Update Breaking Down The DOJ Lawsuit Live Nation Entertainment

Update: Breaking Down The DOJ Lawsuit

The Judicial Ministry of Justice and the President of the Prosecutor filed a lon g-awaited violation of the Live Nation and Ticket Master. This is a lon g-term rival company trying to restrict competition, and a ticket broker that tries to protect a business model from a rival company to restrict competition by applying a strong political pressure to file a lawsuit. This is the result of developing lobby activities.

The complaint and the press conference that announced it are seeking the live nations and ticket masters to cause fans' dissatisfaction with the live entertainment industry. Despite the recognition that the face value of the ticket is usually set or approved by the artist, the soaring ticket price is blamed for concert promoters and ticket sales companies. It ignores all the reasons for the rise in ticket prices, such as rising production costs, popular artists, and online ticket scalping 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Although it accuses the live nation and ticket master service fees, and simply a fee, it ignores the fact that the ticket master has only a small part of those fees. In fact, the primary ticket is one of the most economically inexpensive digital distribution.

In light of these data, the reporter's question about how much the ticket master contributes to the commission is indicated.

It's ridiculous to claim that live nations and ticket masters are exercising monopoly. The characteristic of the monopoly company is the exclusive interests of exclusive prices. Live nations do not apply to their characteristics. Ticket master service charges are not higher than Seatgeek, AXS, and other major ticket sales sites. In fact, when the ticket master is deprived of the venue by the seat geek, the service fee usually rises significantly. Also, considering the sponsorship, which is an advertising business that is useful for reducing ticket prices, the net profit margin of live nations is lower among S & Amp; P500 companies.

The trend line supports the lack of market power in live nations. Every year, the competition within the industry has gained a lower profit margin from both concert promotion and ticket sales. The company is growing and growing because it contributes to the growth of the industry, not because it has a market power to squeeze more profits from small products.

We have met with the Justice Department front office multiple times in the past few weeks. It was clear in our discussions that they did not want to believe these numbers. The data was too inconsistent with their preconceived scenario that Live Nation was in the company of other "tech monopolies" that they had targeted.

In the end, it is another casualty of this Administration's decision to subject antitrust enforcement to a populist impulse that rejects how antitrust works. Some call it "anti-monopoly," but it is really just anti-business. A central tenet of this worldview is that antitrust law should target companies that have become so large that they "dominate" their markets, even if they have achieved that size through market success, not consumer harm, which is the actual focus of antitrust law. One of the most staggering parts of today's complaint is the assertion that "barriers to entry" exist because "artists naturally prefer to work with promoters who have been successful in promoting many high-demand shows in popular venues, namely Live Nation." It's the ultimate expression of merit competition, where better wins. But for this group, it's anticompetitive.

The new thinking also wages war on vertical integration in general, and especially in the case of so-called "dominant platform companies." There is no legal basis to oppose vertical integration on this ground. Antitrust law sees vertical integration as procompetitive in most circumstances. As the leading antitrust text states, "vertical integration is ubiquitous....... in most cases, it does not produce anticompetitive results." And crucially, Live Nation can and has provided fans, artists, venues, and other parts of the live entertainment ecosystem with better prices and services than these complementary businesses could have separated. Ticketmaster, in particular, is a much better artist- and fan-focused business under the Live Nation umbrella than it was as a standalone company. The complaint leaves this inescapable fact unanswered.

The Obama Administration saw it differently. It approved the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger, and in defense of its position, it acknowledged that it had no legal basis to challenge the vertical aspects of the merger. In one filing, it said, "We have determined that the vertical integration of the merger would not materially harm competition in the concert promotion market." Today, there is no factual basis to conclude that.

At a press conference today, Assistant Attorney General Cantor made the case for the deal to be dropped, but there was no reason to support it. That's because the Department of Justice has much more authority to challenge illegal mergers that are likely to be anticompetitive, rather than a monopoly standard that requires proof of actual anticompetitive effects. So the Department of Justice cannot set aside the fact that it approved the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger. In this complaint, the Department of Justice does not allege that the merger is illegal. In my opinion, it is just pandering to the crowd with a request for relief that is simply not desirable in these circumstances.

It is also important to note that the "other conduct" in the complaint is either the exact same or unrelated to vertical integration that the Obama DOJ addressed in its 2010 consent agreement. Instead, it is a bag of disjointed alleged practices that could never justify the kind of structural relief the DOJ seeks.

Oak View Group

The complaint makes two main allegations about Live Nation’s relationship with venue management company Oak View Group (“OVG”). The first is, and must be said to be, flippant in that it presupposes the notion that OVG is a serious potential rival to Live Nation in concert promotion. OVG owns and manages venues. OVG has never been, and has never sought to be, a concert promoter. DOJ’s allegations are based on two incidents in which Live Nation and OVG discussed what to do when OVG venues wanted to occasionally book shows themselves on dark nights. Especially when the complaint defines the relevant promotional market as the market for regional or national tours and explicitly denies any suggestion that venue owners’ “self-supply” of shows is part of that market.

