Facebook Asks for FTC Chair Lina Khan To Be Recused From Its Antitrust Case (cnbc.com) 38
Facebook filed a petition Wednesday to have Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan recused from the ongoing antitrust lawsuit the agency brought against the company. From a report: Facebook argued in its petition that Khan "has consistently made public statements" accusing the company of bad conduct that constitutes a violation of antitrust law. The company said her past work has made clear Khan has already made up her mind on Facebook's liability in the pending antitrust case, which should be grounds for recusal. The FTC must decide in the coming weeks whether to file an amended complaint in its antitrust case against Facebook in federal court after a judge dismissed its initial claims. Alternatively, the FTC could decide to try the case internally before its administrative law judge. Facebook's petition follows a similar move by Amazon, which sought Khan's recusal from antitrust probes into its business based on her past criticism of its power. Khan rose to scholarly fame after publishing "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox" in the Yale Law Journal while a student in 2017.
Criminals want prosecutor removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the fact that she has previously criticized criminal behavior as "against the law," the accused have requested the removal of a top prosecutor from their case. "She just doesn't appear to respect law-breakers" said the underworld kingpin, Jeff Bezos.
Re:Criminals want prosecutor removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC as a regulator is more than just a lawyer in a case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Criminals want prosecutor removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
which means she is a plaintiff
Which would be fine if she weren't also the administrator of the regulatory agency. She's not just some random plaintiff. There's a clear conflict of interest present.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the fact that she has previously criticized criminal behavior as "against the law," the accused have requested the removal of a top prosecutor from their case.
A prosecutor and a judge have two different roles. The prosecutor's job is to demonstrate the behaviour broke the law. Khan is more like a judge here, and if a Judge declared something criminal behaviour and against the law *before* a case is even heard that is absolutely grounds for them to be recused. In fact that is pretty much the definition of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Criminals want prosecutor removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, so if a judge is on record as saying "murder is against the law, and anyone who murders is evil" they can not subsequently try anyone for murder? Amazing! What a loophole!
But of course, Khan is neither "like" a judge nor a prosecutor, but is in fact an administrator of a regulatory agency. So your argument is doubly ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so if a judge is on record as saying "murder is against the law, and anyone who murders is evil"
No. Re-read the entire thread. If the judge is on the record as saying "you murdering is against the law" before a court case to determine if the party is guilty or not then they cannot try *that specific person*. That's not a loophole. That's common fucking sense.
Khan is neither "like" a judge nor a prosecutor, but is in fact an administrator of a regulatory agency. So your argument is doubly ridiculous.
Not quite. Effectively being the regulator while also bringing the case, and while also having produced the foregone conclusion that the party is guilty makes them a completely biased and impartial addition to the case.
The legal term is recuse and
Re: (Score:2)
Expressing an opinion about the legality of a person's (or corporation's) actions does not constitute a conflict of interest and does not require recusal. Full stop. Prove me wrong by citation of example if you can.
Being the regulator, bringing the case, and having produced foregone conclusions is exactly how regulation should and does work. Why would anyone bring a case if they thought there was nothing illegal there?!? Who would bring a case if not some member of the regulatory body? Your argument is simp
Perhaps buy a dictionary. (Score:2)
Khan is more like a judge here, and if a Judge declared something criminal behaviour and against the law *before* a case is even heard that is absolutely grounds for them to be recused. In fact that is pretty much the definition of the word.
First of all, Judges do that shit all day long. I am not even going to waste time with links because just saying it and thinking you are correct is already evidence enough of your lack of proper research as just YOU. She isn't a Judge. She is the Administrator. Try to read something, anything, other than the cracker jacks stickers you keep eating in your cereal.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, Judges do that shit all day long.
Indeed they do. That's also why they recuse themselves from cases.
She isn't a Judge. She is the Administrator.
She's the administrator to the regulator. You're right she's not the judge. That doesn't mean she isn't the only person that has a conflict of interest. That is why the term recuse exists. Go look that up in your legal dictionary. (no need to buy one though, it's 2020, you can google that shit).
Try to read something, anything, other than the cracker jacks stickers you keep eating in your cereal.
I don't eat much less read the box of concentrated sugar pretending to be breakfast. Pro tip: Next time you feel the need to be an arsehole it helps i
But this can work (Score:1)
Politicians they own can use their BS reasoning to justify pulling strings in their favor; this isn't a legitimate legal argument it's a political excuse for any politicians they purchased.
It worked for Trump and the Republicans; in a big public way for 2 impeachments and an election... all 3 are blatantly as obvious as this BS is.
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC brought the suit, so, why? (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I know, the prosecutor has no obligation of impartiality. I don't see any reason why she should recuse herself. She's not the judge.
Re:The FTC brought the suit, so, why? (Score:5, Funny)
Can't blame 'em for asking.
"Dear sir, this prosecutor hurts my case and I don't like them. Please fire them and replace them with someone who is some combination of less competent, more friendly, less motivated, or more bribable. Signed 'Guilty-Not-Guilty' "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you click through to the linked article and from there to the actual petition (or: read it diretly here [fb.com]), you can see that it is a petition to the FTC, not to a cou
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Remember the accusations by her and others-as-populist rage stirrers aka politicians is not a bastion of pure, disinterested behavior, either. There are seats to be won, power to be held.
