KPN heeft bekendgemaakt dat het de Nederlandse activiteiten van Youfone zal overnemen. Youfone is momenteel al actief op de netwerken van KPN. Meer dan 540.000 klanten van Youfone maken momenteel gebruik van het mobiele en vaste netwerk van KPN, hier verandert niets aan.

De tarieven voor internet en tv zijn in vijf jaar tijd met bijna 24 procent gestegen. Jaar op jaar voeren providers forse prijsverhogingen door per 1 juli. Daarentegen krijgt de consument wel meer waar voor zijn geld; de prijs per megabit is gemiddeld met 64% gedaald. Dit blijkt uit onderzoek van onafhankelijke internetvergelijker Breedbandwinkel.nl onder 80.000 Nederlandse huishoudens.

Per vandaag herintroduceert KPN 'dubbele data' voor Combivoordeel klanten die internet voor thuis combineren met mobiel. Bovenop de bestaande voordelen betekent dat twee keer zoveel gigabytes om onderweg te videobellen of je favoriete series te kijken.

KPN en Ziggo zijn toegetreden tot branchevereniging NLconnect. Met de nieuwe leden zijn alle grotere telecomaanbieders van ons land bij NLconnect aangesloten: Odido en DELTA Fiber waren al bij de vereniging aangesloten, evenals 85 andere bedrijven uit de gehele telecom- en breedbandketen, waaronder Breedbandwinkel.

In navolging van Ziggo maakt ook provider Online nu de tarieven bekend per 1 juli 2024. Prijsvergelijker Breedbandwinkel meldt dat alle abonnementen simpelweg 4,50 euro per maand duurder worden. Dit geldt voor zowel de DSL abonnementen als de Online glasvezelabonnementen over het netwerk van KPN en DELTA Fiber.

In navolging van onder andere Ziggo en Online maakt vandaag ook KPN de prijsverhogingen bekend die per 1 juli 2024 gaan gelden. Prijsvergelijker Breedbandwinkel meldt dat de prijsverhoging neerkomt op maximaal 2,00 euro per maand voor internet, afhankelijk van het abonnement. Er wordt gerekend met een inflatiecorrectie van 3,8%.

Ziggo past per 1 juli 2024 een inflatiecorrectie toe op de tarieven voor internet, tv en vast bellen. Internet en tv vergelijker Breedbandwinkel meldt dat internet 1,00 euro duurder wordt per maand. Voor tv en vast bellen geldt elk een prijsverhoging van 0,50 euro per maand. De prijsverhoging geldt voor alle ruim 3 miljoen Ziggo klanten.

Internetvergelijker Breedbandwinkel bestaat deze maand 21 jaar en trakteert: klanten ontvangen tot en met 31 oktober minimaal 21,00 euro cashback bij iedere bestelling, een Pathé Thuis film cadeau en kans op één van de zes mooie prijzen.

Relentlessly entertaining, life-affirming stuff, crackling with muscular energy.

James refines his sound on this Blue Note debut, with impressive results.

A pale live release, recommended for the hardcore only.

A good introduction, albeit a wandering one.

Ellington et al would be proud of Carrington’s 21st century reinterpretations.

Hunter’s latest cuts recall the golden ages of soul and blues.

A frequently beautiful second LP from the LA producer.

Deliciously mellow instrumentals from the Californian producer and DJ.

A quality, box-checking soundtrack featuring some of the pair’s best work to date.

The UK producer’s 10th studio album stamps his authority over his peers.

Thought-provoking fare from the Punjabi music legend.

No great departure for the B21 graduate, but an album with plenty of variety.

A well-crafted collection of songs that proves two heads can be better than one.

The composer pair’s love songs well complement the frothy rom-com in question.

A plain and forgettable affair that falls short of expectations.

A crowd pleaser featuring the cream of the industry’s playback singers.

An audacious crowd pleaser full of masala hits.

Cameron Crowe’s dreams come true as he co-writes with the Icelander on this soundtrack.

This new recording, with a new cast, packs a hefty wallop.

Essential listening for anyone fond of trouser-ruining horror scores.

The LA singer’s voice remains an undeniably rich and powerful instrument.