That is, they need in-house bookers to fill dark nights, but they have no interest in systematically assuming the risk of guarantees that can amount to millions of dollars per show and tens of millions of dollars per tour.

The Department also alleges that Ticketmaster was anticompetitive in competing for and winning the ticket distribution contract offered by OVG. The theory is that the contract gave Ticketmaster an unfair advantage in securing business from independent venues controlled by OVG because it created a financial incentive for OVG to "advocate" for Ticketmaster. However, there is nothing anticompetitive about it. Commercial arrangements involving incentives and marketing fees are common in this industry (and many others). Venue operators like OVG and ASM are in a position to advocate for a variety of service providers, not just ticket companies. As such, they compete for business opportunities both at the owned venues they control and at the managed venues they do not control but which they can potentially influence. Ticketmaster competed and won the contract on merit because it determined that OVG was the best ticket distribution system.

Threatening Silver Lake

This assertion not only ignores the facts, but also reveals deep hypocrisy. The current DOJ and FTC have vociferously criticized private equity firms making multiple investments in the same industry, citing competitive “entanglements.” So did Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino when Silver Lake Partners decided to invest in Australian live entertainment company TEG after already investing in OVG. Rapino’s complaints were fundamentally the same as the DOJ/FTC’s concerns about private equity roll-ups. So when TEG employees wrote in December 2021 that they had no intention of competing with Live Nation in the U. S., Rapino responded to Silver Lake management by saying that he didn’t care about TEG, but that he still had issues with Silver Lake’s decision to make multiple conflicting investments in the industry.

There is no fact that this brief exchange had anything to do with Silver Lake’s decision to sell its shares in TEG.

Exclusive Contracting

The lawsuit challenges the exclusive ticket sales contracts between venues and ticket distributors, a practice that has been rampant in the primary ticketing business for decades. In fact, the Department of Justice investigated this during the Clinton administration, but decided not to challenge it because the investigation revealed that the venues, the consumers of the primary ticketing service, preferred it.

That is still the venues' view, and for good reason. Primary ticketing systems encompass more than the experience fans have when buying tickets online. They are complex venue box office management systems, each with its own quirks. Few concert venues want to have more than one system because they don't think the added cost and complexity is worth it. So for nearly all concert venues, the decision is not whether to have more than one ticket service provider, but which provider to choose. And since venues see the world that way, it makes sense that they would want to adopt contract structures and create bidding dynamics that allow them to get the best possible deal from the most desirable provider. Competitive bidding for exclusivity is a proven way for venues to create bidding pressure and maximize the value of their ticketing rights. In other words, exclusivity is a product of competition for venues, not an anti-competitive practice.

Serial Promoter Acquisitions

The complaint alleges that Live Nation violated the law by acquiring other concert promoters one after another. The argument is clear: competition was stifled because, absent such acquisitions, these promoters would have served as significant competitors to Live Nation's own concert promotion business.

This premise is a factual error. During the period at issue (roughly the past decade or so), Live Nation has never acquired a U. S. promoter that could plausibly be considered a meaningful potential competitor in the alleged U. S. touring market. Take the example Attorney General Garland gave: Live Nation's 2016 acquisition of AC Entertainment in Knoxville, Tennessee, a promoter in his 60s looking to retire. He turned to Live Nation in search of a long-term location for his employees. Live Nation did not have an office in Knoxville, so they bought the company for $15 million. Seriously? Is the Department of Justice going to challenge that? In fact, most of the M& A in the US was targeted at areas where the company had virtually no presence, particularly promoting festivals rather than regular shows and tours, or to seize opportunities to expand into new geographies. Like AC Entertainment, many of these deals were with promoters who were on the brink of retirement and looking for alternatives to wind down their operations. The idea that such acquisitions brought about significant competitive changes that matter simply doesn't hold up.

The complaint includes a variety of allegations about amphitheaters operated by Live Nation. Most strikingly, the DOJ alleges that Live Nation's exclusive booking of its amplifiers constitutes anticompetitive tying. But this is a legal hoax. First, if it is tying, it is pervasive throughout the industry. Countless promoters exclusively book venues they own or operate. DOJ's tying tactics seek to circumvent a fundamental principle of antitrust law that even monopolies have no obligation to deal with competitors. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle, and its narrow exceptions do not apply here: Live Nation, and other vertically integrated promoters/exhibitors, have an almost unconditional right not to do business with their rivals.

Amps

The lack of this claim is that, contrary to Doj's claim, we have allowed others to play our amplifiers to the other promoted artists, and we have many times to DOJ. As a matter of fact, we are amplified by the fact that we plan to open our amplifiers voluntarily to the artists that others have promoted. Therefore, this claim is not only legally unfounded, but effectively meaningless.

When DOJ lined up a rhetorical phrase to seek "structural rescue" (that is, the demolition of a company), most of the acts written in the complaint are that concert promoters and ticket sales companies live on one roof. It has nothing to do with it. However, there is only one exception. It is a series of claims that live nations, a concert promoter, will perform threatening or retaliation if the venue switches from the ticket master.

