First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Adoption and the Common Law Background Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.” In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate. The final language was agreed upon in conference. Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause, and there is no record of debate in the Senate. In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers that would arise “from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.” That the “simple, acknowledged principles” embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.” Whatever the general unanimity on this proposition at the time of the proposal of and ratification of the First Amendment, it appears that there emerged in the course of the Jeffersonian counterattack on the Sedition Act and the use by the Adams Administration of the Act to prosecute its political opponents, something of a libertarian theory of freedom of speech and press, which, however much the Jeffersonians may have departed from it upon assuming power, was to blossom into the theory undergirding Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence in modern times. Full acceptance of the theory that the Amendment operates not only to bar most prior restraints of expression but subsequent punishment of all but a narrow range of expression, in political discourse and indeed in all fields of expression, dates from a quite recent period, although the Court’s movement toward that position began in its consideration of limitations on speech and press in the period following World War I. Thus, in 1907, Justice Holmes could observe that, even if the Fourteenth Amendment embodied prohibitions similar to the First Amendment, “still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is ‘to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,’ and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare. The preliminary freedom extends as well to the false as to the true; the subsequent punishment may extend as well to the true as to the false. This was the law of criminal libel apart from statute in most cases, if not in all.” But as Justice Holmes also observed, “[t]here is no constitutional right to have all general propositions of law once adopted remain unchanged.” But, in Schenck v. United States, the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in his opinion for the Court upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as on prior restraint. “It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Justice Holmes, along with Justice Brandeis, soon went into dissent in their views that the majority of the Court was misapplying the legal standards thus expressed to uphold suppression of speech that offered no threat to organized institutions. But it was with the Court’s assumption that the Fourteenth Amendment restrained the power of the states to suppress speech and press that the doctrines developed. At first, Holmes and Brandeis remained in dissent, but, in Fiske v. Kansas, the Court sustained a First Amendment type of claim in a state case, and in Stromberg v. California, voided a state statute on grounds of its interference with free speech. State common law was also voided, with the Court in an opinion by Justice Black asserting that the First Amendment enlarged protections for speech, press, and religion beyond those enjoyed under English common law. Development over the years since has been uneven, but by 1964 the Court could say with unanimity: “we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” And, in 1969, the Court said that the cases “have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” This development and its myriad applications are elaborated in the following sections. The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress and not to the actions of private persons. As such, the First Amendment is subject to a “state action” (or “governmental action”) limitation similar to that applicable to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The limitation has seldom been litigated in the First Amendment context, but there appears to be no obvious reason why the analysis should differ markedly from Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment governmental action analysis. Both contexts require “cautious analysis of the quality and degree of Government relationship to the particular acts in question.”In holding that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a governmental entity for purposes of the First Amendment, the Court declared that “[t]he Constitution constrains governmental action ‘by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken’ . . . [a]nd under whatever congressional label.
What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
U.S. Constitution
Adoption and the Common Law Background Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.” In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate. The final language was agreed upon in conference. Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause, and there is no record of debate in the Senate. In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers that would arise “from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.” That the “simple, acknowledged principles” embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.” Whatever the general unanimity on this proposition at the time of the proposal of and ratification of the First Amendment, it appears that there emerged in the course of the Jeffersonian counterattack on the Sedition Act and the use by the Adams Administration of the Act to prosecute its political opponents, something of a libertarian theory of freedom of speech and press, which, however much the Jeffersonians may have departed from it upon assuming power, was to blossom into the theory undergirding Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence in modern times. Full acceptance of the theory that the Amendment operates not only to bar most prior restraints of expression but subsequent punishment of all but a narrow range of expression, in political discourse and indeed in all fields of expression, dates from a quite recent period, although the Court’s movement toward that position began in its consideration of limitations on speech and press in the period following World War I. Thus, in 1907, Justice Holmes could observe that, even if the Fourteenth Amendment embodied prohibitions similar to the First Amendment, “still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is ‘to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,’ and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare. The preliminary freedom extends as well to the false as to the true; the subsequent punishment may extend as well to the true as to the false. This was the law of criminal libel apart from statute in most cases, if not in all.” But as Justice Holmes also observed, “[t]here is no constitutional right to have all general propositions of law once adopted remain unchanged.” But, in Schenck v. United States, the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in his opinion for the Court upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as on prior restraint. “It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Justice Holmes, along with Justice Brandeis, soon went into dissent in their views that the majority of the Court was misapplying the legal standards thus expressed to uphold suppression of speech that offered no threat to organized institutions. But it was with the Court’s assumption that the Fourteenth Amendment restrained the power of the states to suppress speech and press that the doctrines developed. At first, Holmes and Brandeis remained in dissent, but, in Fiske v. Kansas, the Court sustained a First Amendment type of claim in a state case, and in Stromberg v. California, voided a state statute on grounds of its interference with free speech. State common law was also voided, with the Court in an opinion by Justice Black asserting that the First Amendment enlarged protections for speech, press, and religion beyond those enjoyed under English common law. Development over the years since has been uneven, but by 1964 the Court could say with unanimity: “we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” And, in 1969, the Court said that the cases “have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” This development and its myriad applications are elaborated in the following sections. The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress and not to the actions of private persons. As such, the First Amendment is subject to a “state action” (or “governmental action”) limitation similar to that applicable to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The limitation has seldom been litigated in the First Amendment context, but there appears to be no obvious reason why the analysis should differ markedly from Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment governmental action analysis. Both contexts require “cautious analysis of the quality and degree of Government relationship to the particular acts in question.”In holding that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a governmental entity for purposes of the First Amendment, the Court declared that “[t]he Constitution constrains governmental action ‘by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken’ . . . [a]nd under whatever congressional label.
What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
U.S. Constitution
Amazon Notorious Markets
Amazon Notorious Markets - A Company That Facilitates Illegal Counterfeits and Piracy
Is Amazon Notorious Markets a Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade?
Did Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon,
lie under oath to the United States Congress? Let’s find out
lie under oath to the United States Congress? Let’s find out
Is Amazon a "Criminal Enterprise" disguised as an e-commerce shopping website to take advantage of the general populace by "Price Fixing" for the express purpose of driving the competition out of business so Amazon will then have a true monopoly so huge that they can increase their prices exponentially at will when the consumer has very few other choices of where to purchase their goods?
The United States Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, chastised Jeff Bezos personally, along with Amazon the company, for numerous inappropriate transgressions and potential illegal activities time and time again of which most of the letters sent to them regarding their unethical behavior are contained within this website. It appears that neither Jeff Bezos nor any of the other Amazon executives are able to comprehend the gravity of their misdeeds and how those actions negatively impact their loyal customers and their dedicated employees.
If this organization can’t get their act together and discontinue their abhorrent behavior then maybe it’s time that Congress creates significant restraints and severely limit their ability to partake in activities that harm others.
The Sherman Antitrust Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The United States Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, chastised Jeff Bezos personally, along with Amazon the company, for numerous inappropriate transgressions and potential illegal activities time and time again of which most of the letters sent to them regarding their unethical behavior are contained within this website. It appears that neither Jeff Bezos nor any of the other Amazon executives are able to comprehend the gravity of their misdeeds and how those actions negatively impact their loyal customers and their dedicated employees.
If this organization can’t get their act together and discontinue their abhorrent behavior then maybe it’s time that Congress creates significant restraints and severely limit their ability to partake in activities that harm others.
The Sherman Antitrust Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
Jeff Bezos admits 'stolen and counterfeit goods' are being sold on Amazon!
