chase Bank Detroit headquarters, resulting in a national Chase Bank official speaking with church leaders in Detroit about foreclosures.^[12]
Progressive religious groups played a larger role in the 2010 US Social Forum than at the 2007 event.^[13]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Social_Forum

The Northwest Goldberg area is not recognized by any official City of Detroit, Wayne County or State of Michigan or the United States as a legal, authority, and neither is the Detroit Land Bank Authority.

https://www.nwgoldbergcares.com/about

And, that, Boys & Girls is why I shall continue to stand back and take pause on this sensational, unsubstantiated claim that looks like Wooten slept in for the last few months, or decades, depending on when they came up with it (i.e. Fall 2010), because all I see is another #coloredrevolution psyoptic to cover up the trafficking of tiny humans, as we all know, started in Detroit.

But wait!

I must complete my Post Traumatic Fraud Disorder therapy by documenting that I know for a fact that Fat Ass used to be all up in this because I watched his Fat Ass, and I did not wait years, months nor decades to formally report his activities because I documented in real time that he, and all of his co-conspirators were being really uber mean to my Sweetie and if you do not believe me, you will just have to ask Rashida Tlaib to verify every single work I have just archived in the formal, public record, for decades.

https://caseygrants.org/grantee-database/project-south-institute-elimination-poverty-genocide/

https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2018/581/956/2018-581956686-11629354-9.pdf?_ga=2.129738700.1141823501.1600117646-2005330069.1549490055

The horrors are going to be with the children, because no one wants to talk about that, which is why we have the Institute for the Elimination of Poverty and Genocide cloaking the tale of Parental Rights.

This is also an attempt to cloak the origins of DACA and DAPA, for they are policy, and not law, just like ICPC, but no one cares for there are trillions involved in the industry of trafficking tiny humans in the name of god.

I shall assert that these hysterectomies may have been performed on those under the age of consent.

I shall also aver that the reason why this "whistleblower" letter was presented in such a public fashion was because the Institute for the Elimination of Poverty and Genocide in not registered, nor incorporated, to possess any legal authority to represent the women who may or may not have been victim to such scientifically repugnant procedures.

Were these uterus sold for research or hosting of tiny humans?

Are they cloaking a drug in vitro ratline?

Could it be they were extracting teeny tiny humans for lab ratting?

Current Progress in Uterus Transplantation Research in Asia

Uterus transplantation (UTx) is now a possible approach for women with absolute uterine factor infertility to deliver a child, following the first successful delivery by Brännström et al. in Sweden in September 2014. This remarkable achievement attracted major attention worldwide and caused many countries to prepare for UTx, including countries in Asia. To date, three groups have performed UTx in humans in Asia, and many others are aiming for the clinical application of UTx with accumulation of basic experimental data. Therefore, it is likely that UTx will expand rapidly in Asia in the near future, although this will depend on ethical, social and religious views in each country. With this background, herein we summarize the current progress of UTx in East, Southeast and South Asia, with the purpose of increasing understanding of the current status of basic and clinical UTx research in each country and sharing progress and knowledge to ensure future development of UTx research in Asia.

The world will never know unless DHS Inspector General opens an investigation...or has he......? 

#maytheheavensfall

Institute for the Elimination of Poverty and Genocide Letter To ICE On No Consent in Coronavirus by Beverly Tran on Scribd

This complaint was funded through the Marguerite Casey Foundation.

GROSS RECEIPTS

$152,573,126

ASSETS

$722,179,910

Whistleblower Policy
Marguerite Casey Foundation is committed to being an organization conducive to open discussion of our business practices. Our whistleblower policy applies to all Foundation employees, board members, and paid consultants. If you have reason to believe that this person has violated MCF’s policies or is in violation of a state or federal statute or regulation, you are encouraged to report your concerns by emailing whistleblower@caseygrants.org.
Your email will be directed to the President & CEO, Board Chair, and the Foundation’s external ombudsperson. It is the Foundation’s policy to protect you from unlawful retaliation or discrimination by anyone affiliated with the Foundation as a result of your notifying either the Foundation when you have reason to believe the Foundation’s actions violate the law. The Foundation’s findings and actions will, to the extent possible, be communicated back to you. While the Foundation endeavors to maintain your confidentiality in the event you make such a report, your identity may have to be disclosed to conduct a thorough investigation, to comply with the law, or to provide accused individuals their legal rights to defense.
This policy prevents you from being subject to retaliatory action by the Foundation or any of its staff members if you report information where you have a reasonable good faith belief that the information discloses:
A violation of a state or federal statute;
A violation of a state or federal rule or regulation; or
With respect to employee safety or health, unsafe working conditions or work practices at the Foundation.
The Foundation will not:
Make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing you from being a whistleblower;
Retaliate against you as a whistleblower;
Retaliate against you for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation; and
Retaliate against you for having exercised your rights as a whistleblower in any former employment.