Content Leveraging and Barclays

This is one of the core acts regulated by the agreement agreed by the Ministry of Justice about 15 years ago in connection with the merger of the Ticket Master. I wrote the background and background of this agreement in detail in another place, so I will not repeat it here. What is important for the current purpose is that the monitor appointed by the Ministry of Justice has monitored negotiations between the ticket master and the venue for the past four years, and has not been promoting ticket contracts using the concert "content". That's what I have done. During that period, thousands of such transactions were targeted, but only one was pointed out on the monitor. Other than that, the monitor praised the liv e-name compliance program and the exemplary compliance record. The lack of this claim is that, on the contrary of DOJ claiming, we have permitted us to play our amplifiers in the artists we have promoted by others, and how many times we have DOJ. As I said, we are amplified by the fact that we plan to open our amp voluntarily to the artists that others have promoted. Therefore, this claim is not only legally unfounded, but effectively meaningless.

This is one of the core acts regulated by the agreement agreed by the Ministry of Justice about 15 years ago in connection with the merger of the Ticket Master. I wrote the background and background of this agreement in detail in another place, so I will not repeat it here. What is important for the current purpose is that the monitor appointed by the Ministry of Justice has monitored negotiations between the ticket master and the venue for the past four years, and has not been promoting ticket contracts using the concert "content". That's what I have done. During that period, thousands of such transactions were targeted, but only one was pointed out on the monitor. Other than that, the monitor praised the liv e-name compliance program and the exemplary compliance record. The lack of this claim is that, contrary to Doj's claim, we have allowed others to play our amplifiers to the other promoted artists, and we have many times to DOJ. As a matter of fact, we are amplified by the fact that we plan to open our amplifiers voluntarily to the artists that others have promoted. Therefore, this claim is not only legally unfounded, but virtually meaningless.

Concluding Thoughts

One example of a possible violation is the Barclays Center in Brooklyn (mentioned but not named in the complaint). What the complaint alleges about that drama is largely untrue. The short version of a long story is that Barclays switched from Ticketmaster to SeatGeek. Six months prior, Barclays had hired a large New York law firm to threaten us with contractual claims and breach of consent agreements, alleging that Live Nation would play fewer shows if Barclays switched to SeatGeek. We were meticulous in documenting the business reasons why literally every show played in the NY area during the relevant period ended up at that venue. This contemporaneous record categorically denies any allegations that there was ever any retaliatory rerouting or anything of the sort. And, as reported elsewhere, SeatGeek's technology and services could not keep up with the on-sales service at scale, which resulted in Barclays firing SeatGeek. More importantly, even if the DOJ's Barclays story were true (it isn't), a violation of the consent agreement for one venue out of thousands would not violate the antitrust laws that famously address "competition, not competitors," as the DOJ found nothing else to do after a year and a half of investigation. Ultimately, there is nothing about this isolated incident (which the DOJ intentionally mistranslates) or anything else in the complaint that would allow the DOJ to ignore, undo, or fundamentally overturn its statements to a federal judge that the deal approving the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger and complaints about that vertical integration are without merit.

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Georgia’s voter suppression law is probably doomed

Live Nation is the business of providing the fun of live entertainment to people, connecting artists and fans, and supporting the productive live entertainment ecosystem. That's what we are better than anyone, and we continue to challenge this lawsuit. Does the ticket market confuse consumers? Yes, that's true. We have clarified the true reforms that fans can get tickets at the prices set by artists at the Congress and the Ministry of Justice. Fans want to see the bands and sports team they love, and their tickets are sold out with the ticket master, and they are doubled and tripled on the secondary distribution online sites. I'm angry. But the government chose to do nothing. On the contrary, a trial would make the people misunderstand that the ticket price would drop if the live nation and the ticket master went down. The Ministry of Justice does not help consumers actually solve the problem. This is why the government's popularity never grew. Because they pretend to solve consumer problems and, instead of narrow political benefits.

For other facts and downloadable images, see LiveNentertainment. com/Facts.

On June 25, 2021, Washington DC's Judicial Ministry of Justice, Secretar y-General of Justice. From the left, Deputy Secretar y-General Lisa O. Monaco Monaco, Secretar y-General of Kristen Clark Civil Rights, and Banita Gupta Senior Corporation. Anna Money Maker/ Getty Image

Ian Milheiser is a VOX senior correspondent and specializes in the Supreme Court, Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He has acquired a doctoral law at Duke University and has two books about the Supreme Court.

Melick Garland has announced on Friday that the Ministry of Justice has filed a lawsuit against several clauses of the recent voter suppression method in Georgia. The Ministry of Justice has made a powerful claim about the law of this law.

However, it is not yet known whether the strength of the complaint will be a problem: the Ministry of Justice must make this lawsuit in front of the increasingly hostile judicial authorities.

