posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 10:47 PM
I was just watching an ad where in Rep. Brad Carson of Oklahoma was one of the people who aided the Goverment violate the law, he helped a vote pass
where in the Goverment caused a monopoly of industry which is an anti-trust law violation. Rep. Carson voted yes on closing 7 or 8 medical
medication facilities who made Flu vaccines. The remaining one now has a monopoly on the market in the US home based production and sales of flu
vaccine. As if breaking and anti-trust laws weren't enough the Goverment has no flu stockpiles and production is expected not to catch up for up 6
months..... well after winter is over. So I say that they not only broke anti-trust laws , but in effect under strick letter of the law have shown
a civil gross negligence violation and possibly criminal gross negligence.
For statement supporting the violations look below.
Maintaining or Creating a Monopoly (copied from anti-trust laws on Federal Trade Commisions Website....
While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly
through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a
violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.
The violation above shows that preventing 7 of 8 companies to product or participate in the producing of flu vaccine is a violation of law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to longer part on how to keep market free and fair.
WTC Site keeping markets competative how to resolve issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One definition of gross negligence
Defining "Willful And/Or Wanton Misconduct".
In Jennings v. Southwood, the Supreme Court was also asked to interpret the term "wilful misconduct". The Court noted in passing that "it is
unfortunate that the judiciary and the Legislature have used the phrase 'wilful and wanton misconduct,' as opposed to 'wilful or wanton
misconduct.'"(6) but concluded that the phrases "wilful misconduct" and "wilful and wanton misconduct" possess distinct meanings.(7) The term
"wilful" requires a finding of actual intent to harm, the Court concluded, while the term "wanton" is an intent inferred from reckless
conduct.(8)
[edit on 27/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]
[edit on 27/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]