Trillion dollar companies have a lot of money they can donate to politicians threatening to Rochambeau them, whereupon the pols coincidentally back off some. Purely coincidentally, I assure you.
I wonder if this is just an unavoidable side effect of government or is it the primary purpose of such government action to begin
Re: (Score:3)
FBI had piss poor oversight and you know it. They had zero grounds and kept using unverified evidence for their warrants - which they were blasted over later. But hey, I'm sure senior citizens in community group advocating for peace pose a threat to national security.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the FTCA is a Federal law, it seems reasonable to expect that Facebook might want to avail themselves of it if they can.
That would seem to be an "appeal on a point of law".
Of course I don't know what Facebook are planning, so it is, perhaps, too soon to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you read the linked articles? The federal case was dismissed. This is being tried and judged by the FTC
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/2... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, the prosecutor has no obligation of impartiality. I don't see any reason why she should recuse herself. She's not the judge.
No but as the chair of the regulator body she's not just some impartial prosecutor either.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, the prosecutor has no obligation of impartiality. I don't see any reason why she should recuse herself. She's not the judge.
Prosecutors do have an obligation to act impartial [wikipedia.org]. The prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. (quote US Supreme Court ).
One of the things this entails is that they shall present any evidence, not just evidence of guilt, but also evidence
Re: (Score:2)
They are officers of the law and have an obligation to ACT impartial. They do not have an obligation of being unbiased, that is the scope of the judge and jury. And if they were to discover evidence that is in favour of the accused, they should, at least in theory, bring it to the attention of the defence. Quoting My cousin Vinny: "it's because they have to, it's called discovery!". In theory if they had incontrovertible evidence of the accused's innocence they should voluntarily dismiss the case too. But t
Marketing/Propaganda Tactic (Score:5, Informative)
They're agitating for "impartiality" or "fairness" when those concepts don't apply.
The court deciding the matter should be impartial. The parties involved in the matter should have irreconcilable views ~100% of the time, or else the matter could be settled amicably.
The party filing suit is never impartial; you don't file unless you believe a legally-cognizable harm has occurred.
For their attempt to misdirect and derail the inquiry, they should face the stiffest penalties if/when they lose the case. They are clearly not willing to accept responsibility if they are willing to pervert the legal process.
source (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the source document https://about.fb.com/wp-conten... [fb.com] (A posting from PACER would be authoritative, but this link is probably trustable enough.)
Below is my brief logical analysis. If I was a lawyer you might call this a legal analysis.
Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., Stephencorporation, Vincent Melzac, Petitioners, v. Federal Trade Commission, Respondent, 425 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1968):
In this case, the FTC took an administrative action against Cinderella. And the (former) FTC commissioner was not recused in the decision making process. The former commissioner had said things in the past which put their partiality in question.
Because the (former) FTC commissioner was biased and because the role of the commissioner in an administrative action is to act as an arbiter, this action was fatally flawed.
Facts in current case:
Khan published her own beliefs onThe Accusations against Facebook at a time before she joined the FTC.
This is a lawsuit which the FTC brings against Facebook.
Facebook's argument:
Because of Cinderella, the FTC commissioner should be recused from this case.
Why Facebook is wrong
In Cinderella, (former) FTC Commissioner was in a role that required impartiality (specifically, they were the adjudicator). In FTC v. Facebook, the FTC is not an adjudicator, the judge is the adjudicator. No impartiality is required from the FTC or any of its members. Therefore this is distinguishable and no precedent is binding on this case.
Machivelian Tactic (Score:2)
When your opponent does something good, attack them particularly harshly. You want your listeners to believe that your opponent is unceasingly evil, and nothing they ever say should be believed.
We see that tactic in Canada as well as the US, very much directed at individuals. In part that's to try to "shake them up". Normal humans just aren't used to unceasing hatred, so it can be used to try to drive people out of politics or advocacy.
Like in the old joke (Score:4, Funny)
"Your honor, you need to throw the case down"
"On what grounds?"
"On the grounds that else I'll lose it"
Re: (Score:2)
Judge:
And why is that Mr. Reed?
Fletcher:
Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge:
Overruled.
Fletcher:
Good call!
EPA (Score:2)
Change the department to the EPA and the ridiculousness of it becomes apparent:
The head of the EPA is biased against our practice of polluting and should be recused from our case because they made public statements against our industry polluting prior to becoming the Head of the EPA.
We had to suffer under Ajit Pai (Score:2)
If the U.S. had to suffer under Ajit Pai, someone who was previoulsy a lobbyist for the cable industry and worked as head of the FCC to craft rules and regulations which benefited that industry while hurting Americans, Facebook et al can suffer a bit under Khan.
You can't complain one person might show bias if you didn't say anything when another person showed clear bias.
Hang on a minute. (Score:1)
She's 32, has been a lawyer for about 6 weeks, has never had an actual job and yet she's the Chairperson of the FTC ??
Is this a case of uber affirmative action ? Who goes from student to such a high government position in a couple of years ??