This is about modern day human trafficking because the USCCB needs these contracts and they already have the new resegregation trafficking tiny humans models

The #coloredrevolution just got kicked up a notch.

Like they used to say about the Emancipation Proclamation: "What are you going to do with all those freed slaves?"

The answer was to slap a cross on its front door.

Lives Will Be Upended: Bishops Respond to Court Decision Allowing An End to Temporary Protected Status for Over 200,000 People

Washington, DC – Yesterday, in Ramos v. Wolf, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an existing preliminary injunction or pause of the Trump Administration’s attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 200,000 individuals living legally in the United States. Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Bishop Mario E. Dorsonville, auxiliary bishop of Washington, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration, and Sean Callahan, president and CEO of Catholic Relief Services, issued the following statement:

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision continues a heartbreaking path of uncertainty and fear for hundreds of thousands of TPS recipients needlessly put into motion by the Trump Administration. As detailed in our extensive work in Central America and the Caribbean, TPS countries such as El Salvador and Haiti cannot adequately handle the return of TPS recipients and their families. The spread of COVID-19 has only made conditions worse. Today's decision will fragment American families, leaving, for example, over 192,000 U.S. citizen children of Salvadoran TPS recipients without their parents and with uncertain futures.

“Our nation must not turn its back on TPS recipients and their families; they too are children of God. We stand in solidarity with TPS recipients, who are here and have been living and working in the United States legally, and we will continue to do so with them in their countries of origin.

“We renew our call for the U.S. Senate to take up the American Dream and Promise Act, which the House passed last year. We stand ready to support such efforts. Without action by Congress, however, recipients’ lives will be upended. Congress must act to ensure that such catastrophic human consequences do not occur.”


To learn more about Temporary Protected Status, please see the Justice for Immigrants website.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of Free Speech Challenge to California's COVID-19 Ban on In-Person Political Protests Filed While MIED Matt Schneider Reviews Constitutionality Of Whitmer Executive Orders

Q: When is an Executive Order unconstitutional?

A:  When the Executive is illegitimate, being unduly elected.

Boo Boo Barr may not like the findings, but hey, what do I know?

I ♥️ MIED.

Recent Nationwide Protests Show the Importance of Allowing Peaceful Public Assembly

The Department of Justice today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of a lawsuit by plaintiffs Ron Givens and Christine Bish, two individuals seeking to hold peaceful in-person protests of 500 to 1,000 people with social distancing on the grounds of the California State Capitol Building.

In its friend-of-the-court brief in the Ninth Circuit, the United States explains that the district court wrongly denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief against California’s total ban on peaceful protests.  While States have broad authority to protect the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, the First Amendment does not give them carte blanche to ban peaceful public protests and rallies.  The brief also explains that the real and legitimate national outcry over George Floyd’s tragic killing has shown the importance of peaceful public protests to maintaining our civic fabric—and has highlighted the extreme nature of a blanket protest ban in California.  Going forward, it could raise First Amendment concerns if California were to hold other protests, such as those proposed by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, to a different standard.

“Political speech in traditional public gathering spaces is at the core of the First Amendment’s protection of speech and assembly,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division.  “Moments of national trial reinforce the importance of the right of the people peaceably to speak and assemble.  For more than two centuries, the First Amendment has endured, and it has helped preserve the United States of America as a beacon of hope and liberty for our people and for oppressed people all over the world.  The right to protest government peacefully is at the heart of who we are as a people.  Today’s filing by the Justice Department makes clear that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights' protections remain in full force and effect at all times.”

“Now more than ever, Americans are exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully protest, and this fundamental right must be upheld even during times of national emergency,” said Matthew Schneider, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, who, with Assistant Attorney General Dreiband, is overseeing the Justice Department’s effort to monitor state and local policies relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The friend-of-the-court brief is part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s April 27, 2020 initiative directing Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Matthew Schneider, to review state and local policies to ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Givens is a firearms instructor and the director of training at the Sacramento Gun Club.  He has been seeking to hold a protest on the California State Capitol Building grounds objecting to the State’s delay, purportedly due to the COVID-19 outbreak, in conducting background checks for gun purchasers.  Bish is a resident of Sacramento County and is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 2020 general election who also wishes to organize a protest relating to the State’s response to the outbreak on the California State Capitol grounds. 

On March 19, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order, which requires “all individuals living in the State of California to stay at home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations” in various “critical infrastructure sectors.”  The executive order further requires Californians to “heed the State public health directives from the Department of Public Health.”  At the time plaintiffs filed their complaint, those directives banned “until further notice” all public gatherings of any size in any “indoor or outdoor” space, and applied to “all non-essential professional, social, and community gatherings regardless of their sponsor.”  Violations of the executive order are subject to criminal penalties.  Neither the executive order nor the directives in place when plaintiffs filed their complaint made any exceptions for First Amendment activities, such as peaceful protest.  Thus in California, all gatherings of any size protesting government action were banned.     

