July 28, 2009 [E]ach [Rival CFO Gas Chain Franchise op] defendant had [and has] the manuals with which it could compute the [future] price [to be] charged by a competitor …. *The [concerted checking] exchange of price information seemed to have the effect of keeping prices within a fairly narrow ambit [match, penny to dime difference – ambit]. *Knowledge1 of a competitor's price usually meant matching that price. *That concerted action is of course sufficient to establish the combination …. [Again, E]ach [Rival CFO Gas Chain Franchise op] defendant had [and has] the manuals with which it could compute the [future] price [to be] charged by a competitor ….2 A) Chevron #3 Cash 2.77 (held) 2.89 (held) 2.99 (held) ? 76 #2 Cash 2.85 (held) -.-3.05 (held) A.M. Price Change (Chevron #3 ...); B) A.M. Price Change (Shell #2 Chiquilla); C) Noon Price Change (Shell #1 ….); & D) P.M. Price Change (Arco). Credit 2.83 (held post -1- odd) 2.95 (held post +1 - odd) 3.05 (held post +1 – odd) Shell #4 Cash 2.83 (+4 w/ …) 2.93 (+4 w/ …) 3.03 (+4 w/ …) ***2.89 (held) Credit 2.91 (+6 matching up w/) 3.01 (+6 inviting up more) 3.11 (+6 inviting up more) ***2.97 (held)
Credit 2.93 (held) -.— (blank - again ‘86’d supply) 3.13 (held)
Chevron #4 Cash/Credit 2.79 (+2 *from 2.77 matching Rival Zone .) 2.89 (+2 *from 2.87 matching Rival Zone) 2.99 (+2 *from 2.97 matching Rival Zone) 2.99 (Diesel *held) *76 #3 - On Lyons & Newhall 2.99 (All Off Line, Construction day 7) 3.19 (All Off Line, Construction) 3.29 (All Off Line, Construction) 2.89 (All Off Line, Construction)
Mobile/Exxon #2 2.81 (+2 *back to back +2 – the Q) 2.89 (+2 *from 2.87 with 76 on Lyons Zone) 2.99 (+2 *from 2.97 with 76 on Lyons Zone) *2.75 (held day 3 post back to back +2) Q.
A.
Now, [about IT,] with regard to price-checkers and price surveys, you know that at [76] … the price surveyors go out and -- could we put Exhibit 71 back up again? -- and they get the information to deliver to the people who create exhibits like 71, with the … match V---, match [Exxon #2] …, et cetera, you know that the … checkers go out on Mondays, Tuesday and Thursdays […], do you not? Yes.
1 2
[A Gas/Oil product] Container, 393 U.S. 333 (’69). [CFO] Container, 393 U.S. 333 (‟69 key word “manual”).
Q.
A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.
And the reason they go out on those days [at those A.M., afternoon & P.M. times] is that you know that the stores, such as the ones shown in Exhibit 71, have completed their pricing activity at retail, correct? We've done enough analysis to conclude when they finish their price changes. In general, we found that those are the most active days.3 But the … policy for the last ten years, whether written or oral, has been to match whatever competitor’s store is set for that time period. Yes.4 [W]hen you … make a pricing decision do you always look at what the number would be under the policy…. I always know who the target is, and so I always know what the price … should be….5 And there is [stet] times where you have done that and then you set it at something else, set it at another price? I would say that that is true. And -- But that is … “rare” …? Certainly.6 Okay. Now, we have talked about these five [price element] factors [you put your signature on, under penalty of perjury]. Are there any factors that you used to consider than you no longer consider?
MR. BOESE: Yeah -- when setting the retail price…? A. A. A. Q. A. Q. A. [Now, about price factors,] There may have been a point in the past when we looked at other factors. I can‟t think what those might be. And certainly there may have been a point … in the past where … pricing … was more heavily weighted on [cost, aka] one factor versus another [„s prices]. Now, that is certainly a possibility. I don‟t recall when that was. You can’t give me any specifics in that regard? No. It‟s been awhile.7 Would it be fair to say that one of the most important of these five factors is, Number 1, the written policy? THE WITNESS: It could -- it could be the Number 1 policy -- or the number 1 factor all of the time....8
[T]hroughout our history [D lies about] … ostensible [excuses, aka,] justifications for price-fixing. Container, 393 U.S. 333 (‟69).
3 4 5
VP Thomas Dahlen on trial at page 2379:5-18.
Disner, E‟s Ken (e) Hanshaw 326:10-14. Disner, E‟s Ken (e) Hanshaw V-D Vidoe Tap(e), page 326:21--237:18. 6 Barry McNaughten‟s Ken Hanshaw V-D Vidoe Tap(e), page 326:21--237:18. 7 Disner, E‟s Ken (e) Hanshaw V-D Vidoe Tap(e), page 324:25-326:09. 8 Disner, E’s Ken (e) Hanshaw V-D Vidoe Tap(e), page 324:25-326:09.
Video Taped Depo(s)
+4 Bidden
A Journalists preview of the back to back above two gentlemen‟s ‟01-‟08 – One America Breach Disclosures!
Here, [The IT] respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes …. "The [FBI – Judge – Ex Pres] candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry 'Foul!' when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts [52] to demonstrate the contrary." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 274 (1971). "The political [law fact (e) pressed] cartoon is a weapon of [legal adversarial] attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting and is always controversial in some quarters." Long, The Political Cartoon: Journalism's Strongest Weapon, The Quill, 56, 57 (Nov. 1962). Double Jep on Back to back bobbie Ex "[T]he fact that [Stone’s Remke Bar Gangsters & Judge 10th Amen defector to Reserve Op Gangser] society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for sup pressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that con sequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the [former] government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas." Id., at 745-746. The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment [to mortal and un-immune-exposed] judges & other public trust figures, in & out of the Pen directly at work] is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large." Associated Press v. Walker decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130, 164 (1967) (Warren, C.J., concurring in result). Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 673-674 (1944), when he said that "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures." Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks," New York Times, supra, at 270. "The candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry 'Foul!' when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts [52] to demonstrate the contrary." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 274 (1971). 9 … [Related,] Gerald Walpin, the former Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service whom President Obama took the unusual step of firing last month, filed a lawsuit against the CNCS on Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ….10
9
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (‟88).
10
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/inspector-general-fired-by-president-obama-files-lawsuit-to-bereinstated-.html