The United States and Georgia's complaint is signed by senior lawyers of the Civil Rights of the Justice, and some provisions of the Georgia State Law violate the voting law, "equal access to black citizens' political processes. Was adopted for the purpose of refusing or restricted. "

Sign up for The Weeds newsletter

The Ministry of Justice does not attack the Georgia State Law, but in effect, the local election management committee, which has the authority to close the polling place and disqualify voters, which is the most problematic in the law. It is not directly attacking the clause to be able to grasp.

Instead, it focuses on some clauses that make it difficult to vote in Georgia. In addition, the provisions that deprive many of the rights of the voters voted in the incorrect constituency, and the Georgia State Law will distribute food and water to voting voters to make a long line for democratization. The clause that is prohibited is also targeted.

VOX's German Lopez will guide you to the Biden administration's policy explosion. We will deliver a newsletter every Friday.

In this lawsuit, it only claims that these parts of the law violate the voting law, but are the rarely used rules of the law that the Georgia elections are placed under the federal supervision. I also ask the court.

Prior to the Shelby County County Holder Supreme Court (2013), a state, which has a racist voting practical history, including Georgia, has to "advance screening" to Washington DC officials. Not. Shelby County has in effect the preliminary examination system, but in the provisions of the voting law, the state, which has severely discriminated against voters of colored races, may still be able to impose preliminary examination.

And if the pr e-solance is r e-imposed on Georgia, it is likely that the Republica n-controlled election management committee will not be able to implement policies that intend to take the rights of black rights.

In another era, Georgia's lawsuit would have been very likely to win. The Supreme Court has shown some elements that plaintiffs claiming racism can prove the lawsuit in the Aurlington Heights vs. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977). The elements are evidence that the law enforced is deviating from the "normal procedure order" used when enacting the law, the history of racism, or the impact of the law. The fact is that races are heavier than other races. "

The Justice Department's complaint effectively shows that many of these factors are present in Georgia. But while there are strong legal arguments, the court is currently far more conservative than the Supreme Court that decided Arlington Heights, and in fact, the current Supreme Court is even more conservative than the Supreme Court that decided Shelby County.

Furthermore, Georgia's case is being presided over by Judge J. P. Bouley, a Trump ally.

The Justice Department’s case against Georgia, briefly explained

In other words, the Justice Department must not just prove its case, but overcome a judiciary that is filled with judges who tend to be hostile to voting rights claims, especially those who are hostile to claims that white legislators have engaged in intentional racial discrimination.

That won't be easy.

The Justice Department's complaint provides a fairly easy-to-understand explanation for Georgia's new law.

Of course, Georgia has a history of racism. But despite that history, Georgia voters elected the state's first black senator, Raphael Warnock, in the most recent election. And the state's first African-American vice president, Kamala Harris, was elected in the 2020 election of Joe Biden for president.

One reason this historically white state voted this way is that Georgia, once solidly Republican, now has two Democratic senators: an influx of black residents. "According to the decennial census, the number of black residents increased by 70. 7% from 1990 to 2010, and the percentage of black residents in Georgia's total population increased from 26. 8% in 1990 to 30. 6% in 2010," the Justice Department explained in the complaint.

These black Georgians were especially likely to have used absentee voting in the 2020 election cycle. Thus, provisions in the law that restrict absentee voting will disproportionately impact African Americans if this pattern continues in future elections. (Although much of the 2020 surge in absentee voting can be attributed to the pandemic, black activists in Georgia have a history of using absentee voting drives to boost voter turnout.)

The Justice Department said Black Georgians are more likely to wait in long lines to vote in person, so a law banning good Samaritans from offering food and water to people waiting to vote would likely disproportionately affect African Americans.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the new law has enacted a new law, "knowing that these provisions have a disproportionate impact on the ability to participate in political processes in the same way as white voters." The law was passed without the support of the black members, and the parliament passed the bill at an unusual fast pee.

In particular, Congress dominated by the Republican Party detours the legislative committee, which normally should supervise such a bill, and instead, the possibility of being "Shangheido" was previously "Swung Hyde." Due to the large one, a bill was assigned to a special committee, which has been compared to a suspicious place in a town near a wharf that does not want to stop by.

The legislature also obliges such bills to submit a "financial notebook" (a document that summarizes the effects of spending of states and counties), but also avoided the procedure.

Why this case faces an uphill climb

In combination with such evidence and other evidence, the White Republican Party, which accounts for the majority of Georgia, has noticed that the grip of the state has declined. The state's black population has been increasing, and its numbers and political power have increased, and the Senate of the Black has just been selected for the first time in the state history.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the Congratulations on the White State Congress, who faced the loss of this imminent power, had intentionally enacted legal rules, knowing that the turnout of the blacks would be reduced.

The trial has recently been judged by President Trump's appointed judge and may have been heard in the Federal Appeals Court or the Supreme Court, which is appointed by the Federal Appeals, but the Ministry of Justice has recently weakened the voting law. You have to overcome many precedents.

Among these precedents, the Affotes Perez incident (2018) is most likely to win the judicial Ministry.

Perez, who has been sued for acting with racist intentions, has enjoyed a racial innocent estimation, and that there will be few litigation parties who can overcome it. "As Judge Samuel Alito stated in the Perez ruling," challengers who claim that a state law was enacted with discriminatory intentions, the responsibility of the proof is not the country, but the challenger. " The Ministry of Justice argues that it has enacted a new law, knowing that these provisions have known that black rights have an impact on the ability to participate in political processes as well as white voters. " The law was passed without the support of the black members, and the parliament passed the bill at an unusual fast pee.

The legislature also obliges such bills to submit a "financial notebook" (a document that summarizes the effects of spending of states and counties), but also avoided the procedure.

Among these precedents, the Affotes Perez incident (2018) is most likely to win the judicial Ministry.

Perez, who had been sued for acting with racist intentions, has enjoyed a racial innocence estimation, and that few lawsuits would be able to overcome it. "As Judge Samuel Alito stated in the Perez ruling," challengers who claim that a state law was enacted with discriminatory intentions, the responsibility of the proof is not the country, but the challenger. " The Ministry of Justice claims that the new law has enacted a new law, "knowing that these provisions have a disproportionate impact on the ability to participate in political processes in the same way as white voters." The law was passed without the support of the black members, and the parliament passed the bill at an unusual fast pee.

In particular, Congress dominated by the Republican Party detours the legislative committee, which normally should supervise such a bill, and instead, the possibility of being "Shangheido" was previously "Swung Hyde." Due to the large one, a member of the Diet, who had compared to a suspicious place in a town near a waving place, was assigned a bill to the special committee, which is the chairman.

The legislature also obliges such bills to submit a "financial notebook" (a document that summarizes the effects of spending of states and counties), but also avoided the procedure.

The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court’s Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact

The Fischer decision

Among these precedents, the Avo t-vs. Perez incident (2018) is most likely to win the judicial Ministry.

Perez, who had been sued for acting with racist intentions, has enjoyed a racial innocence estimation, and that few lawsuits would be able to overcome it. As Judge Samuel Alito stated in the Perez ruling, "Challengers who claim that a state law has been enacted with discriminatory intentions, and the challenger is not the country, but the challenger."

Alito also goes further than simply placing the burden of proof on the voting rights plaintiffs, suggesting that plaintiffs who claim racial discrimination rarely have a case to prove.

In 2011, Texas enacted a congressional map that a federal court later struck down as an illegal racial gerrymander. But in 2012, the case was still going through two separate trial courts, and Texas had no legal map to use for that year's congressional elections.

So, to allow Texas to actually hold federal congressional elections in 2012, a federal judge created a provisional map that incorporated many of the districts that were later struck down. But in creating the provisional map, the judge emphasized that "this provisional map is not a final adjudication" on the merits of claims that parts of the map are illegal racial gerrymanders.

Then in 2013, the Texas Republican Legislature adopted the provisional map as its own, effectively trying to make the provisional map a permanent map, even though it included some racially gerrymandered districts. And the Supreme Court upheld the 2013 Perez law.

The Limited Impact of Fischer

Alito argued that the 2013 maps were "legal" because they were not enacted with racist intent. Rather, he argued that they were enacted because Texas "wanted to end litigation over the state's redistricting plan as quickly as possible."

In other words, Alito's argument was that the 2013 maps were not enacted to preserve racial gerrymandering, but to stifle lawsuits challenging racial gerrymandering. And in Alito's view, that alone was enough to defeat that lawsuit.

As a result of Perez, the Department of Justice will now have to argue that the evidence that Georgia's voter suppression laws were enacted with racist intent is even stronger than the unusually compelling evidence of racist intent that existed in Perez. The Department of Justice will have to argue its case before a Chief Justice appointed by President Trump. And ultimately, it may have to argue its case before a Supreme Court that is even more conservative than the one that decided Perez.

And if the Justice Department wants to stop Georgia Republicans from taking over local election boards and using them to disenfranchise voters, it will have to impose rarely imposed sanctions against Georgia and convince the court to reinstate preclearance in the state.

Perhaps the Ministry of Justice will be able to overcome all of these challenges. But no matter how strong a trial is, the deck is disadvantageous for the Ministry of Justice.

One article I read last month.

We VOX believe that everyone can understand this complex world to help form this world. Our mission is to create a clear and eas y-t o-understand journalism that gives the power to understanding and behavior.

If you can agree with our vision, consider becoming a VOX member and supporting our activities. With your support, you can secure a stable and independent funding source that supports VOX journalism. If you are not ready to become a member yet, a small donation is meaningful in supporting a sustainable model of journalism.

Thank you for being a member of our community.

What does the Fisher vs. the United States to the United States mean for former President Donald Trump's D. C. Criminal case and hundreds of other defendants on January 6? As shown in the data shown below, it is much smaller than people think.

The Supreme Court ruling issued on Friday, June 28, is the Federal Court of Justice, which is used by the Ministry of Justice on January 6, Article 1822 (C) (C). It describes the range of 2).