Following the executive order, the California Highway Patrol denied Givens’ and Bish’s applications for a permit to protest, even though they planned to practice social distancing and to require protesters to wear masks.  In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argued that the grounds of the California State Capitol Building “are the most important and widely used public forum in California” and have been the site of “[c]ountless watershed protests.”  They claimed that California’s actions “amount[ed] to a total ban on public gatherings for the purpose of engaging in First Amendment [conduct] by means of demonstrations, rallies, or protests, regardless of the measures taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of the [COVID-19] virus spreading.” 

Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, which the district court denied on the ground that California’s “total ban on public demonstrations” is consistent with the First Amendment.  On May 17, 2020, plaintiffs appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit.

Since the filing of plaintiffs’ appeal, California has announced new guidelines for political protest that, in relevant part, allow socially distant protests of a maximum of 100 attendees or 25% of the relevant area’s maximum occupancy, whichever is lower.  According to California, “[t]his limitation on attendance will be reviewed at least once every 21 days, beginning May 25, 2020,” to “assess the impacts of these imposed limits on public health and provide further direction as part of a phased-in restoration of gatherings that implicate the First Amendment.”  Plaintiffs, who are seeking to hold protests of 500 to 1,000 attendees, are continuing to challenge California’s revised orders.

The federal case on appeal is Givens, et al. v. Newsom, et al., No. 20-15949 (9th Cir.).

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SCOTUS: The Very Third Live Broadcast Of The Very First Time The World Witnesses The Dark Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution On Stealin' The Children, Land & Vote - Termination Of Corporate Parental Rights - Oaths Of Fealty To Foreign Nations, Not The U.S.

I shall quickly give my summation, in the spirit of fuchsia.

MCGIRT V. OKLAHOMA;
OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE V. MORRISSEY-BERRU ST. JAMES SCHOOL V. BIEL
Consolidated.

This is about Parental Rights.

These people are arguing about pastoral care, you know, those folks on that salvific mission of stealin' the children, land & votes, by taking an oath of fealty to the church, and not the U.S., which means they are beholden to the Vatican, and must do whatever the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tells them to do, because they run the public policy of their congregations.

Now, allow me to make these arguments so much easier to resolve.

Ok.

First of all, these christian organizations are not for profit office holders, under state laws of incorporation, by which the corporation holds an office to protect the public trust, or rather the posterity of society through children's trust funds.

In order to administratively go after a public, or in this instance, private office holder, where their oath of office, under the laws of the state, as a federalistic arm of the U.S. government, one must first be defrocked, as matters of belief, or, in this instance, religious beliefs, can only be adjudicate in the administrative court of the foreign jurisdiction by which an employee has sworn this oath of fealty to christianity, and not the constitution.

This is when the corporate parents who are the office holders of the children's trust, fall from the heavens to be brought forth in the public square to face the laws of the land.

The easiest way is to terminate the right to the grant to keep and bear the arms of the state to conduct business.

If you are not recognized as being an entity of commerce, for and not for profit, you cannot keep your federal grants because you are a nullified entity, as your 501c status is now illegitimate.

How do you solve those pesky indemnification issues of holding a title when it comes to the determination of ministerial activities in the schools?

Well, the last time I checked, teachers, social workers, pediatricians are licensed, but in charter christian schools, many are not, so how about making them get licensed by the state, so they can hold a public title, where their oath of office is filed in the Great Repository of the State, considering that they get public money to conduct child welfare operations.

That way, you can make the parent corporation, whether it is the fake ass contractual representative arm of the Vatican, USCCB, or any other principality in its chain of command, to also be nullified, because it is all corrupt.

Just like with all elected offices, anyone can easily ask, "By why right do you have to hold office?"

That is call the quo warranto.

You do not have to go through the writ process, all you have to do is file up on their state licensing to engage in commerce.

Commerce is the meeting of the minds in conjugal act of offer and consent,in contract, for this particular situation.

Without consent, there is rule by fear, even though Noahide law will tell you that the ones in power rule the law, which is about the children.

No one cares about the children, because the entire subject falls under chain of Parental Rights, where corporations are salvaging their corporate rights to raise their goods children, in accordance to the Public Policy of their Corporate Parent, the Vatican.

The people have the power in a democracy.

If these people want to stand up, again, for the third time, and argue out why they should not be held accountable for trafficking tiny humans, well, by golly geeze, I am just going to have to intervene, because they just defended sexual abuse of children within the walls and practices of their foreign allegiance to the Vatican and the Queen, again....and the U.S. taxpayer funds it all.

TRANSLATION: IF YOU DO NOT TAKE AN OATH TO THE US, THEN TURN AROUND AND TAKE AN OATH TO A FOREIGN NATION STATE WHICH WISHES TO INVADE, YOU NEED TO HAVE ALL RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS TERMINATED, IMMEDIATELY, BECAUSE YOU SUCK AND TRAFFIC TINY HUMANS.