No one should be above the law, not even Jeff Bezos, common thieves deal in 'stolen goods' and when found guilty in a court of law they are sentenced to prison, Jeff Bezos should be no different!
Jeff Bezos admitted emphatically that he knowingly allowed Amazon to sell 'stolen goods' which is also know as stolen property, stolen merchandise etc. and he should be held accountable and forced to face a criminal trial jury of his peers. If found guilty, it would be extremely difficult to render any other verdict, as he testified under oath to Congress and that Congressional Hearing was televised and viewed by millions of people around the world that Amazon sells 'stolen goods'.
Amazon, by Jeff Bezos' testimony, has over a million third-party sellers so it would be reasonable to conclude even a miniscule percentage could amount to tens of thousands of 'stolen goods' would be handled by Amazon and therefore the penalty for each individual infraction could conceivably bring about several years in prison and then multiplied by the massive number of sales of 'stolen goods' could amount to a lifetime behind bars, and the evidence of his direct and irrefutable testimony would cause his conviction without the need for any witnesses. And to even magnify this each act of selling 'stolen goods' is the direct result of receiving 'stolen goods', another set of felonies for each. Jeff Bezos, if convicted, may never see the light of day beyond his prison walls. Amazon did nothing to investigate and vet these sellers to determine for themselves that none of this property was stolen or counterfeit so he deserves whatever sentence the various juries decide. Had Amazon conducted sufficient due diligence instead of just being focused on the almighty dollar they could have easily prevented this criminal action of receiving and selling 'stolen goods'.
All of the District Attorneys and Attorneys General in every jurisdiction throughout the United States could prosecute Jeff Bezos and in addition to prison incarceration could quite possibly enforce Billions of Dollars in fines and court costs which very well may reduce Jeff Bezos from being the richest man in the world to just your average every day common felon criminal. Daunting thought to say the least. Jeff Bezos may receive his come uppings and he has no one else to blame except himself for being so greedy as to knowingly sell 'stolen goods'.
In August 2019 the FBI uncovered a theft ring in Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered, that sold millions of dollars' of 'stolen goods' on Amazon.com in just the past 6 years FBI agent Ariana Kroshinsky wrote in her affidavit.
The guilty must face the consequences of their actions and Jeff Bezos must be held to the same legal standards that all Americans agree to live by and he may have become a multi billionaire because he engaged in selling 'stolen goods' where the great majority of Americans walk the narrow path of honesty instead of criminal activity and apparently Jeff Bezos chose the easy road with impunity!
Approximately 145 Million people around the globe subscribe to Amazon's "Prime" accounts and pay billions of dollars for the privilege believing that Amazon would act in their best interest and never sell them any counterfeit, dangerous, defective or 'stolen goods' and because Amazon deceived them they at the very least should have the entirety of their costs refunded to them which would most likely amount to BILLIONS of dollars which would then affect the income to Amazon being decreased exponentially and subsequently reduce the stock value accordingly. Amazon would be required to file documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission of these 'material facts'.
There is another possible smoking gun regarding how Amazon conducts their respective businesses and that is their "Terms of Service". If their "Terms of Service" are worded in a specific way with the intent to deceive as mentioned above then quite possibly it could be construed in a court of law that it is a "Scheme or Artifice to Defraud" in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1346 which could eliminate it from their business entirely by making it invalid and unenforceable in every aspect. This would open up a whole new legal quandary for Amazon should the courts decide to deem their "Terms of Service" unenforceable.
Most major corporations have a 'morals clause' as part of their employee contracts which should include all executives and members of the Board of Directors, wherein if any of them violate it they should be terminated for committing or allowing knowingly criminal acts such as multiple felonies. It would be difficult, if not impossible to claim 'plausible deniability' since the CEO Jeff Bezos admitted under oath his direct knowledge of Amazon engaging in the selling of 'stolen goods'.
Another gleaming aspect of this criminal behavior within Amazon's hierarchy is that in the commission of this very serious crime situation is that the law requires what is referred to as "Clawback" which details that all money generated in the act of committing a Felony the proceeds can be confiscated and/or forfeited to the respective governmental agencies having jurisdiction.
In the case with Jeff Bezos, if found guilty, his multiple million dollar personal acquisitions such as his mansions in Beverly Hills and Washington D.C. and the newspaper Washington Post etc. should also be forfeited as the benefits gained from illegal activity selling 'stolen goods.'
At the risk of being redundant, no one should be above the law which would include Jeff Bezos and when prosecuted finalized and established that he is guilty his forfeitures should amount to several Billion dollars. He was aware of his crimes and did nothing to prevent it and therefore 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". We reap exactly what we sow, including the richest man in the world.
The numerous law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction of the crimes locations, which might be all 50 states, should prosecute every high ranking executive within Amazon including but not limited to CEO Jeff Bezos to the fullest extent of the law and sentence them to the maximum number of years possible to set an example that literally no one is above the law and thus these severe penalties will be a deterrent to any other corporate execs to refrain from engaging is such egregious activities against their fellow man!
There may be other foreign entities such as Canada, the European Union, Great Britain, Ireland among numerous others that want to initiate their own legal proceedings against Amazon, Jeff Bezos along with additional senior executives who participated and allowed the crime of selling 'stolen goods' to have their day in court.
Jeff Bezos may come to 'Rue the Day' that he admitted under oath to selling 'stolen goods'!
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, the world's richest man, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, testified under oath before the United States Congress answering questions regarding his company's anti-competitive behavior.
During the five-hour-long Q&A session Jeff Bezos was hit with a wide array of questions about topics ranging from Amazon's controversial use of third-party seller data to turning a blind eye to counterfeit products and selling 'stolen goods'.
Being the founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos is acutely aware of literally all that happens within his Amazon empire as he would be the most knowledgeable regarding the inner workings of his own company which is precisely how he became the richest man in the entire world.
David Cicilline, the chair of the House of Representative's Antitrust subcommittee who was leading the investigation into Amazon's stated "As CEO and founder of the company, (Jeff Bezos) must be accountable for Amazon's record of dishonesty before Congress", and "In light of the gravity of this situation, I am also considering whether a perjury referral is warranted".
Congress also said that the company statements "appear to be misleading, and possibly criminally false or perjurious".
For example, when Rep. Pramila Jayapal asked him whether Amazon ever used third-party seller data to create competing products under its own label, Bezos dodged that direct and specific question by replying "I can't answer yes or no to that question".
"We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private-label business", he added, "But I can't guarantee you that that policy has never been violated". Jeff Bezos knows full well what takes place at Amazon, he answered in that verbiage to cover himself and not be found guilty of perjury.
Pressed to address allegations of Amazon's data appropriation exposed in a Wall Street Journal investigation in April, Bezos said he didn't know the specifics yet. "We continue to look into that very carefully".
In a separate exchange later in the hearing, Congresswoman Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia asked Bezos whether Amazon has allowed 'stolen goods' to be sold on its platform. Rep. McBath asked Jeff Bezos, "Are 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon? To which Bezos replied, "Congresswoman, not to my knowledge". This response was absolute perjury to the United States Congress because Jeff Bezos was acutely aware of the August 2019 FBI investigation of the $10 Million dollar theft ring that sold 'stolen goods' on Amazon!
Asked more than once Jeff Bezos eventually admitted under oath that yes, Amazon does indeed sell 'stolen goods' by stating among other things that "There are more than one million sellers on Amazon. I'm sure there have been 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon".
