• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
No. 11-1301
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GEMTRONICS, INC.,a corporation, andWILLIAM H. ISELY,individually and as the owner of Gemtronics, Inc.,Petitioners,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,Respondent.On Petition for Review froma Final Order of the Federal Trade CommissionINFORMAL BRIEF OF S.M. OLIVA AS
AMICUS CURIAE 
 SUPPORTING PETITIONERSS.M. Oliva128 Old Fifth CircleCharlottesville, VA 22903(434) 253-1179director@antitrusthall.comAmicus Curiae,
pro se 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Authorities iiPreliminary Statement 1Summary 1Argument 21. The Commission failed to apply the law of this Circuit.
 
22. The Decision of the Commission in the previous litigationproves the pre-complaint investigation did not satisfy therequirements of
Hess
.9
a.
 
The Commission never called Isely or investigatedany other person identified on the challengedwebsite.
10
b.
 
The Commission never corroborated theinformation obtained from the WHOIS search.
12
c.
 
The Commission's "undercover purchases" did notestablish Isely's control or responsibility for thechallenged website.
143. Public policy — including the legislative history of theEAJA — supports granting Isely's Petition for Review.16
a.
 
Congress enacted the EAJA to address thedisproportionate burden of government regulationon small businesses and individuals.
 17
b. The Commission's recent history suggests a lack ofinstitutional control that emphasizes thenecessity of meaningful EAJA relief.
 
20Conclusion 26Certificate of ComplianceCertificate of Service
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
Hess Mechanical Corp. v. NLRB 
, 112 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 1997) 3, 7–9
Humphrey's Executor v. United States 
, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) 16
In the Matter of M. Catherine Higgins 
, No. 051-0252 (F.T.C.2010)23–24
Morgan v. Perry 
, 142 F.3d 670 (3rd Cir. 1998) 6
Pierce v. Underwood 
, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) 3, 4
Rambus, Inc. v. FTC 
, 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 23
Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC 
, 402 F.3d 670 (11th Cir. 2005) 22
United States v. Hallmark Construction Co.
, 200 F.3d 1076 (7thCir. 2000)4, 5
Statutes, Regulations & Rules
Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504
passim
5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1) 1, 25 U.S.C. § 504(b)(1)(B) 24Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) 3
Other Authorities
Equal Access to Justice Act 
, 96th Cong., 1st sess., 1979, S. Rep.25317–20Senate Special Committee on Aging,
Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Deceptive Marketing of Dietary Supplements – FTC Enforcement Activities 
, 111th Cong., 2ndsess., 201020–21S.M. Oliva, "Consumer Protection or Legal Extortion?" MisesDaily,July 10, 2008, http://mises.org/daily/303521S.M. Oliva, "FTC Illegally Published Elderly Couple's FinancialInformation," Mises Economics Blog, Dec. 10, 2009,http://blog.mises.org/1121624
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...