SECONDARY TRANSLATION: IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE LEGAL GENIUSES DEFENDING THE PRACTICE OF TRAFFICKING TINY HUMANS AND PILFERING THEIR TRUST FUNDS, YOU NEED TO BE TERMINATED OF ALL RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS OF THE STATES ON WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CONFERRED THROUGH A SWORN OATH OF OFFICE, TO NOT BREACH THE CHILDREN'S TRUSTS, IN HITHERANCE, BEING STRIPPED OF ALL THAT ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE IMMUNITY.

Hey... wait a minute....

Attorney Client Privilege?

Why, that is Brett Kavanaugh!

For some odd reason, the 9th Circuit keeps popping back up.

Hmmmmm......

I will post the briefs and crappy transcripts because this is about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), not RIFRA

SCOTUS: The Very Second Live Broadcast Of The Very First Time The World Witnesses The Dark Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution On Stealin' The Children, Land & Vote - Termination Of Corporate Parental Rights - Little Sister Of The Poor

HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC

The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation. The Court, however, does not adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. Here, it is enough to conclude that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment. Hosanna-Tabor held her out as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members. That title represented a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning. Perich also held herself out as a minister by, for example, accepting the formal call to religious service. And her job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission: As a source of religious instruction, Perich played an important part in transmitting the Lutheran faith.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Bill Barr Addresses The National Association of Attorneys General 2019 Capital Forum - No Mention Of Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare Or Parental Rights

Boo Boo Barr!

But, what about Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare?

What about the States Attorneys General Medicaid Fraud Control Units?

How about addressing Parental Rights, and not just corporate parental rights of foreign corporations?

We need to talk...

Remember this?

Michigan Medicaid Fraud To Be Discussed In Appropriations

I was watching this youtuber who goes by the name of John Oloughlin who mentioned that you were Opus Dei.

I figured that the only way he knew this was because he was also Opus Dei.

He went to the Red Mass of the John Caroll Society of the Archdiocese of Washington.

My Sweetie never went to that Mass.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151214055757/http://www.johncarrollsociety.org/jcs-membership/the-red-mass/index.aspx

This is about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops operating as a foreign corporation.

The Tale Of Burisma, Hunter Biden, Taggart Romney, Their Daddies, Deutsche Bank & Trafficking Tiny Human Trust Funds With Catholic Charities

This is about Catholic Charities where Hunter Biden seems to have an association when it comes to Foster Care and Adoption.

The John Caroll Society is not incorporated bu the OPUS Group, LLC is a business that seems to get lots and lots of federal contracts.

Opus Dei likes the tiny humans.

Opus Dei seems to be centered in Kiev, Ukraine.

There are lots of trafficking tiny human trust fund operations going on, over there, and in Detroit.

The Cathedral of St. Nicholas is glorious in Kiev and seems to have a strong presence in Michigan.

https://opusdei.org/uk-ua/

I just thought I would share.

I like to share.

Would you like me to share some more stuff?

Very well.....stop stealin' the children, land & votes.

Washington, DC

 ~

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Good afternoon.  Thank you General Landry for that kind introduction, and thank you to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) for inviting me to join you today.  It is an honor and privilege to be here with my fellow attorneys general.

Through the Executive Working Group and in various operations, we are working together on several important law enforcement priorities.  Elder Justice is a personal priority for me, and I know the State AGs have been leading the charge for many years.  Derrick Schmidt’s Presidential initiative highlighted the impact of this important issue.  Each year, over three billion dollars are stolen or defrauded from millions of America’s elderly through a variety of malicious scams.  The State AGs are on the front line in this fight to protect the elderly from being exploited, and I pledge the Department’s full support in that effort.     

Similarly, human trafficking is an extremely important law enforcement issue for both the DOJ and the States AGs.  Attorneys General Paxton, Healey, Bacerra, Reyes and many others have been leaders in this vital effort.  We worked together to take down backpage.com, and we continue to engage our state partners though our Human Trafficking Prosecutorial Unit.  We look forward to continuing that work with you to make more progress in the year ahead.  

In addition to these important priorities, another topic that involves almost every AG in this room and one that also benefits from close federal-state cooperation is the review into market-leading online platforms. 

I. Benefits of Broad State AG Support on Review of Market-Leading Online Platforms

In DC, it’s hard to find many things that everyone agrees on.  One thing that has found wide and bi-partisan support, however, is the government taking a closer look at the leading online platforms and the competitiveness of digital markets.

Online platforms play an important role in our economy and in Americans’ daily lives, often serving as gateways for how we access goods, services, information and even each other. 

A few digital platforms in particular have enjoyed significant growth over the past decade.  Consumers now depend on these platforms every day.  Their size and pervasiveness have led to public concerns about the competitive health of these digital markets. 

We’ve heard widespread concerns from consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs, including about stagnated innovation, high prices, lack of choice, privacy, transparency, and public safety.  In response, DOJ initiated a review into market-leading online platforms, which we announced publicly last July. 

