Showing posts with label 5th amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 5th amendment. Show all posts

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Could Anti-Trust Monopolies lose Trillions to Asset Forfeiture?

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Monopolies / Asset Forfeiture
____________________________

Mr. Sessions,

Why not go after the financials of entities and their personages who have betrayed our founding principles and sold out America to Communist China?

$1 trillion

$500 billion

$14 billion

$661 billion
 
The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.

The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.
The United States of America through its governance, agencies, and courts has allowed the propagation of monopolies that now seek to stifle freedoms, liberties, and commerce. Some like Apple and Google have interjoined their management with a foreign power, Communist China.
The boards of directors, CEOs, and other top management divisions collude together in private meetings to create The Network of Global Corporate Control.
The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the  architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.
Therefore the super-entity of a massive monopoly, which also answers to Communist China through Google and Apple's moves, prompts National Security concerns at the very least. This super-entity now commands a complete umbrella and oversight to change the outcome of future elections under the guise of social justice causes not supported by current US laws such as: censorship, shadow banning, community guideline strikes, and expulsion.   .

If so, then the USA has traitors in the government who need to be investigated:
While the VDP Gazette is no fan of asset forfeiture as the act is unconstitutional thanks to the 5th Amendment, a strike against the Globalists running the unelected administrative state (shadow government/deep state institutions) would be nice.

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Yet after the punitive damages the Sherman Act allows for, the taking's clause is all but moot after a jury trial of ten or more victories of injured parties.

Still corporations feel the need to circumvent our Bill of Rights as entities defined as individuals instead of the nonperson governing monopolies this super-entity seeks to become. Perhaps it is time to redefine the greed ridden cancers of our society and hand the halls of power back over to the People by taking away the power of the corporation in our society.


Shouldn't you?

Source: All of the above

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Government Overreach in the Name of Cybersecurity

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Government/ News 
____________________________________

 It's back. The CISA was passed by the Senate this week. If  you want to read what the bill contains, here is the document from the Congressional Website.


This bill is being directed to help corporations and industries deal with cyberattacks, but isn't that the corporations problem, not a public policy one? Why aren't billion dollar profiting corporations able to fend off hackers without public monies or laws? 

Is this bill another form of corporate welfare? 

According to CNN's' article explaining the bill:
The idea behind CISA is to help U.S. companies react more quickly to cyberattacks on their computer systems. If a company gets hit with a specific type of hack, the federal government would receive an alert and immediately distribute warnings to other companies.

Every cyberattack is like a flu virus, and CISA is intended to be a lightning-fast distribution system for the flu vaccine. Opt in, and you get a government shot in minutes, not months.

Currently, industries maintain specialized, military-like "information sharing and analysis centers" to track cyberattacks and collectively develop defenses. Banking has its ISAC. The energy sector has its own too. But they don't team up.
And how is that a problem that Congress needs to spend taxpayer money to make someone's secretary call someone else's secretary to take a meeting on the subject?

 The article goes on to explain more about this CISA law:
CISA would create a single system that sends "cyber threat indicators" -- such as samples of malicious computer code -- to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS would then feed this data to the FBI, NSA and other government agencies. DHS would also share warnings to every participating American company.

Computer scientists and military experts agree that automatic, immediate sharing helps the nation raise its defenses.
 I have seen this movie. Haven't you? Skynet, anyone?

One centralized computer to do everything is a recipe for disaster. 

What we also should be questioning is:
A significant element of the bill is that CISA would eliminate liability for companies, making them immune to lawsuits for sharing too much. Banking, energy, health care, insurance -- almost every industry but tech supported the bill.

Several efforts to include additional privacy measures were shot down in the Senate.
So this bill is really about government overreach and making their accomplices immune from legal action all the while giving birth to an integrated technological system of corporate welfare and intrusion. 

Call your Congressional representatives today. This bill has no place in American policy or law. Americans do not have to give the government anything without a warrant and probable cause. 

The government going through corporations to steal private and sensitive information from Americans is not why or how our government was formed. Our government answers to the People. The People do NOT answer to the government. 

Let's make that clear because it appears our government officials do not comprehend the concept.


Source: CongressCNN,