He is not my king. I do not want his septor. I want it - for us, not me - period! https://youtube/watch?v=Ysnd0bsrb8Q Nobody will argue on our side, or our economist or anyone else, the fact that they … checked prices … meets the standard for an agreement or conspiracy. This admitted agreement is load. It is direct evidence of a price agreement. It is a case price fixing agreement, categorically forbidden by the Sherman and Cartwright Acts. This “no one will argue” agreement is a face to face agreement to conceal direct evidence of price crimes. It is a head to head agreement to divert to circumstantial theory in lieu of simple facts. The objective result of this criminal esquire price agreement is a labyrinth of circular economic and case non-sense. The “fingerprints” are shown by court’s own opinions, playing ball and/or misled by the players: “In the absence of direct evidence, the plaintiffs may … support their [price] claim with circumstantial evidence of conscious parallelism (called parallel or match pricing). Conscious parallelism or match price coordination is described as the process not in itself unlawful, by which firms in a concentrated market might in effect share monopoly power, setting their prices at a prefixed maximizing, supra competitive level …. a. Direct Proof Concealment Direct proof that the above agreement is entered in all cases resides in signed DOJ indictments and complaints: the shift from direct proof of bad faith pricing (by failure of to tender the papers, proof of compliance) to circumstantial confusion. The confusion is deliberate, pre-mediated and underhanded. It is a shift from simple pricing policy dictates and implementation to the symptoms of those policies and other basic economic indicators. There just are not that many of these “flags”, all of which, they say, evince the crime “circumstantially”: 1) High prices; 2) Similar costs; 3) Price equilibrium; 4) Lockstep increases; 5) Exchange of Prices; 6) Supply and demand; 7) Opportunity to collude; 8) Barriers to entry; 9) Inelastic demand; 10) Lack of substitutes; 11) Executive Travel Itinerary; 12) High concentration levels; 13) Absence of fringe sellers; 14) Trade association memberships; 15) Inter-company communications; 16) Other “off balance” symptoms; and 17) Other “diseased market cancer” symptoms. Notice that “pricing policies” like “match pricing” is not something the players “front” by way of either direct or circumstantial evidence. That’s more proof of the series of back door agreements to hide direct evidence, to override Supreme Court instruction and simple price economic cartel truisms. b. Deceit, Defense Bar’s Billing Racquet 01-16-01 Appellate Brief by Stone, Noonan & Arnold & Porter, page 34. Howarth entered this back door pact with Ervin Cohen & Jessup et al in late 1996 to early 1997; Ervin, Cohen & Jessup directly confirmed on record at one or both of the 1997 Class Certification hearings in 1997. I wasn’t invited to this “Ivy” gig. This “check prices” pact is a criminally infamous” agreement from a host of dimensions, which I shall dissect and simplify so that all of our representatives, court guardians and academic institutions across the country can easily digest exactly what it means and how it impacts them personally. In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112, 135 (3d Cir. 1999); In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 295 F.3d 651 (2002). U.S. v. Container, 393 U.S. 333 (1969).
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 21:11:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015