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court's decision has given a soft blow to the use of Article 1512 (C) (2) clause by the government. The first is records, documents, and others, under the intention of using records, documents, and other objects that are intended to be used in public procedures under paragraphs (1). The second is to alter, destroy, resection, or conceals the object, and the second is under paragraph (C) (2), and if the public procedure is not "otherwise", it is hindered, impact, or obstructed. To do. Judge Barrett, Judge Sotomayol, and Judge Kagan were in sync with the opposition, and in other means that hindered the procedures, such as violently attacking the Council to count the number of election votes. Instead of applying the fair meaning of the word "if not," the court is a case that impairs the perfection of evidence and the possibility of use of evidence. I had to do it.

However, the court has expanded (C) (2). As pointed out by the court, the responsibility in paragraphs (C) (2) also includes not only reruning guilty evidence, but also creating false evidence. In addition to "records, documents, and other things" listed in (C) (1), other items used in public procedures (witness testimony, intangible information, etc.) can be used. It also includes that it impairs sex and completeness.

Based on the theory that the government has performed to the Capitol mob to the Capitol mob, "other things used in public procedures, that is, the safety of a genuine election certificate" (C) (C) ) (2) Whether or not the section can be pursued should be on hold. The last passage of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's consent clarifies that this is a path worth considering. She writes:

"It is clear that the official procedure (the proof of the election of the electoral group by the Congress) used a specific record, document, and goods (especially related to the electoral voting itself). Oral argument Tr. 65-67. And the Fisher's actions claimed here are "in a way other than (C) (1) specified in (1)", which is used in the procedure on January 6. There is also a good possibility that they are involved in (or tried to impair) perfection. If so, it is possible to prosecution based on Fisher's 1512 (C) (2), and should be done. This problem can be determined by the lower court when r e-detention.

However, as the result of the court's ruling is to disable §1512 (C) (2) prosecution for those who attacked the Federal Council, as clear from the following data. There are many means to pursue liability to individuals who are liable for criminal liability, and the ruling hardly affects the majority of the majority of those who have already been convicted or charged. See. However, the court has expanded (C) (2). As pointed out by the court, the responsibility in paragraphs (C) (2) also includes not only reruning guilty evidence, but also creating false evidence. In addition to "records, documents, and other things" listed in (C) (1), other items used in public procedures (witness testimony, intangible information, etc.) can be used. It also includes that it impairs sex and completeness.

However, as the result of the court's ruling is to disable §1512 (C) (2) prosecution for those who attacked the Federal Council, as clear from the following data. There are many means to pursue liability to individuals who are liable for criminal liability, and the ruling hardly affects the majority of the majority of those who have already been convicted or charged. See. However, the court has expanded (C) (2). As pointed out by the court, the responsibility in paragraphs (C) (2) also includes not only reruning guilty evidence, but also creating false evidence. In addition to "records, documents, and other things" listed in (C) (1), other items used in public procedures (witness testimony, intangible information, etc.) can be used. It also includes that it impairs sex and completeness.

Evaluating the impact of this ruling must be done soberly and with nuance. Ultimately, the ruling means very little in terms of the pending charges against former President Donald Trump. Instead, it has potential implications for a small percentage of the January 6 defendants who were indicted under the statute, which represents only 24% of the existing January 6 defendants. And even in that 24%, in the vast majority of cases in which a guilty verdict was entered (after a plea bargain or trial) for a 1512(c)(2) offense, the defendant was also guilty of one or more other felonies (62%). Moreover, of the 71 defendants indicted under 1512(c)(2) who are still awaiting trial, all have been charged in addition to 1512(c)(2), and the majority have been charged with one or more other felonies. A prime example is the trio of defendants who first prompted the Supreme Court to address the issue of 1512(c)(2): Joseph Fisher, Edward Lang, and Garrett Miller. All three had been charged with other serious offenses, including assaulting law enforcement officers. And for the small percentage of defendants who may be eligible for resentencing after Fisher, judges may consider the underlying conduct that led to the 1512(c)(2) violations.

- An important note: commentators and journalists may be misled into thinking that this decision exposes the Department of Justice's "overreach" by prosecuting 1512(c)(2) charges. This is only refuted by the hard facts, for the reasons I will explain below.
The data from J6 cases reveal the following:
- - 1. Few cases are likely to be significantly affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. United States.
 About a quarter (24%) of the defendants on January 6 were indicted under Section 1512(c)(2) (NPR database). However, only 26 of these defendants were sentenced (or were scheduled to be sentenced) solely for violations of Section 1512(c)(2). This is because only 26 defendants pleaded guilty to 1512(c)(2) and not to other offenses, and all other guilty pleas and post-trial convictions included federal crimes other than 1512(c)(2).
 
 Moreover, this does not mean that these 26 defendants are free to go free.
 
