8chan/8kun QResearch Posts (4)
#13688504 at 2021-05-18 00:21:24 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #17333: We will not provide the routers AZ Audit Edition
Apple CEO Tim Cook will testify this week in antitrust suit brought by Fortnight maker Epic Games to refute claim the App Store is a monopoly crushing competition with 30% commissions
Apple CEO Tim Cook is gearing up to testify this week against antitrust allegations brought by Fortnite-maker Epic Games, which accused the tech giant of being a 'Venus fly trap' and a price-gouging monopoly.
Cook will serve as the star witness for the defense at the federal trial in Oakland, California, which could decide the future of Apple's fast-growing App Store.
The CEO - who until now stayed quiet about trial - has spent hours practicing for his turn on the stand with help from former prosecutors hand-picked by his legal team, according to the Wall Street Journal.
He is expected to refute claims of anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior by Apple while reinforcing its rosy portrait of the App Store - which raked in almost $54billion in 2020 - as an invaluable feature beloved by users and developers alike.
A specific date for Cook's testimony has not been released but he is expected to be on the stand for a total of 100 minutes toward the end of this week and or early next week.
Also slated to testify in Apple's defense are its former marketing chief, Phil Schiller, now a company fellow, and its head of software, Craig Federighi.
The trial kicked off on May 3 with opening arguments from Epic Games, which attacked the App Store as a breakthrough idea that has morphed into an instrument of financial exploitation that illegally locks out competition.
Epic attorney Katherine Forrest accused Apple of turning its online marketplace into a monopoly 'walled garden' that lures in developers and users before squeezing money out of them.
Apple essentially planted a 'flower in the walled garden (that) was turned into a Venus fly trap,' she argued in her opening statements.
'The evidence will show unambiguously that Apple is a monopoly,' Forrest went on to claim.
http://www.madnesshub.com/2021/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-will-testify-this.html
#2206032 at 2018-07-19 02:32:57 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #2781: They Want Us Divided Edition
>>2206022
If you're looking for sauce: Law.com story https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/07/18/us-judge-Katherine-Forrest-retiring-from-federal-bench-in-manhattan/?slreturn=20180618222805
Wikipedia mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_B._Forrest#Federal_judicial_service
#2206009 at 2018-07-19 02:31:12 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #2781: They Want Us Divided Edition
>>2205893
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/07/18/us-judge-Katherine-Forrest-retiring-from-federal-bench-in-manhattan/?slreturn=20180618222944
#2205977 at 2018-07-19 02:28:56 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #2781: They Want Us Divided Edition
>>2205935
>Katherine B Forrest
Looks like we can go with it.
Another source: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/07/18/us-judge-Katherine-Forrest-retiring-from-federal-bench-in-manhattan/?slreturn=20180618222805
8kun Midnight Riders Posts (1)
#54654 at 2021-02-09 04:45:08 (UTC+1)
QR Midnight Riders #253: The Stupid Should Hurt Edition
>>54645
>>54649
>>54652
Cont.
Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, "another NDAA. It's even worse, to be honest."
For Hedges and the other plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the government's ever-expanding authority over civilian affairs has a "chilling effect" on First Amendment activities such as free speech and the right to assemble. First District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs and handed Hedges et al a resounding victory prompting the Department of Justice to immediately file an injunction and an appeal. The appellate court is expected to rule on the matter within the next few months.
Another of the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit is Alexa O'Brien, a journalist and organizer who joined the lawsuit after she discovered a Wikileaks cable showing government officials attempting to link her efforts to terrorist activities. For activists such as O'Brien, the new DoD regulatory change is frightening because it creates, "an environment of fear when people cannot associate with one another." Like Afran and Freedman, she too calls the move, "another grab for power under the rubric of the war on terror, to the detriment of citizens."
"This is a complete erosion of the rule of law," says O'Brien. Knowing these sweeping powers were granted under a rule change and not by Congress is even more harrowing to activists. "That anything can be made legal," says O'Brien, "is fundamentally antithetical to good governance."
As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, "In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State."
But the focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation. Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, "The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878."
This de facto nullification isn't lost on the DoD.
The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, "Like most major police departments, if you didn't know they were a police department you would think they were the military." According to this official there has purposely been a "large transfer of technology so that the military doesn't have to get involved." Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. "We have transferred the technology so we don't have to loan it," he states.
But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to "envision that happening," adding, "but I'm not a Hollywood screenwriter."
Afran, for one, isn't buying the logic. For him, the distinction is simple.
"Remember, the police operate under civilian control," he says. "They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn't change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can't remove the military from power."
Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O'Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention.
"This is where journalism comes in," says Freedman. "Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration."
Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change.
As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it's already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.
/end/
https://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/