Rep. McBath asked point blank again, "So basically Mr. Bezos that means you are saying YES?" To which Bezos finally responded, "I GUESS SO".
Pressed further by Rep. McBath on the subject of selling 'stolen goods', Jeff Bezos stated "I don't think it's a large part of what we are doing". Are you kidding Jeff Bezos, NOT A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE ARE DOING! You act as if it's no big deal but definitely something that brings in lots of income so we just close our eyes and let the money flow in from our 'stolen goods' business!
Mr. Bezos, 'Go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect the $200, just like the play monopoly game'! It appears to you that selling 'stolen goods' is something you take for granted and enjoy since it's part and parcel of what made you into a Billionaire and the richest man in the world. You mock the hard working honest people of America and you should be ashamed of yourself...
Law enforcement can't ignore your blatant refusal to police your own company and eliminate once and for all the criminal behavior of selling 'stolen goods' etc. and they should proscecute you Jeff Bezos just like any street criminal who robs a liquor store for a couple hundred dollars. Not only does selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' hurt the consumer but cause the prices of everything any legitimate business sells to try and offset what you do on what could possibly be an every day occurence.
Every individual engaged in Law Enforcement in the United States has sworn a sacred oath to "Defend the Constitution Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic' and to uphold the law equally regardless of who may be the criminal so they must investigate and prosecute every perpetrator including Jeff Bezos as he is an 'admitted criminal' against his own customers.
Selling 'stolen goods' is a FELONY! Receiving 'stolen goods' is also a FELONY!
Since a vast number of third-party sellers ship their goods to be sold in the 'Fulfillment by Amazon' (FBA) and Amazon then receives and stores their products within Amazon's warehouses (fulfillment centers) and then the Amazon advertises the various products for sale, uses Amazon's payment methods, and then will pick, pack and ship them in Amazon packaging to the purchasers.
A California Appeals court ruled last April that Amazon was indeed the seller of record to Angela Bolger since Amazon's activities basically conducted the entire transaction from beginning to end even though they did not manufacture the defective product and harmed Bolger severely.
In respect with 'stolen goods' Amazon receives them from the third party sellers which means Amazon is committing numerous FELONIES by becoming the recipient of 'stolen property' and then selling/delivering 'stolen goods' with the full and complete knowledge of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as verified by his sworn testimony before the United States Congress, can't be more substantiated proof than that! GUILTY!!!
Congress has demanded that Amazon discontinue selling 'Stolen Goods', Counterfeit, Illegal, Deadly and Deceptive Products.
There may be another possibility why sellers have chosen Amazon as their partner in crime and that is it would be the perfect mechanism to carry out 'money laundering', meaning taking the dirty money obtained via 'stolen goods' being sold at will on Amazon and then cleaning that same sales money, which is a 'Prime" method, and hopefully undetectable to Amazon since Amazon nor Jeff Bezos has been able to stem the tide of long term 'stolen goods' from being overwhelming sold on Amazon.
If Amazon has become too large and unwieldy then maybe the Federal Government should force Amazon into a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy which could then install one of their Bankruptcy Court Trustees to oversee and run the company since it appears that Jeff Bezos does not possess the necessary control capabilities to prevent and eliminate the proliferation of receiving and selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective and Illegal 'Stolen Goods' from their platform.
The United States Congress should subpoena every single sales document of Amazon for at least the past 10 years to establish exactly how many transactions contained any Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' took place and reverse those illegal sales and return the entire purchase price to the consumer victims who was deceived.
California Penal Code Section § 496 - Receiving Stolen Property
Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.
To receive property means to take possession and control of it. Two or more people can possess the property at the same time.
A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has control over it either personally or through another person.
When Amazon third-party sellers deliver 'stolen goods' to an Amazon Fulfillment Center for resale and delivery the Amazon company is then the recipient of 'stolen property' based upon the California Penal Code Section § 496, they are part and parcel of the actual act.
California Penal Code section § 496, subdivision (a) (section 496(a)) makes receiving or buying property “that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft” a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. Section § 496, subdivision (c) (section 496(c)) provides that any person “who has been injured by a violation of (section 496(a) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.”
Plaintiffs contends, based on the statutory language, a criminal conviction under section 496(a) is not a prerequisite to recovery of treble damages under section 496(c). Plaintiff asserts that the phrase “any manner constituting theft” under section 496(a) includes theft by false pretense.
Leading buyers of Amazon products without disclosing that they may be 'counterfeit, damaged, deadly, defective, illegal, and/or 'stolen goods' is tantamount to selling via false pretenses and therefore may be considered the crime of theft by false pretense under California Penal Code Section § 496.
Receiving Stolen Property (Penal Code, § 496(a)). (“(Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. (Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.))”)
Theft by False Pretense, Larceny by Trickery, Unjust Enrichment (Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Pandemic Emergency), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith are a few more that need to be investigated in the process of selling and receiving 'stolen goods' as they pertain to Amazon not disclosing these facts to potential buyers of the Counterfeit, Dangerous, Deadly, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods'.
California Penal Code § 532 (a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.
California Penal Code § 484 Larceny (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.
California Penal Code § 396 (a) The Legislature hereby finds that during a state of emergency or local emergency, including, but not limited to, an earthquake, flood, fire, riot, storm, drought, plant or animal infestation or disease, pandemic or epidemic disease outbreak, or other natural or manmade disaster, some merchants have taken unfair advantage of consumers by greatly increasing prices for essential consumer goods and services. While the pricing of consumer goods and services is generally best left to the marketplace under ordinary conditions, when a declared state of emergency or local emergency results in abnormal disruptions of the market, the public interest requires that excessive and unjustified increases in the prices of essential consumer goods and services be prohibited. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect citizens from excessive and unjustified increases in the prices charged during or shortly after a declared state of emergency or local emergency for goods and services that are vital and necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of consumers, whether those goods and services are offered or sold in person, in stores, or online. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that this section be liberally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be served.
California Penal Code § Unjust Enrichment - In every contract or agreement there is an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. This implied promise means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the contract. Good faith means honesty of purpose without any intention to mislead or to take unfair advantage of another. Generally speaking, it means being faithful to one’s duty or obligation. However, the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing cannot create obligations that are inconsistent with the terms of the contract. Amazon by the very nature of selling 'Stolen Goods' as just one example, without full disclosure has violated "Good Faith and Fair Dealing" with every buyer of property from Amazon including the 'Elderly' which would kick in Elder Financial Abuse.
Ignorance of the law is neither an excuse nor a defense of the criminal act.
The very instant that a Defendant commits any other crimes, any property so obtained was then obtained by "Theft" and thus selling said property would be considered "Stolen Property" and could immediately constitute additional crimes under California Penal Code Section § 496.
There is a relatively unknown but extremely important, legal case decided by the California Appeals Court that will have a profound effect on Amazon and Jeff Bezos regarding the receiving of and selling 'stolen goods',
California Court of Appeals Fourth District, Division 3, Penal Code Section § 498(c) making it illegal to receive stolen goods allows Treble Damages GO46166 Decided January 15, 2013 Sharon Bell v. Igal J. Feibush does not require a criminal conviction under Section § 496(a).
In Bell v. Feibush (filed January 15, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 627, Feibush argues that permitting Bell to recover treble damages under section 496(c) is contrary to public policy and permits litigants to circumvent limitations on remedies. Our decision to affirm the default judgment is based on straightforward statutory interpretation. Section 496(a) extends liability to “(e)very person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft.” (Italics added.) Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a) describes the acts constituting theft to include theft by false pretense, which is the consensual but fraudulent acquisition of property from its owner. (Pen.Code § 484, subd. (a), 532.) Feibush was found liable for fraud, i.e., for the fraudulent acquisition of property (money) from its owner (Bell). “Anything that could be the subject of a theft can also be property under section 496.” (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 541, 217 Cal.Rptr. 487.) A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted for either theft or receiving stolen property under section 496(a).
