Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

"Refusal to comply could lead to a contempt referral and criminal trial — as has happened recently on the House side with Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro."

Bannon (after an extended process) was prosecuted in 2022 and his appeal is still ongoing.

The contempt of the subpoena process (writing books? not so much), including during impeachment trials, is a major problem in recent years.

The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee's antics regarding Leo and Crow are shameful. It's a perversion of the rule of law. Leo is the voice of current conservatives regarding the courts.

I apologize. The Supreme Court says I am confused.

Expand full comment
blazintommyd's avatar

AMG Capital Mgmt. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n (2021) 141 S. Ct. 1341; 209 L. Ed. 2d 361

Is a unanimous decision on the statutory interpretation of 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)(2)

“That in proper cases the Commission may seek, and after proper proof, the court may issue, a

permanent injunction”

Breyer declared that the following is the Deep Issue of the case:

“Did Congress, by enacting § 13(b)’s words, "permanent injunction," grant the Commission authority

to obtain monetary relief directly from courts, thereby effectively bypassing the process set forth in

§ 5 and § 19”?

Restitution is not monetary relief, it’s mandating the return of wrongfully obtained property, it is Equitable Relief and injunctions are the means by which Decrees are enforced.

The full court was duped into confusing and confounding Restitution with common law compensatory damages which is not what the 9th Circuit did the 9th Circuit granted Equitable Relief - i.e. the most full and efficacious remedy. If Coke was alive he might say such relief was available by Prerogative Writ but would have likely gone along with Equity so would Lord Mansfield or anyone else

No statute expressly prohibits a court from using a mandatory injunction to enforce a Decree cf. 15 USC §45(a)(4)(B) supra the USSCt’s action is arbitrary.

There was no reason to reverse Judgment, it should have been modified to allow Restitution with costs . If for some reason that could not be done by the Fraudster then a separate action for Equitable Compensation - none of which requires or invokes an option for Trial by Jury

Too bad Ginsberg and Scalia had passed Anyone that knows what Equity is, doesn’t need a statute to know that these Principles were established prior to 1789 cf. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Attorney Bond Fund, Inc. 527 U.S. 308, 318-323 (1999); 119 S. Ct. 1961, Scalia J ff.318 cf., Ginsberg dissent @335

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts