August 05, 2009 [E]ach [Rival Check] defendant had [and has] the manuals [to] … 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 Chevron #3 Cash Shell #4 Cash
Credit
Credit
2.95 (+3 *post+3D3) 3.01 (+3 …) 2.99 (+6 +4 =+10) 3.07 (+6 *post +6 = +12…) 3.05 (+3 back2back) 3.11 (+3 … on 3Q) 3.09 (+6 …) 3.17 (+6 …) 3.15 (+3 back2back) 3.21 (+3 – 3D *8=?) 3.19 (+6 …) 3.27 (+6 post +6 = going up?) *2.99 (+10 C) ***3.07 (+10 cued by2up to) 76 #2 Chevron #4 Cash Credit Cash/Credit 2.97 (held D1) 3.05 (held D1 post +2 +2) 2.97 (+4 …) -.--.— (again ‘86’d supply) 3.07 (+4 cued by and up to … Q) 3.17 (held D1) 3.25 (held D1 post +2 +2 in ro) 3.17 (+4 … last SATurday +8 …) 2.99 (Diesel *held) Mobile/Exxon #2 *76 #3 - On Lyons & Newhall 2.97 (+2 +6 days = +8 post SAT +2 = 10) 2.99 (+2 *post 3D hold & odd -2) 3.07 (+2 …) 3.19 (held for weeks b/f off line *3.19) 3.17 (+2 … X, wait, up to Y …) 3.29 (Id.) *2.85 (+6 *post hold D2 +4 +2+2 week) 2.89 (Id.) [T]hroughout our history [D lies about] … ostensible [excuses, aka,] justifications for price-fixing. Container, 393 U.S. 333 (’69).
+4 Bidden
1 2
[A Gas/Oil product] Container, 393 U.S. 333 (’69). [CFO] Container, 393 U.S. 333 (’69 key word “manual”).
A Journalists preview of the back to back above two gentlemen’s ’01-’08 – One America Breach Disclosures and Investigation failures:
Here, [The IT] respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes …. "The [FBI, Incorporated …] 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 [10th Amen defector for a big money cush job (Remke-Gray Davis)] 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). 3 … [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 ….4
3 4
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Jerry Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (’88). http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/inspector-general-fired-by-president-obama-files-lawsuit-to-bereinstated-.html