 First, the 1512 offenses (48 in total, including 26 who pleaded guilty only to 1512(c)(2) and 22 who pleaded guilty to 1512(c)(2) and other offenses) were pleaded guilty pursuant to plea agreements that specifically contemplated the possibility that 1512(c)(2) would be set aside. These agreements provide that if the 1512 convictions following a guilty plea are set aside, the defendants may be prosecuted for other offenses that the Department of Justice originally brought against them but agreed not to pursue unless the 1512(c)(2) charges are set aside. (The exact plea agreement language is reproduced below.) Second, of those who were tried and convicted of 1512(c)(2) charges (125 in total), all defendants were also convicted of other offenses. Those other offenses are not affected by the Fisher decision. That said, these defendants may need to be resentenced if the 1512(c)(2) charges carry a higher sentence. However, when resentencing, the judge may consider the defendant's misconduct reflected in the 1512(c)(2) allegations, even though the 1512(c)(2) convictions are excluded from the advisory guideline calculation. As mentioned above, Fisher may also allow these defendants to be tried for 1512(c)(2) violations under the new Fisher standard.
 
 The two pie charts below show the limited nature of Fisher's impact on the events of January 6. The dates are explained below.
 
 Data on existing January 6th defendants:
 
 1. Total number of people indicted in the January 6th Capitol riot: 1, 417 people 2. Number indicted for violations of Section 1512(c)(2): 346 (24%)
 
 Data on the 346 people indicted for violations of Section 1512(c)(2):
 
 A. Convictions after trial
 
 1. Number of convicted after trial: 128 people (9% of all Capitol riot cases) 2. All 128 people have been convicted of at least one other crime.
 
 Other crimes include one or more felonies: 88*
 
 Other crimes include only one or more misdemeanors: 40
 
 *One defendant is open to retrial because he was also guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony with two felony predicates (one predicated on a 1512(c)(2) crime and one on a 1512(c)(1) crime).
 
 B. Convictions after Guilty Pleas:
 
 1. Number of people who pleaded guilty to 1512(c)(2): 48 (3% of all Capitol riot cases).
 
 Aside: The 82 people, who were charged with the charges of 1512 (C) (2), were found guilty of another prosecution, rather than 1512 (C) (2) crimes. A trial, including their sentencing, is not affected by Fisher.
 
 2. Of these 48 people, 22 have been convicted of Article 1512 (C) (2) and at least one other crime.
 
 Details of 48 people
 
 -The other crimes include one or more felony: 21
 
 Five of them are colluding. Two of these five (berry defendant (information; judicial transaction) and Glods defendant (information; judicial transactions)) are the only other felony that the defendant was guilty, and the conspiracy was Article 1512 (Article 1512 ( c) The crime of (2) is assumed. Their criminal statement shows other crimes that they could be prosecuted (for example, "Mr. Glods, at least a few conspirators, and other individuals have illegally entered the US Federal Congress. ...... Glods joined the US Federal Congress with a large stick, and "Berry and at least some collapse have illegally entered the U. S. Federal Congress itself." Three of the five cases may be resigned by the first indictment of the first prosecuted, based on the condition of the judicial transaction.
 
 -The other sins include only light crimes: 1
 
 However, the defendant has been prosecuted by another felony, and may still be charged under the Case of Judicial Trading below.
 
 3. Of the 48 people, 26 recognize Article 1512 (C) (2) and have not acknowledged any other crimes.
 
 Number of people who could be charged with other felony and minor crimes: Number of people who could be charged with only 15 people 11 Professor: 1512 (C) (2) Instructions with crimes including crimes The 82 people were convicted of another prosecution crime, not 1512 (C) (2) crimes. A trial, including their sentencing, is not affected by Fisher.
 