Penal Code § 487 PC – Grand theft defined (may be charged in connection with receiving stolen property). (“Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: (a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b). (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases: . . . (c) When the property is taken from the person of another. (d) When the property taken is any of the following: (1) An automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt, barrow, or pig. (2) A firearm.”)
Plaintiff contends that under California Penal Code section § 496 Defendants, by obtaining ownership even temporarily via committing a criminal act in violation of California Penal Code section § 532 Defendant did so illegally and thus obtained momentary and temporary ownership of said property stored in an Amazon warehouse, fulfillment center, to sell to millions of unsuspecting buyers by false pretenses makes the property transfer tantamount to "receiving and then subsequently selling stolen property", a felony under California Law.
California has an extremely valuable law for Senior Citizens, individuals 65 years old and over commonly referred to as Elder Financial Abuse Act.
There are approximately 9 million residents of California aged 65+, of which a substantial number have at one time or another purchased property from Amazon, which makes their situation a monumental dilemma for Jeff Bezos and his Amazon company.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e) Elder Financial Abuse and Civil Code Section § 1575
Elder Financial Abuse is both a civil tort and a criminal offense.
It is not necessary under these statutes that the taker maintain an intent to defraud; rather, a person is guilty of committing financial elder abuse so long as it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the taker is not entitled to the elder’s assets.
When Amazon for instance charges a Senior for its "Prime" account and sells them 'stolen goods, counterfeit, dangerous and/or defective products it could be construed as by false pretenses and thusly Elder Financial Abuse may have taken place in which the law now can be invoked to protect the financial wherewithal of the deceived individual.
The State of California only requires that the aggreived need be a California resident, 65 years of age and cheated in some amount not specified, basically defrauded in any amount for this law to kick in.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e)
(d) Any person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(e) Any caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.07.
"Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult" means either of the following:
(a) Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.
(b) The deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.
15610.27. "Elder" means any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.
California Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30.
(a) "Financial abuse" of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:
(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70 and by Section 1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.
Not all of California's 9 million residents 65+ years are involved with everything stated herein however a vast majority may have the circumstances regarding their respective dealings with Amazon creating monumental legal ramifications with potential
California Welfare and Institutions Code section § 15657.5 provides:
(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined n Section 15610.30, in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The term "costs" includes, but is not limited to, reasonable fees for the services of a conservator, if any, devoted to the litigation of a claim brought under this article.
(b) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30, and where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of the abuse, in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs set forth in subdivision (a), and all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the following shall apply:
(1) The limitations imposed by Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable shall not apply.
(2) The standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any damages or attorney's fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer.
(c) Nothing in this section affects the award of punitive damages under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.
One of the absolutely fantastic scenarios regarding California's Elder Financial Abuse Act is should a Plaintiff decide to file a lawsuit against a Defendant the law states that if the Plaintiff prevails then is awarded reasonable costs and attorney fees however conversely if does not prevail the Plaintiff has no legal obligation to reimburse the Defendant any of their costs or attorney fees.
The California legislature decided to give tremendous teeth to this law so seniors would be more inclined to pursue their perpetrator knowing that if they were not successful they would not be burdened with a horrific legal expense of the Defendant.
Being aware of this above information it would appear that there may well be numerous lawsuits initiated against any company that has willfully and knowingly sold among other things 'stolen goods' to the vulnerable California residents over the age of 65 and even possibly the other 49 states residents as well depending on the various laws pertaining to their situations!
No one should be above the law, not even Jeff Bezos, common thieves deal in 'stolen goods' and when found guilty in a court of law they are sentenced to prison, Jeff Bezos should be no different!
Jeff Bezos admitted emphatically that he knowingly allowed Amazon to sell 'stolen goods' which is also know as stolen property, stolen merchandise etc. and he should be held accountable and forced to face a criminal trial jury of his peers. If found guilty, it would be extremely difficult to render any other verdict, as he testified under oath to Congress and that Congressional Hearing was televised and viewed by millions of people around the world that Amazon sells 'stolen goods'.
Amazon, by Jeff Bezos' testimony, has over a million third-party sellers so it would be reasonable to conclude even a miniscule percentage could amount to tens of thousands of 'stolen goods' would be handled by Amazon and therefore the penalty for each individual infraction could conceivably bring about several years in prison and then multiplied by the massive number of sales of 'stolen goods' could amount to a lifetime behind bars, and the evidence of his direct and irrefutable testimony would cause his conviction without the need for any witnesses. And to even magnify this each act of selling 'stolen goods' is the direct result of receiving 'stolen goods', another set of felonies for each. Jeff Bezos, if convicted, may never see the light of day beyond his prison walls. Amazon did nothing to investigate and vet these sellers to determine for themselves that none of this property was stolen or counterfeit so he deserves whatever sentence the various juries decide. Had Amazon conducted sufficient due diligence instead of just being focused on the almighty dollar they could have easily prevented this criminal action of receiving and selling 'stolen goods'.
All of the District Attorneys and Attorneys General in every jurisdiction throughout the United States could prosecute Jeff Bezos and in addition to prison incarceration could quite possibly enforce Billions of Dollars in fines and court costs which very well may reduce Jeff Bezos from being the richest man in the world to just your average every day common felon criminal. Daunting thought to say the least. Jeff Bezos may receive his come uppings and he has no one else to blame except himself for being so greedy as to knowingly sell 'stolen goods'.
In August 2019 the FBI uncovered a theft ring in Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered, that sold millions of dollars' of 'stolen goods' on Amazon.com in just the past 6 years FBI agent Ariana Kroshinsky wrote in her affidavit.
The guilty must face the consequences of their actions and Jeff Bezos must be held to the same legal standards that all Americans agree to live by and he may have become a multi billionaire because he engaged in selling 'stolen goods' where the great majority of Americans walk the narrow path of honesty instead of criminal activity and apparently Jeff Bezos chose the easy road with impunity!
Approximately 145 Million people around the globe subscribe to Amazon's "Prime" accounts and pay billions of dollars for the privilege believing that Amazon would act in their best interest and never sell them any counterfeit, dangerous, defective or 'stolen goods' and because Amazon deceived them they at the very least should have the entirety of their costs refunded to them which would most likely amount to BILLIONS of dollars which would then affect the income to Amazon being decreased exponentially and subsequently reduce the stock value accordingly. Amazon would be required to file documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission of these 'material facts'.
There is another possible smoking gun regarding how Amazon conducts their respective businesses and that is their "Terms of Service". If their "Terms of Service" are worded in a specific way with the intent to deceive as mentioned above then quite possibly it could be construed in a court of law that it is a "Scheme or Artifice to Defraud" in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1346 which could eliminate it from their business entirely by making it invalid and unenforceable in every aspect. This would open up a whole new legal quandary for Amazon should the courts decide to deem their "Terms of Service" unenforceable.
Most major corporations have a 'morals clause' as part of their employee contracts which should include all executives and members of the Board of Directors, wherein if any of them violate it they should be terminated for committing or allowing knowingly criminal acts such as multiple felonies. It would be difficult, if not impossible to claim 'plausible deniability' since the CEO Jeff Bezos admitted under oath his direct knowledge of Amazon engaging in the selling of 'stolen goods'.
Another gleaming aspect of this criminal behavior within Amazon's hierarchy is that in the commission of this very serious crime situation is that the law requires what is referred to as "Clawback" which details that all money generated in the act of committing a Felony the proceeds can be confiscated and/or forfeited to the respective governmental agencies having jurisdiction.
In the case with Jeff Bezos, if found guilty, his multiple million dollar personal acquisitions such as his mansions in Beverly Hills and Washington D.C. and the newspaper Washington Post etc. should also be forfeited as the benefits gained from illegal activity selling 'stolen goods.'
At the risk of being redundant, no one should be above the law which would include Jeff Bezos and when prosecuted finalized and established that he is guilty his forfeitures should amount to several Billion dollars. He was aware of his crimes and did nothing to prevent it and therefore 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". We reap exactly what we sow, including the richest man in the world.
The numerous law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction of the crimes locations, which might be all 50 states, should prosecute every high ranking executive within Amazon including but not limited to CEO Jeff Bezos to the fullest extent of the law and sentence them to the maximum number of years possible to set an example that literally no one is above the law and thus these severe penalties will be a deterrent to any other corporate execs to refrain from engaging is such egregious activities against their fellow man!
There may be other foreign entities such as Canada, the European Union, Great Britain, Ireland among numerous others that want to initiate their own legal proceedings against Amazon, Jeff Bezos along with additional senior executives who participated and allowed the crime of selling 'stolen goods' to have their day in court.
Jeff Bezos may come to 'Rue the Day' that he admitted under oath to selling 'stolen goods'!
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, the world's richest man, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, testified under oath before the United States Congress answering questions regarding his company's anti-competitive behavior.
During the five-hour-long Q&A session Jeff Bezos was hit with a wide array of questions about topics ranging from Amazon's controversial use of third-party seller data to turning a blind eye to counterfeit products and selling 'stolen goods'.
Being the founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos is acutely aware of literally all that happens within his Amazon empire as he would be the most knowledgeable regarding the inner workings of his own company which is precisely how he became the richest man in the entire world.
David Cicilline, the chair of the House of Representative's Antitrust subcommittee who was leading the investigation into Amazon's stated "As CEO and founder of the company, (Jeff Bezos) must be accountable for Amazon's record of dishonesty before Congress", and "In light of the gravity of this situation, I am also considering whether a perjury referral is warranted".
Congress also said that the company statements "appear to be misleading, and possibly criminally false or perjurious".
For example, when Rep. Pramila Jayapal asked him whether Amazon ever used third-party seller data to create competing products under its own label, Bezos dodged that direct and specific question by replying "I can't answer yes or no to that question".
"We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private-label business", he added, "But I can't guarantee you that that policy has never been violated". Jeff Bezos knows full well what takes place at Amazon, he answered in that verbiage to cover himself and not be found guilty of perjury.
Pressed to address allegations of Amazon's data appropriation exposed in a Wall Street Journal investigation in April, Bezos said he didn't know the specifics yet. "We continue to look into that very carefully".
In a separate exchange later in the hearing, Congresswoman Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia asked Bezos whether Amazon has allowed 'stolen goods' to be sold on its platform. Rep. McBath asked Jeff Bezos, "Are 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon? To which Bezos replied, "Congresswoman, not to my knowledge". This response was absolute perjury to the United States Congress because Jeff Bezos was acutely aware of the August 2019 FBI investigation of the $10 Million dollar theft ring that sold 'stolen goods' on Amazon!
Asked more than once Jeff Bezos eventually admitted under oath that yes, Amazon does indeed sell 'stolen goods' by stating among other things that "There are more than one million sellers on Amazon. I'm sure there have been 'stolen goods' sold on Amazon".
Rep. McBath asked point blank again, "So basically Mr. Bezos that means you are saying YES?" To which Bezos finally responded, "I GUESS SO".
Pressed further by Rep. McBath on the subject of selling 'stolen goods', Jeff Bezos stated "I don't think it's a large part of what we are doing". Are you kidding Jeff Bezos, NOT A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE ARE DOING! You act as if it's no big deal but definitely something that brings in lots of income so we just close our eyes and let the money flow in from our 'stolen goods' business!
Mr. Bezos, 'Go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect the $200, just like the play monopoly game'! It appears to you that selling 'stolen goods' is something you take for granted and enjoy since it's part and parcel of what made you into a Billionaire and the richest man in the world. You mock the hard working honest people of America and you should be ashamed of yourself...
Law enforcement can't ignore your blatant refusal to police your own company and eliminate once and for all the criminal behavior of selling 'stolen goods' etc. and they should proscecute you Jeff Bezos just like any street criminal who robs a liquor store for a couple hundred dollars. Not only does selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' hurt the consumer but cause the prices of everything any legitimate business sells to try and offset what you do on what could possibly be an every day occurence.
Every individual engaged in Law Enforcement in the United States has sworn a sacred oath to "Defend the Constitution Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic' and to uphold the law equally regardless of who may be the criminal so they must investigate and prosecute every perpetrator including Jeff Bezos as he is an 'admitted criminal' against his own customers.
Selling 'stolen goods' is a FELONY! Receiving 'stolen goods' is also a FELONY!
Since a vast number of third-party sellers ship their goods to be sold in the 'Fulfillment by Amazon' (FBA) and Amazon then receives and stores their products within Amazon's warehouses (fulfillment centers) and then the Amazon advertises the various products for sale, uses Amazon's payment methods, and then will pick, pack and ship them in Amazon packaging to the purchasers.
A California Appeals court ruled last April that Amazon was indeed the seller of record to Angela Bolger since Amazon's activities basically conducted the entire transaction from beginning to end even though they did not manufacture the defective product and harmed Bolger severely.
In respect with 'stolen goods' Amazon receives them from the third party sellers which means Amazon is committing numerous FELONIES by becoming the recipient of 'stolen property' and then selling/delivering 'stolen goods' with the full and complete knowledge of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as verified by his sworn testimony before the United States Congress, can't be more substantiated proof than that! GUILTY!!!
Congress has demanded that Amazon discontinue selling 'Stolen Goods', Counterfeit, Illegal, Deadly and Deceptive Products.
There may be another possibility why sellers have chosen Amazon as their partner in crime and that is it would be the perfect mechanism to carry out 'money laundering', meaning taking the dirty money obtained via 'stolen goods' being sold at will on Amazon and then cleaning that same sales money, which is a 'Prime" method, and hopefully undetectable to Amazon since Amazon nor Jeff Bezos has been able to stem the tide of long term 'stolen goods' from being overwhelming sold on Amazon.
If Amazon has become too large and unwieldy then maybe the Federal Government should force Amazon into a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy which could then install one of their Bankruptcy Court Trustees to oversee and run the company since it appears that Jeff Bezos does not possess the necessary control capabilities to prevent and eliminate the proliferation of receiving and selling Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective and Illegal 'Stolen Goods' from their platform.
The United States Congress should subpoena every single sales document of Amazon for at least the past 10 years to establish exactly how many transactions contained any Counterfeit, Dangerous, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods' took place and reverse those illegal sales and return the entire purchase price to the consumer victims who was deceived.
California Penal Code Section § 496 - Receiving Stolen Property
Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.
To receive property means to take possession and control of it. Two or more people can possess the property at the same time.
A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has control over it either personally or through another person.
When Amazon third-party sellers deliver 'stolen goods' to an Amazon Fulfillment Center for resale and delivery the Amazon company is then the recipient of 'stolen property' based upon the California Penal Code Section § 496, they are part and parcel of the actual act.