Concerns about online platforms have come from a wide variety of stakeholders, across the political spectrum.  Indeed, almost every State AG is now participating in publicly announced antitrust investigations of Google and Facebook.  I’ve had the benefit of meeting with representatives of these groups at the Department, and believe we have a good cooperative relationship in these efforts.

This is not the first time that the Department of Justice has cooperated with a bi-partisan coalition of State AGs on an antitrust matter involving a digital platform.

When the Department of Justice litigated a case against Microsoft roughly 20 years ago for antitrust violations, it was joined by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia.  There are still those in the Department and State AG community, including my friend Tom Miller, who were closely involved and remember it well.

Today, the State AG coalitions investigating Google and Facebook are even bigger than in Microsoft, including almost every state and federal territory.  I think this demonstrates the importance of these issues to Americans across the country, regardless of location or political persuasion.

II. Benefits of a Broad, Holistic Perspective

The benefits of a broad approach to online platforms go beyond building a federal-state partnership.  A broader, holistic perspective is also important as we consider substantive issues raised by the digital economy, both within and outside of the arena of antitrust.

Let me start with antitrust.  Antitrust is a core focus of the Department’s review into market-leading platforms because, ultimately, fair competition can cure many of the ills we see.  In a functioning free market, consumers can demand alternatives that better address their preferences, including for greater privacy, more transparency, or increased safety.  For consumer choice and the free market to work, however, firms have to be playing by the established rules of competition. That’s where antitrust enforcement steps in.

Many online platforms are not only big, but also offer a wide breadth of products and services.  Antitrust enforcers therefore must take an equally broad view of these platforms’ offerings, and the relationships between different markets, products, and business practices.

Let me touch on a few examples of where a broader perspective is useful in an antitrust analysis.

First, a broader perspective requires understanding the characteristics of the market.  This includes looking at whether there are high barriers to entry that prevent or deter new competitors.  For example, digital platform markets are often characterized by economies of scale and scope, including direct and indirect network effects. 

Take, for example, direct network effects in social media.  The more users on the same social media platform, the more valuable that platform is overall.  There are benefits to consumers from being on the same network as their friends and family.  At the same time, the existence of such network effects can make it harder for a new platform to attract users.  

This positive feedback loop is also inherent in platforms that rely on data and machine-learning.  For example, generally speaking, the more data a search engine has, the better its algorithms for search results can be.  The better the algorithm, the more users it can attract, and with them comes even more data.  And the cycle starts anew. 

Digital platforms can also have indirect network effects, meaning the more users on one side of the platform increases the value to users on the other side of the platform. 

In Microsoft, for example, there were indirect network effects that created what the court described as an “applications barrier to entry.”  The more consumers that used the Microsoft operating system, the more attractive the platform was to application developers.  Conversely, the more applications that were on the Microsoft operating system, the more attractive the platform was for users.  These indirect network effects created a barrier to entry that helped protect Microsoft’s monopoly. 

Network effects are not inherently problematic.  However, where strong network effects create a significant barrier to entry, it can lead to increased market power, which in turn can be used in anticompetitive ways.  

Given these dynamics, antitrust enforcers must be particularly vigilant to police for agreements and conduct that harm the competitive process.

Similarly, market power is not itself wrongful.  As I’ve said before, big is not necessarily bad.  Healthy competition creates winners and losers, and the prospect of winning (and the profits that come with it) can drive innovation in the first place.  Success that comes from creating a better, more innovative product should be applauded.  The danger, however, is that a monopolist (even one who earned that status lawfully) can be tempted to use their power to engage in anticompetitive conduct to preserve their dominant position. 

Moreover, the existence of market power can change the competitive effects of a business practice.  Conduct that may be procompetitive for a new entrant can become anticompetitive if undertaken by the incumbent 800 pound gorilla.  

For example, exclusivity agreements by a new entrant can increase competition by enabling a competitor to attract users with unique offerings, even in markets with strong network effects.  At the same time, exclusive dealing by a monopolist could have the opposite effect by depriving rivals of the inputs or scale necessary to compete. 

Bundling, tying, predatory pricing, and certain refusals to deal are other examples of conduct that can become problematic when undertaken by a firm with market or monopoly power. 

As digital firms transition from being the disruptive new entrant into an established market leader, they should pay attention to the impact of their business practices.  So too should the antitrust enforcers.

Second, in addition to understanding the dynamics within a market, like barriers to entry and market power, we also need to look at relationships between markets.  This is especially important because today’s digital platforms frequently operate across multiple areas.  

A dominant firm may seek to leverage its monopoly power in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.  In the Microsoft case, for example, a key concern was that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in operating systems to foreclose competition in browsers. 

The relationships between markets can be even more complex in the digital age, with the emergence of new business models and an increasingly important role of data.  Law enforcers need to better understand how consumer data is collected, used, and shared within a firm and with third parties.  Such antitrust inquiries generally require a broader perspective and deeper understanding of how each of these markets function.