 Most Common Federal Offenses Charged in January 6th Capitol Riot Cases
 - 2. Of these 48 people, 22 have been convicted of Article 1512 (C) (2) and at least one other crime.
 - Details of 48 people
 - -The other crimes include one or more felony: 21
 - Five of them are colluding. Two of these five (berry defendant (information; judicial transaction) and Glods defendant (information; judicial transactions)) are the only other felony that the defendant was guilty, and the conspiracy was Article 1512 (Article 1512 ( c) The crime of (2) is assumed. Their criminal statement shows other crimes that they could be prosecuted (for example, "Mr. Glods, at least a few conspirators, and other individuals have illegally entered the US Federal Congress. ...... Glods joined the US Federal Congress with a large stick, and "Berry and at least some collapse have illegally entered the U. S. Federal Congress itself." Three of the five cases may be resigned by the first indictment of the first prosecuted, based on the condition of the judicial transaction.
 - -The other sins include only light crimes: 1
 - However, the defendant has been charged with another welcome, and may still be charged under the Case of Bar Office below.
 - 3. Of the 48 people, 26 recognize Article 1512 (C) (2) and have not acknowledged any other crimes.
 - Number of people who could be charged with other felony and minor crimes: 15 Person who could be prosecuted only by minor sin The person has been convicted of another prosecutor, not a crime of 1512 (C) (2). A trial, including their sentencing, is not affected by Fisher.
 - 2. Of these 48 people, 22 have been convicted of Article 1512 (C) (2) and at least one other crime.
 - Details of 48 people
 - -The other crimes include one or more felony: 21
 - Five of them are colluding. Two of these five (berry defendant (information; judicial transaction) and Glods defendant (information; judicial transactions)) are the only other felony that the defendant was guilty, and the conspiracy was Article 1512 (Article 1512 ( c) The crime of (2) is assumed. Their criminal statement shows other crimes that they could be prosecuted (for example, "Mr. Glods, at least a few conspirators, and other individuals have illegally entered the US Federal Congress. ...... Glods joined the US Federal Congress with a large stick, and "Berry and at least some collapse have illegally entered the U. S. Federal Congress itself." Three of the five cases may be resigned by the first indictment of the first prosecuted, based on the condition of the judicial transaction.
 - -The other sins include only light crimes: 1
 - However, the defendant has been charged with another welcome, and may still be charged under the Case of Bar Office below.
 - 3. Of the 48 people, 26 recognize Article 1512 (C) (2) and have not acknowledged any other crimes.
 - Number of people who may be charged with other felony and minor crimes: Number of people who may be charged with only minor sin 11
 - About 26 defendants who have been ruled by 1512 (C) (2) alone: The Ministry of Justice still can charge them. All the judicial transaction agreements available in the Database of the Ministry of Justice indicted the conviction of Article 1512 (C) (2) for "if it was canceled for some reason" and other crimes caused by January 6. The prosecutor's agreement that does not do it includes the clause that invalidates. In that case, the government has reserved the right to prosecute all crimes "based on the act of the attached crime statement", and "the government does not prosecute or rejected by the ruling". Included. According to the obtained "crime statement" (and the first prosecution by the government), 15 (a majority) of 26 defendants may be charged with other victims, such as civil abuse and theft of government property. There is. Eleven defendants do not seem to be charged with other welcome crimes, but they may be charged with some minor crimes, such as entering and detentions on restricted buildings and premises, parades, demonstrations, and piketings. There is.
 - C. In trial
 - Of the 346 people who were prosecuted in 1512 (C) (2), 71 were waiting for trial (5 % of the total Capitol riot), and all were charged with the sin of 1512 (C) (2). There is.
 - Of these 71 defendants, 38 were charged with another felony, and 33 were charged with only light crimes.
 - 2. Almost all unanimous support for the Ministry of Justice in the interpretation of laws and regulations by the Federal District Court (14: 1).
 - It is wrong to suspect the Judicice's decision to prosecute 1512 (C) (2) crimes in connection with the January 6 case. Four of the 15 Federal District Courts affirmed that the laws were applied, and rejected the lawyers' opposition claims similar to the interpretation of Fisher's laws and regulations. Among these 14 judges include three appointed President Trump (Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, Judge Timothy J. Kelly, Judge Treva N. Mcfaden). The judge appointed by Biden has not ruled on this issue.
 - The Colombia Special Court of Appeals, a U S-Fisher lawsuit, supported the interpretation of the Justice of Justice two to one.
 - 3. A reasonable interpretation of Article 1512 (C) (2). About 26 defendants who have been ruled only by 1512 (C) (2): The Ministry of Justice is still able to prosecute them. All the judicial transaction agreements available in the Database of the Ministry of Justice indicted the conviction of Article 1512 (C) (2) for "if it was canceled for some reason" and other crimes caused by January 6. The prosecutor's agreement that does not do it includes the clause that invalidates. In that case, the government has reserved the right to prosecute all crimes "based on the act of the attached crime statement", and "the government does not prosecute or rejected by the ruling". Included. According to the obtained "crime statement" (and the first prosecution by the government), 15 (a majority) of 26 defendants may be charged with other victims, such as civil abuse and theft of government property. There is. Eleven defendants do not seem to be charged with other welcome crimes, but they may be charged with some minor crimes, such as entering and detentions on restricted buildings and premises, parades, demonstrations, and piketings. There is.
 Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer
 Last modified: 27.08.2024
 
 The US Department of Justice announced it was suing Live Nation Entertainment for “monopolisation and other unlawful conduct that thwarts competition in. The Department of Justice opened a probe into Live Nation Entertainment after it allegedly mishandled ticket sales for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour. The Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation, the latest in the Biden.

Play

accepted

Update Breaking Down The DOJ Lawsuit Live Nation Entertainment

Update: Breaking Down The DOJ Lawsuit

Oak View Group

Threatening Silver Lake

Exclusive Contracting

Serial Promoter Acquisitions

Amps

Content Leveraging and Barclays

Concluding Thoughts

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Georgia’s voter suppression law is probably doomed

Sign up for The Weeds newsletter

The Justice Department’s case against Georgia, briefly explained

Why this case faces an uphill climb

The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court’s Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact

The Fischer decision

The Limited Impact of Fischer

Most Common Federal Offenses Charged in January 6th Capitol Riot Cases