California Penal Code section § 496, subdivision (a) (section 496(a)) makes receiving or buying property “that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft” a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. Section § 496, subdivision (c) (section 496(c)) provides that any person “who has been injured by a violation of (section 496(a) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.”
Plaintiffs contends, based on the statutory language, a criminal conviction under section 496(a) is not a prerequisite to recovery of treble damages under section 496(c). Plaintiff asserts that the phrase “any manner constituting theft” under section 496(a) includes theft by false pretense.
Leading buyers of Amazon products without disclosing that they may be 'counterfeit, damaged, deadly, defective, illegal, and/or 'stolen goods' is tantamount to selling via false pretenses and therefore may be considered the crime of theft by false pretense under California Penal Code Section § 496.
Receiving Stolen Property (Penal Code, § 496(a)). (“(Property is stolen if it was obtained by any type of theft, or by burglary or robbery. (Theft includes obtaining property by larceny, embezzlement, false pretense, or trick.))”)
Theft by False Pretense, Larceny by Trickery, Unjust Enrichment (Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Pandemic Emergency), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith are a few more that need to be investigated in the process of selling and receiving 'stolen goods' as they pertain to Amazon not disclosing these facts to potential buyers of the Counterfeit, Dangerous, Deadly, Defective, Illegal and 'Stolen Goods'.
California Penal Code § 532 (a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.
California Penal Code § 484 Larceny (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.
California Penal Code § 396 (a) The Legislature hereby finds that during a state of emergency or local emergency, including, but not limited to, an earthquake, flood, fire, riot, storm, drought, plant or animal infestation or disease, pandemic or epidemic disease outbreak, or other natural or manmade disaster, some merchants have taken unfair advantage of consumers by greatly increasing prices for essential consumer goods and services. While the pricing of consumer goods and services is generally best left to the marketplace under ordinary conditions, when a declared state of emergency or local emergency results in abnormal disruptions of the market, the public interest requires that excessive and unjustified increases in the prices of essential consumer goods and services be prohibited. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect citizens from excessive and unjustified increases in the prices charged during or shortly after a declared state of emergency or local emergency for goods and services that are vital and necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of consumers, whether those goods and services are offered or sold in person, in stores, or online. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that this section be liberally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be served.
California Penal Code § Unjust Enrichment - In every contract or agreement there is an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. This implied promise means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the contract. Good faith means honesty of purpose without any intention to mislead or to take unfair advantage of another. Generally speaking, it means being faithful to one’s duty or obligation. However, the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing cannot create obligations that are inconsistent with the terms of the contract. Amazon by the very nature of selling 'Stolen Goods' as just one example, without full disclosure has violated "Good Faith and Fair Dealing" with every buyer of property from Amazon including the 'Elderly' which would kick in Elder Financial Abuse.
Ignorance of the law is neither an excuse nor a defense of the criminal act.
The very instant that a Defendant commits any other crimes, any property so obtained was then obtained by "Theft" and thus selling said property would be considered "Stolen Property" and could immediately constitute additional crimes under California Penal Code Section § 496.
There is a relatively unknown but extremely important, legal case decided by the California Appeals Court that will have a profound effect on Amazon and Jeff Bezos regarding the receiving of and selling 'stolen goods',
California Court of Appeals Fourth District, Division 3, Penal Code Section § 498(c) making it illegal to receive stolen goods allows Treble Damages GO46166 Decided January 15, 2013 Sharon Bell v. Igal J. Feibush does not require a criminal conviction under Section § 496(a).
In Bell v. Feibush (filed January 15, 2013) 2013 DJDAR 627, Feibush argues that permitting Bell to recover treble damages under section 496(c) is contrary to public policy and permits litigants to circumvent limitations on remedies. Our decision to affirm the default judgment is based on straightforward statutory interpretation. Section 496(a) extends liability to “(e)very person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft.” (Italics added.) Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a) describes the acts constituting theft to include theft by false pretense, which is the consensual but fraudulent acquisition of property from its owner. (Pen.Code § 484, subd. (a), 532.) Feibush was found liable for fraud, i.e., for the fraudulent acquisition of property (money) from its owner (Bell). “Anything that could be the subject of a theft can also be property under section 496.” (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 541, 217 Cal.Rptr. 487.) A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted for either theft or receiving stolen property under section 496(a).
Penal Code § 487 PC – Grand theft defined (may be charged in connection with receiving stolen property). (“Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: (a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b). (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases: . . . (c) When the property is taken from the person of another. (d) When the property taken is any of the following: (1) An automobile, horse, mare, gelding, any bovine animal, any caprine animal, mule, jack, jenny, sheep, lamb, hog, sow, boar, gilt, barrow, or pig. (2) A firearm.”)
Plaintiff contends that under California Penal Code section § 496 Defendants, by obtaining ownership even temporarily via committing a criminal act in violation of California Penal Code section § 532 Defendant did so illegally and thus obtained momentary and temporary ownership of said property stored in an Amazon warehouse, fulfillment center, to sell to millions of unsuspecting buyers by false pretenses makes the property transfer tantamount to "receiving and then subsequently selling stolen property", a felony under California Law.
California has an extremely valuable law for Senior Citizens, individuals 65 years old and over commonly referred to as Elder Financial Abuse Act.
There are approximately 9 million residents of California aged 65+, of which a substantial number have at one time or another purchased property from Amazon, which makes their situation a monumental dilemma for Jeff Bezos and his Amazon company.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e) Elder Financial Abuse and Civil Code Section § 1575
Elder Financial Abuse is both a civil tort and a criminal offense.
It is not necessary under these statutes that the taker maintain an intent to defraud; rather, a person is guilty of committing financial elder abuse so long as it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the taker is not entitled to the elder’s assets.
When Amazon for instance charges a Senior for its "Prime" account and sells them 'stolen goods, counterfeit, dangerous and/or defective products it could be construed as by false pretenses and thusly Elder Financial Abuse may have taken place in which the law now can be invoked to protect the financial wherewithal of the deceived individual.
The State of California only requires that the aggreived need be a California resident, 65 years of age and cheated in some amount not specified, basically defrauded in any amount for this law to kick in.
California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e)
(d) Any person who is not a caretaker who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(e) Any caretaker of an elder or a dependent adult who violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement, forgery, or fraud, or who violates Section 530.5 proscribing identity theft, with respect to the property or personal identifying information of that elder or dependent adult, is punishable as follows:
(1) By a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
(2) By a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, when the moneys, labor, goods, services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of a value not exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950).
California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.07.
"Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult" means either of the following:
(a) Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.
(b) The deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.
15610.27. "Elder" means any person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.
California Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30.
(a) "Financial abuse" of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:
(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70 and by Section 1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.
Not all of California's 9 million residents 65+ years are involved with everything stated herein however a vast majority may have the circumstances regarding their respective dealings with Amazon creating monumental legal ramifications with potential
California Welfare and Institutions Code section § 15657.5 provides:
(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined n Section 15610.30, in addition to all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the court shall award to the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The term "costs" includes, but is not limited to, reasonable fees for the services of a conservator, if any, devoted to the litigation of a claim brought under this article.
(b) Where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30, and where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of the abuse, in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs set forth in subdivision (a), and all other remedies otherwise provided by law, the following shall apply:
(1) The limitations imposed by Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable shall not apply.