Third, taking a broader perspective is particularly important in the context of “free” online services.  Digital platforms are not charities.  When they offer services to consumers for “free,” that just means they are making money somewhere else, either through a different product, from different consumers, or at a different point in time. 

The increasing prevalence and complexity of “free” digital services may require a broader perspective.

For example, antitrust enforcers may need to look beyond the free service to better understand a firm’s monetization strategy and incentives.  Enforcers also may need to look more closely at non-price effects.  Fortunately, the long-standing consumer welfare standard enables us to analyze non-price effects on competition, including on quality, innovation, and consumer choice. 

A broader perspective also requires looking beyond antitrust.  As we listen to complaints from the public, industry, and experts, it has become clear that not every problem related to online platforms comes within the reach of antitrust law. 

Some have therefore proposed expanding the antitrust laws to reach other non-economic harms.  Drastically re-inventing the antitrust laws, however, is neither easy nor advisable.  The Sherman Act has been around for over a century and has proved flexible enough to adapt to a wide variety of industries, including digital platforms.  We are open to considering new tools and targeted modifications, but a wholesale departure from the antitrust laws’ focus on competition is unwarranted.

While we should not distort the antitrust laws, the Department of Justice also cannot ignore real harms to the American people.  Where there are non-competition harms, the Department will consider whether there are other tools – including other legal or policy frameworks – that can help.  We are thinking critically about how the Department, and our state and federal partners, can address other topics related to online platforms, such as privacy, transparency, consumer fraud, child exploitation, or public safety.

One example of a non-antitrust issue related to online platforms is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  Generally speaking, Section 230 provides immunity to interactive computer services for third-party content on their platforms. 

As this group well knows, there is currently a robust public debate over Section 230.  The NAAG sent a letter to Congress last May, proposing an amendment that would carve out U.S. state and territorial criminal law from the current scope of Section 230 immunity.  We, too, are studying Section 230 and its scope. 

The CDA was passed in 1996 in response to concerns about protecting children from sexually explicit content on the internet.  Section 230 was enacted primarily for two purposes.

The primary purpose of the amendment was to encourage platforms to self-regulate by granting immunity for blocking or filtering offensive material.  In particular, the amendment aimed to overrule a 1995 state court decision that treated an online message board as a publisher of third-party content, and thus liable for defamation, because the service restricted access to some, but not other, objectionable material.

Another purpose was to encourage the growth of online forums by immunizing platforms against liability for third party speech.  Section 230 was passed at a time where the internet was relatively new, and Congress wanted to protect the growth of online services and the ability for the internet to offer “a forum for true diversity of political discourse.” 

Section 230 has been interpreted quite broadly by the courts.  Today, many are concerned that Section 230 immunity has been extended far beyond what Congress originally intended.  Ironically, Section 230 has enabled platforms to absolve themselves completely of responsibility for policing their platforms, while blocking or removing third-party speech – including political speech – selectively, and with impunity. 

Some also question whether such a broad immunity is still necessary to protect online companies.  Indeed, ten years ago, a Ninth Circuit opinion denying Section 230 immunity in part remarked: “The Internet is no longer a fragile new means of communication that could easily be smothered in the cradle by overzealous enforcement of laws and regulations applicable to brick-and-mortar businesses.”  Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1164 n. 15 (9th Cir. 2008).  In other words, the opinion stated:  “the Internet has outgrown its swaddling clothes and no longer needs to be so gently coddled.”  Id. at 1175, n. 39.

The staggering breadth of Section 230 immunity, as construed by the courts, is evident in a recent Second Circuit opinion involving the Anti-Terrorism Act.  See Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019).  There, the court held that Facebook was immune under Section 230 for allegedly matching and facilitating communications between members of the terrorist group Hamas.  The court denied plaintiff’s argument that Facebook’s algorithms and friend-matching service rendered it a “non-publisher” outside the scope of Section 230.  Id. at 66.

Chief Judge Katzmann dissented in part, criticizing the virtually limitless scope of Section 230 immunity imposed by some courts.  He argued that providing immunity for the steps Facebook took to connect alleged terrorists through algorithm and friend suggestions was far removed from the original purpose of the CDA to protect children against obscene material online.  He called for Congress to revisit the CDA to “better calibrate the circumstances where such immunization is appropriate and inappropriate in light of congressional purposes.”  Id. at 77.

Chief Judge Katzmann is not alone in his calls for reform.  Section 230 has garnered significant attention from experts, consumer groups, and legislators.  Within DOJ, we also have started thinking critically this issue. 

The purpose of Section 230 was to protect the “good Samaritan” interactive computer service that takes affirmative steps to police its own platform for unlawful or harmful content.  Granting broad immunity to platforms that take no efforts to mitigate unlawful behavior or, worse, that purposefully blind themselves — and law enforcers — to illegal conduct occurring on, or facilitated by, the online spaces they create, is not consistent with that purpose. 

