|
|
Post by petedabroker on Nov 4, 2008 10:41:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by petedabroker on Nov 4, 2008 11:23:06 GMT -5
I love exhibit D , whereas the ports of LA/LB indicate that the FMC does have authority over this whole package, will be notified of changes, and even the reduction request of its concessionaires to be dropped from this agreement directly to the FMC, under the Shipping Act of 1984, like they are really buddies of the FMC and would slip this agreement right through its ranks.
Its almost like, here you go FMC, this is our agreement and we even got some safeguards to keep you informed. Yes, we are OKDOKIE with the Shipping Act 1984 and even its amendments.
You don't need to read the agreement, we are telling the FMC we are A-OK, wink, wink. Hope the FMC does not read this one.
Hey, California, guess what, the FMC can read, and understands it perfectly. Good try though, Idiot California Ports.
|
|
|
|
Post by petedabroker on Nov 4, 2008 12:43:20 GMT -5
Anti-Trust - Read what it says about ports and what LA/LB have filed and made statements in Exhibit D, whereas they can meet and discuss rates? Are terminals exempt from Anti-Trust??
Read Exceptions B Item#3, whereas it does not extend anti-trust to:
(a) In general
The antitrust laws do not apply to—
(1) any agreement that has been filed under section 1704 of this Appendix and is effective under section 1704 (d) [1] or section 1705 of this Appendix or is exempt under section 1715 of this Appendix from any requirement of this chapter;
(2) any activity or agreement within the scope of this chapter, whether permitted under or prohibited by this chapter, undertaken or entered into with a reasonable basis to conclude that
(A) it is pursuant to an agreement on file with the Commission and in effect when the activity took place, or
(B) it is exempt under section 1715 of this Appendix from any filing or publication requirement of this chapter;
(3) any agreement or activity that relates to transportation services within or between foreign countries, whether or not via the United States, unless that agreement or activity has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the commerce of the United States;
(4) any agreement or activity concerning the foreign inland segment of through transportation that is part of transportation provided in a United States import or export trade;
(5) any agreement or activity to provide or furnish wharf*ge, dock, warehouse, or other terminal facilities outside the United States; or
(6) subject to section 1719 (e)(2) of this Appendix, any agreement, modification, or cancellation approved by the Commission before the effective date of this chapter under section 15 [1] of the Shipping Act, 1916, or permitted under section 14b [1] thereof, and any properly published tariff, rate, fare, or charge, classification, rule, or regulation explanatory thereof implementing that argeement,[2] modification, or cancellation.
(b) Exceptions
This chapter does not extend antitrust immunity—
(1) to any agreement with or among air carriers, rail carriers, motor carriers, or common carriers by water not subject to this chapter with respect to transportation within the United States;
(2) to any discussion or agreement among common carriers that are subject to this chapter regarding the inland divisions (as opposed to the inland portions) of through rates within the United States;
(3) to any agreement among common carriers subject to this chapter to establish, operate, or maintain a marine terminal in the United States; or
(4) to any loyalty contract.
(c) Limitations
(1) Any determination by an agency or court that results in the denial or removal of the immunity to the antitrust laws set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall not remove or alter the antitrust immunity for the period before the determination.
(2) No person may recover damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15), or obtain injunctive relief under section 16 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 26), for conduct prohibited by this chapter.
|
|
|
|
Post by petedabroker on Nov 4, 2008 13:08:27 GMT -5
How can Commissioner Brennan, take the position he did, when the shipping act of 1984 certainly gives the FMC jurisdiction over port activities, that would in fact cause , reductions in service, increase in prices and discrimination against a servicing labor force?
His position was/is, that the pollution control aspects of the new port rules for concessionaire's, would over rule the law. Is he crazy or what?
Let me ask Commissioner Brennen this question. Would it be legal , an environmental group, shoots and kills the president of a firm that is polluting, saying the murder was warranted because he was a polluter, which out weighs the fact he was murdered? Basically that is the position you have taken. Pollution control is more important than the law of the land. Sir, may I ask, when is your term up?
|
|