(2) The standards set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code regarding the imposition of punitive damages on an employer based upon the acts of an employee shall be satisfied before any damages or attorney's fees permitted under this section may be imposed against an employer.
(c) Nothing in this section affects the award of punitive damages under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.
One of the absolutely fantastic scenarios regarding California's Elder Financial Abuse Act is should a Plaintiff decide to file a lawsuit against a Defendant the law states that if the Plaintiff prevails then is awarded reasonable costs and attorney fees however conversely if does not prevail the Plaintiff has no legal obligation to reimburse the Defendant any of their costs or attorney fees.
The California legislature decided to give tremendous teeth to this law so seniors would be more inclined to pursue their perpetrator knowing that if they were not successful they would not be burdened with a horrific legal expense of the Defendant.
Being aware of this above information it would appear that there may well be numerous lawsuits initiated against any company that has willfully and knowingly sold among other things 'stolen goods' to the vulnerable California residents over the age of 65 and even possibly the other 49 states residents as well depending on the various laws pertaining to their situations!
Should Amazon, and/or CEO Jeff Bezos, be prosecuted for Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act or the Clayton Antitrust Act, and if found guilty how many years should Jeff Bezos or any of the other high ranking executives be incarcerated in Federal Prison?
Should the obviously healthy employees of Amazon have extremely preferential treatment to receive the potentially life saving Covid-19 vaccination instead of frontline healthcare workers, first responders, aged and infirm with underlying medical conditions?
Does Jeff Bezos truly believe that the President of the United States and Leader of the Free World could be fooled into giving priority to his company just because he has the financial wherewithal to offer his warehouses as additional locations to deliver the vaccines? Is this the definition of Bribery?
Jeff Bezos mistreats his employees in reference to the horrific working conditions that he subjects them to work under at low wages considering that among other things he hires a detective agency to monitor their every moment on the job and fires those who attempt to create a safer working environment due to Coronavirus. Amazon employees need help for sure however jumping to the front of the line to obtain a vaccination before more deserving individuals is not the best method.
Does any company, or CEO such as Jeff Bezos, accused of numerous acts by several governmental agencies including the United States for deplorable activities such as Anti Competitive Business, Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy, Bribery, Selling Stolen and Counterfeit Products, Defective and Dangerous Products, Discrimination, Fake Product Reviews, Illegal Insider Stock Trading, Intellectual Property Piracy, Market Dominance, Predatory Pricing, Price Fixing, Price Gouging, Racism, Retaliation, Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Social Injustice, Unethical Practices and Unsafe Working Conditions and even possibly lying under oath to the United States Congress just to name a few? Does this justify Amazon getting special considerations for the highly sought after vaccines?
Does Jeff Bezos truly believe that the President of the United States and Leader of the Free World could be fooled into giving priority to his company just because he has the financial wherewithal to offer his warehouses as additional locations to deliver the vaccines? Is this the definition of Bribery?
Jeff Bezos mistreats his employees in reference to the horrific working conditions that he subjects them to work under at low wages considering that among other things he hires a detective agency to monitor their every moment on the job and fires those who attempt to create a safer working environment due to Coronavirus. Amazon employees need help for sure however jumping to the front of the line to obtain a vaccination before more deserving individuals is not the best method.
Does any company, or CEO such as Jeff Bezos, accused of numerous acts by several governmental agencies including the United States for deplorable activities such as Anti Competitive Business, Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy, Bribery, Selling Stolen and Counterfeit Products, Defective and Dangerous Products, Discrimination, Fake Product Reviews, Illegal Insider Stock Trading, Intellectual Property Piracy, Market Dominance, Predatory Pricing, Price Fixing, Price Gouging, Racism, Retaliation, Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Social Injustice, Unethical Practices and Unsafe Working Conditions and even possibly lying under oath to the United States Congress just to name a few? Does this justify Amazon getting special considerations for the highly sought after vaccines?
Dave Clark, CEO of Amazon's worldwide consumer business, sent a letter to President Joe Biden on Wednesday, offering to help with the nation's Covid-19 vaccination efforts.
The letter comes as Amazon has been vying for its front-line workers to have priority access to the Covid-19 vaccine.
Last month, Clark wrote to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel asking that the company's front-line employees "receive the Covid-19 vaccine at the earliest appropriate time." Clark also emphasized that Amazon's front-line workers have played an essential role in helping consumers get necessary products delivered to their homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Here's the full letter Clark sent to Biden on Wednesday:
Dear President Biden,
Congratulations to you and Vice President Harris on your inauguration. As you begin your work leading the country out of the Covid-19 crisis, Amazon stands ready to assist you in reaching your goal of vaccinating 100 million Americans in the first 100 days of your administration.
As the nation's second largest employer, Amazon has over 800,000 employees in the United States, most of whom are essential workers who cannot work from home. We are proud of the role our employees have played to help customers stay safe and received important products and services at home, which is critical for people with underlying medical conditions and those susceptible to complications from Covid-19. The essential employees working at Amazon fulfillment centers, AWS data centers, and Whole Foods Market stores across the country who cannot work from home should receive the Covid-19 vaccine at the earliest appropriate time. We will assist them in that effort.
We have an agreement in place with a licensed third-party occupational health care provider to administer vaccines on-site at our Amazon facilities. We are prepared to move quickly once vaccines are available. Additionally, we are prepared to leverage our operations, information technology and communications capabilities and expertise to assist your administration's vaccination efforts. Our scale allows us to make a meaningful impact immediately in the fight against Covid-19, and we stand ready to assist you in this effort.
Since the beginning of this crisis, we have worked hard to keep our workers safe. We are committed to assisting your administration's vaccination efforts a we work together to protect our employees and continue to provide essential services during the pandemic.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
CEO, Worldwide Consumer
The letter comes as Amazon has been vying for its front-line workers to have priority access to the Covid-19 vaccine.
Last month, Clark wrote to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel asking that the company's front-line employees "receive the Covid-19 vaccine at the earliest appropriate time." Clark also emphasized that Amazon's front-line workers have played an essential role in helping consumers get necessary products delivered to their homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Here's the full letter Clark sent to Biden on Wednesday:
Dear President Biden,
Congratulations to you and Vice President Harris on your inauguration. As you begin your work leading the country out of the Covid-19 crisis, Amazon stands ready to assist you in reaching your goal of vaccinating 100 million Americans in the first 100 days of your administration.
As the nation's second largest employer, Amazon has over 800,000 employees in the United States, most of whom are essential workers who cannot work from home. We are proud of the role our employees have played to help customers stay safe and received important products and services at home, which is critical for people with underlying medical conditions and those susceptible to complications from Covid-19. The essential employees working at Amazon fulfillment centers, AWS data centers, and Whole Foods Market stores across the country who cannot work from home should receive the Covid-19 vaccine at the earliest appropriate time. We will assist them in that effort.
We have an agreement in place with a licensed third-party occupational health care provider to administer vaccines on-site at our Amazon facilities. We are prepared to move quickly once vaccines are available. Additionally, we are prepared to leverage our operations, information technology and communications capabilities and expertise to assist your administration's vaccination efforts. Our scale allows us to make a meaningful impact immediately in the fight against Covid-19, and we stand ready to assist you in this effort.
Since the beginning of this crisis, we have worked hard to keep our workers safe. We are committed to assisting your administration's vaccination efforts a we work together to protect our employees and continue to provide essential services during the pandemic.
Sincerely,
Dave Clark
CEO, Worldwide Consumer
Should Amazon, and/or CEO Jeff Bezos, be prosecuted for Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act or the Clayton Antitrust Act, and if found guilty how many years should Jeff Bezos or any of the other high ranking executives be incarcerated in Federal Prison?