We want to engage further with experts, industry, and other government actors, including the NAAG, through informal discussions as well as a public workshop.

III. Coordination is Key

As we look at Section 230, antitrust, and other issues raised by the online platforms, it is important to take a coordinated approach. 

The issues raised by online platforms are interrelated, and we sometimes must weigh competing interests in forming positions related to the digital economy. 

Privacy is a good example.  Overbroad and overly burdensome privacy legislation could inhibit competition by entrenching monopolists with the resources to comply, while thwarting newer entrants who do not have those resources.

A single-minded focus on privacy, above all other values, also can impose significant costs, including costs to public safety.  I have, for example, spoken before about the dangers of warrant-proof encryption.  I won’t repeat myself here, but would simply reiterate that technological innovations that purport to protect privacy at all costs – while impeding sworn law enforcers’ ability to go after violent criminals, child predators, human traffickers, and terrorists, even once the enforcers satisfied the rigorous privacy protections built into the Fourth Amendment — may not be worth the trade-off.

High level coordination in our review of market-leading online platforms also helps avoid imposing conflicting obligations or inconsistent policy positions.  This requires coordination both within and outside DOJ. 

While we have some of the best and brightest at the DOJ’s Antitrust Division and across the Department working on these issues, we benefit from the perspective and support of our State AG, federal, and international partners.  We are also welcoming consumers, businesses, experts, and others to talk and work with us to address the challenges of the digital age.

***

The technology industry in America has brought great innovations to consumers in the US and around the world.  We must continue to encourage and incentivize innovation and economic growth.  This means not unfairly punishing innovators that have earned their success on the merits.  But it also means making sure markets are competitive and open to the next wave of technological change. 

As law enforcers, we also must keep up with technological advancements to best protect our citizens.  This is why we have made the review of market-leading online platforms a top priority of the Department. 

The State AG community plays a very important role in this endeavor.  On behalf of DOJ, I thank you all for your valuable partnership and look forward to our continued work together on this and many other initiatives.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

9th Circuit: "Creativity In New Articulation Of The Item" - A New Concept Of Stealin' - The Real Story Of The Foreign, Privatized Wall

Wait.....

The U.S. is arguing that the Department of Defense money to contract to building of the wall was just a line item transfer.

I swear I am not lying! 🤣

The Trump Administration just said, "We are going to build this wall. Just cross out the description in line item 7 over to line 15, then call it 'creativity in new articulation of the item'".

It does not matter what DoD told congress what they were going to use the money for because it was just taken from one pot and put into another pot, that no one needs to know about.

That sounds like an action of insurrection.

The judge is asking about how often they come up with "creative descriptions" of what DoD does with the money.

I believe we may be crossing over into that Defense Logistic Agency area of really, super special operations for those foreign Public Private Partnerships with Corporate Shape Shifters, but hey, what do I know?

I hope everyone understands the DoD has been in a 2 year historic audit through the OIG.

Yes, I am aware of the issues swirling around about 9th Circuit, but for now, I am more fascinated with my new term I just learned and the opportunity to use it liberally in my venacular of educating the world in the timeless art of stealin'.

"Creativity in new articulation of the item." 

Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition v. Trump Et Al by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

A Few Reasons Why Arizona Averages 500 Legally Kidnapped Kids A Month

Did you ever wonder why so many children are Legally Kidnapped by Child Protective Services?

Well, wonder no more!

Arizona is going to be our example for the final phase in the Month of Trafficking Tiny Humans - Adoption.

See, when an anonymous individual calls the CPS Hotline, the intake worker fills out a form and takes it to a judge to sign the removal order.

Mind you, I did not say anything about being charged, facing the unknown accuser, or anything else relevantly close to due process because that is called ex-parte, meaning you are not invited to the proceeding.

Yes, that is correct, the courts hold a petite trial, meaning the only people in the court room are the judge, the CPS worker and probably the clerk, that is if the orders are not rubber stamped like they do in Michigan, but I digress because we are dealing with Arizona.

If a state is snatching this many kids, something tells me the state is not doing a very good job when it comes to quality of life and its elected officials probably do not care because the money to be made off these poor tiny humans funds their political campaigns.

Arizona Computer Glitches Bust Child Human Trafficking & Fraud

Arizona Gets Busted Wiretapping Parents

Oh, and I forgot.

#perkinscoiesucks

Happy National Adoption Month!

Child welfare officials took 1,900 kids in 4 months, but that's not the whole picture

Over the last four months, child-welfare workers removed more than 1,900 Arizona children from their family homes with a judge's OK, according to data obtained by The Arizona Republic.

But that doesn't give the full picture of child removals that lawmakers wanted when they adopted a new warrant process as a check on the Department of Child Safety's power to remove a child from her parents.

Most notably, the agency doesn't reveal how many Arizona children were taken without judicial approval, which the law allows in dire circumstances. That's because DCS isn't tracking emergency removals even though the intent of the new warrant law was to provide more transparency on what is arguably one of the most intrusive actions a government can take on its citizens.