December 14, 2020
California urges court to compel Amazon to comply with coronavirus probe
(Reuters) -California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Monday petitioned a court to compel Amazon.com Inc to comply with outstanding investigative subpoenas over the probe of the company’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
The petition, filed with the Sacramento County Superior Court, alleges that Amazon has failed to adequately comply with requests for information as part of this probe that looks into the company’s coronavirus protocols and the status of COVID-19 cases at its facilities across the state.
“Amazon has delayed responding adequately to our investigative requests long enough,” Becerra said in the petition.
The subpoenas seek specific details about the nature and extent of Amazon’s coronavirus prevention efforts, including sick leave policies, cleaning procedures, as well as data on the number of infections and deaths at its warehouses in California, the petition said.
Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
California urges court to compel Amazon to comply with coronavirus probe
(Reuters) -California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Monday petitioned a court to compel Amazon.com Inc to comply with outstanding investigative subpoenas over the probe of the company’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
The petition, filed with the Sacramento County Superior Court, alleges that Amazon has failed to adequately comply with requests for information as part of this probe that looks into the company’s coronavirus protocols and the status of COVID-19 cases at its facilities across the state.
“Amazon has delayed responding adequately to our investigative requests long enough,” Becerra said in the petition.
The subpoenas seek specific details about the nature and extent of Amazon’s coronavirus prevention efforts, including sick leave policies, cleaning procedures, as well as data on the number of infections and deaths at its warehouses in California, the petition said.
Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
More than 400 lawmakers from 34 countries back 'Make Amazon Pay' campaign
LONDON, Dec 3, 2020 (Reuters) - More than 400 lawmakers from 34 countries have signed a letter to Amazon.com Inc boss Jeff Bezos backing a campaign that claims the tech giant has “dodged and dismissed … debts to workers, societies, and the planet,” organisers said.
The “Make Amazon Pay” campaign was launched on Nov. 27 - the annual Black Friday shopping bonanza - by a coalition of over 50 organisations, with demands including improvements to working conditions and full tax transparency.
The letter’s signatories include U.S. Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Vice President of the European Parliament Heidi Hautala, co-convenors Progressive International and UNI Global Union said.
“We urge you to act decisively to change your policies and priorities to do right by your workers, their communities, and our planet,” the letter said.
“We stand ready to act in our respective legislatures to support the movement that is growing around the world to Make Amazon Pay.”
Amazon, the world’s biggest retailer, has faced criticism for its tax practices before, including in the UK and the EU. It says its profits remain low given retail is a highly competitive, low margin business and it invests heavily.
It said on Thursday that while it accepted scrutiny from policymakers, many of the matters raised in the letter stemmed from misleading assertions.
“Amazon has a strong track record of supporting our employees, our customers, and our communities, including providing safe working conditions, competitive wages and great benefits,” it said, adding it was “paying billions of dollars in taxes globally.”
Amazon grew rapidly during the pandemic, with sales soaring as restrictions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus closed bricks-and-mortar shops and sent consumers online.
Governments worldwide are considering tougher rules for big tech to assuage worries about competition.
The European Union, for example, last month charged Amazon with damaging retail competition, alleging it used its size, power and data to gain an unfair advantage over smaller merchants that sell on its online platform.
Amazon disagreed with the EU assertions, saying it represented less than 1% of the global retail market and there were larger retailers in every country in which it operated.
LONDON, Dec 3, 2020 (Reuters) - More than 400 lawmakers from 34 countries have signed a letter to Amazon.com Inc boss Jeff Bezos backing a campaign that claims the tech giant has “dodged and dismissed … debts to workers, societies, and the planet,” organisers said.
The “Make Amazon Pay” campaign was launched on Nov. 27 - the annual Black Friday shopping bonanza - by a coalition of over 50 organisations, with demands including improvements to working conditions and full tax transparency.
The letter’s signatories include U.S. Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Vice President of the European Parliament Heidi Hautala, co-convenors Progressive International and UNI Global Union said.
“We urge you to act decisively to change your policies and priorities to do right by your workers, their communities, and our planet,” the letter said.
“We stand ready to act in our respective legislatures to support the movement that is growing around the world to Make Amazon Pay.”
Amazon, the world’s biggest retailer, has faced criticism for its tax practices before, including in the UK and the EU. It says its profits remain low given retail is a highly competitive, low margin business and it invests heavily.
It said on Thursday that while it accepted scrutiny from policymakers, many of the matters raised in the letter stemmed from misleading assertions.
“Amazon has a strong track record of supporting our employees, our customers, and our communities, including providing safe working conditions, competitive wages and great benefits,” it said, adding it was “paying billions of dollars in taxes globally.”
Amazon grew rapidly during the pandemic, with sales soaring as restrictions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus closed bricks-and-mortar shops and sent consumers online.
Governments worldwide are considering tougher rules for big tech to assuage worries about competition.
The European Union, for example, last month charged Amazon with damaging retail competition, alleging it used its size, power and data to gain an unfair advantage over smaller merchants that sell on its online platform.
Amazon disagreed with the EU assertions, saying it represented less than 1% of the global retail market and there were larger retailers in every country in which it operated.
Amazon hit with E.U. antitrust charges over its use of data November 10, 2020
The e-commerce giant faces a possible fine of up to 10 percent of its annual worldwide revenue, which could amount to billions of dollars.
LONDON — European Union regulators have filed antitrust charges against Amazon, accusing the e-commerce giant of using data to gain an unfair advantage over merchants using its platform.
The E.U.'s executive commission, the bloc's top antitrust enforcer, said Tuesday that the charges have been sent to the company.
The commission said it takes issue with Amazon's systematic use of non-public business data to avoid “the normal risks of competition and to leverage its dominance" for e-commerce services in France and Germany, the company's two biggest markets in the E.U.
The E.U. started looking into Amazon in 2018 and has been focusing on its dual role as a marketplace and retailer.
In addition to selling its own products, the U.S. company allows third-party retailers to sell their own goods through its site. Last year, more than half of the items sold on Amazon worldwide were from these outside merchants.
Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, the E.U. commissioner in charge of competition, said it’s not a problem that Amazon is a successful business but “our concern is very specific business conduct which appears to distort genuine competition.”
Vestager also opened a second investigation into Amazon over whether it favours its own products and those from third-party merchants that use its logistics and delivery services.
The e-commerce giant faces a possible fine of up to 10 percent of its annual worldwide revenue, which could amount to billions of dollars.
LONDON — European Union regulators have filed antitrust charges against Amazon, accusing the e-commerce giant of using data to gain an unfair advantage over merchants using its platform.
The E.U.'s executive commission, the bloc's top antitrust enforcer, said Tuesday that the charges have been sent to the company.
The commission said it takes issue with Amazon's systematic use of non-public business data to avoid “the normal risks of competition and to leverage its dominance" for e-commerce services in France and Germany, the company's two biggest markets in the E.U.
The E.U. started looking into Amazon in 2018 and has been focusing on its dual role as a marketplace and retailer.
In addition to selling its own products, the U.S. company allows third-party retailers to sell their own goods through its site. Last year, more than half of the items sold on Amazon worldwide were from these outside merchants.
Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, the E.U. commissioner in charge of competition, said it’s not a problem that Amazon is a successful business but “our concern is very specific business conduct which appears to distort genuine competition.”
Vestager also opened a second investigation into Amazon over whether it favours its own products and those from third-party merchants that use its logistics and delivery services.