The Republic obtained data from the Department of Child Safety on removals from July 1, when the new law took effect, to October 31.

Previously, child-welfare workers alone made the call to remove a child. But under the new law, DCS case investigators must file removal requests electronically to Maricopa County's initial appearance court, where a judge or commissioner decides whether to issue an order. The court operates 24/7 and handles requests from investigators in all 15 counties.

The data shows that 93 percent of the time requests for a court order to remove a child have been granted. That accounts for the 1,938 children who were removed between July 1 and Oct. 31.

Requests involving 50 children were denied, but it's unclear what DCS did in those cases since the investigator apparently thought the child needed to be immediately separated from his home.

DCS can't quantify how many children were removed from their homes due to "exigent circumstances," the only situation in which an exception to a court order is allowed.

"I wish it wasn't this difficult to get this kind of reporting when it has such a dire impact on families," said Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, an early advocate for court orders. She said she is working on legislation that would require regular reporting on the agency's removal process.

When should you call DCS if you think a child is in danger?

Arizona’s child-welfare agency says to call the child-abuse hotline if you reasonably believe that a child has been “abused, neglected, exploited or abandoned.”

WOCHIT

Lawsuits, court decision propel action

The Arizona Legislature debated the need for a so-called warrant system for several years. A 2016 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that removing a child without court approval violates parents' constitutional rights was a key motivator. Ongoing lawsuits against DCS arguing that the state's practice of taking children without getting a warrant is unconstitutional further propelled action.

A bill requiring court approval passed in 2017, and earlier this year lawmakers defined the circumstances in which DCS could remove children without a court order. They outlined two narrow categories when this could happen:

• When the situation is so urgent there is not time to file a request with the court
• When there is probable cause that a child has been sexually or physically abused. 

MORE: Soon judges, not Arizona Department of Child Safety alone, could decide when to take children from families

But more than four months into the new process, DCS says it can't isolate cases where children have been removed due to emergency circumstances. At least, not without combing through more than 3,000 individual case files.

The agency every month reports the total number of children it removes.

From July to October, that totaled 3,175 removals. But that figure combines a variety of cases, DCS public-information officer Darren DaRonco said. Besides removals due to exigent circumstances, the number reflects cases in which parents voluntarily surrender their children; where the court (not DCS) generates the removal request; and where the child is also involved with the juvenile-justice system.

"It's not as easy as subtracting the numbers," DaRonco said.

What is easy is the reason DCS doesn't seek a court order: "There isn’t enough time to get in front of a judge before harm will come to a child," the agency said in a statement. This is one of the exceptions outlined in state law. 

Lawmakers want more details

Legislators said the reported numbers are helpful, but some want to see more detail.

Rep. Reginald Bolding, D-Laveen, said a big issue in his district are complaints that DCS "arbitrarily" removes kids based more on socioeconomic status than any real danger.

"The transparency aspect is probably the most important aspect when you're removing children from their home," he said. "Historically, DCS has had issues with that."

Rep. John Allen was closely involved in the creation of the court-order law. He said the fact that DCS can show that 93 percent of its removal requests were approved is a key reason for the law.

"I want the public to understand we're making strides to make the system better," said Allen, R-Scottsdale.

What the numbers don't tell 

Attorney Suzanne Nicholls contends the statistics don't tell the whole story on child removals.

She said she's seen DCS cases where the children were removed from their home using "present danger" plans. These plans are part of the safety protocol DCS has been using since last year under a policy intended to keep families together in as many cases as possible.

One of the options is to send children to live with "a responsible adult in the family network" who can care for them for up to two weeks. This option, in her eyes, is a back-door way to remove a child without court approval.

The plain fact that a child is not living with one or both parents is evidence of a removal, she said.

"Right now, we have no idea how many children are out of their homes," she said.

When a removal is not a removal

DCS sees it differently.

It views present-danger plans as a way to improve a family situation before things deteriorate to the point case managers feel a court order is needed to remove the child. That can entail having the child live apart from the parent or parents, but the agency doesn't consider that a removal.

Nor, apparently, do some of the judges who have denied removal requests. Judges have turned down removal requests, saying they want the present-danger plan to expire (they last no longer than 14 days) before deciding on a removal.

Allen said he views temporary placements with a relative as a breather for parents to settle things down in their household. In his eyes, it's not a technical removal.

"It's not a direct intervention of the state," he added.

Lessons learned

DCS said it studied the cases where the court has denied removal requests and found that usually happens when the child has been left with a relative, ending the "impending danger" that is key to deciding if a removal is needed.

In other instances, denials happened because the DCS investigator did not include information on both parents.

So far, DCS said, the new law is meeting its expectations: It has provided a backstop on investigators' decisions to remove a child; it has helped protect parental rights; and it has saved children from the trauma of being unnecessarily removed from their parents.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©