“We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails,” Dolly Parton once said. In the face of uncertainty and disruption, all we can do is adapt. This rings especially true for the logistics industry, which has been subject to major disruption over the last five years. Here, Dave Walsha, sales and marketing director at drive system supplier EMS, explores how robotics could streamline internal logistics operations.

A surprising number of swing voters may be listening to Howard Stern on their way to church.

In the newly crowded nexus of film and politics, instead of trying to compete with summer movies, politicians seem to be starring in them.

The summer of Black Lives Matter protests responding to the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Rayshard Brooks, among others, has led to stunning commitments from major banks and corporations to commit to social justice and promoting practices to recruit, hire and retain underrepresented populations, including black Americans, Latinx and female colleagues.  American Express just announced its pledge to invest $1 Billion to advance racial and gender equity.  JP Morgan Chase in October announced a $30 Billion commitment to advance racial equity.  Similarly, Citi and Bank of America have each pledged $1 Billion to promote economic mobility among communities of color.  Goldman Sachs, famously referred to as a vampire squid during the mortgage crisis in 2008, has announced its "Launch With Goldman Sachs" program "to increase capital and facilitate connections for women, Black, Latinx and other diverse entrepreneurs and investors."  These commitments represent huge infusions of capital into causes that these major corporations have just recently found religion upon.  Numerous corporations have made recent pledges to financially support social justice and economic equality including Google, Disney, Facebook, Amazon,  Cisco, DoorDash, Etsy, Home Depot, Intel, TikTok, Lego, Nike, Proctor & Gamble, Fashion Nova, WeWork, and YouTube, among so many others.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase stated in announcing its $30 billion-over-five-year commitment, that “[s]ystemic racism is a tragic part of America’s history. . . . We can do more and do better to break down systems that have propagated racism and widespread economic inequality, especially for Black and Latinx people. It’s long past time that society addresses racial inequities in a more tangible, meaningful way.”

For those long-time followers of the Corporate Justice Blog, these corporate pronouncements may seem ironic or perhaps will be received with trepidation or doubt.  Profit maximization has for years furiously driven corporate leadership to dizzying examples of fraud, corruption, and malfeasance as recorded on these blog pages for years.  Still, these Billion dollar commitments respond to a summer of true discontent and protest over inequality and the value of black lives, and if these corporations are to be taken seriously, these capital infusions could come as true gamechangers.  Will these corporations truly put their money where their commitments are?  And how do we hold these companies accountable to their commitments to advancing racial equality and economic mobility for those communities previously shut out?  

photo: Jamie Dimon, Wikimedia Commons

hat tip: Jessica Smith, 3L, Arkansas Little Rock Bowen School of Law

Several years ago, my friend, colleague and mentor, andre cummings, and I created and defined what we call "Corporate Justice."  "At its core, Corporate Justice refers to a responsibility, even a moral obligation, which businesses and corporations have to engage fairly, civilly and responsibly in the world and community that they do business and from which they derive profits. More than that, the concept of Corporate Justice also focuses on the roles that shareholders, policy makers, other stakeholders and the community at large have in fostering a more just and responsible business community."  Our conversation led to the creation of a course, a book, several presentations, and this blog.  In conceptualizing "Corporate Justice," our primary focus was on large corporations and their impact on the world around us.  That perspective influenced much of the work we have completed on the topic as well as the way that we conceptualized its impact.  However, after a recent community event I facilitated here in Miami, Florida, I was presented with a thought provoking question “what does corporate justice mean for small businesses?”  I had never considered this question and realized that I had made a substantial oversight in failing to do so.  Small business are the life line of many communities and they meet the immediate needs of the people in areas in which they operate.  Given that reality, I have begun to critically think about what Corporate Justice at the “micro” level means.  Specifically, do small businesses have the same obligations that we might expect from large corporations?  Over the next few days I plan to think more about this question and welcome your input and insight.  Next week, I will provide you with my initial response.  I look forward to reading about your insights on the issue.  

 

Stellantis, the automobile conglomerate that owns Jeep, formed recently from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot, defended its use of the Cherokee name claiming "our vehicle names have been carefully chosen and nurtured over the years to honor and celebrate Native American people for their nobility, prowess and pride."  This argument echoes the same arguments used for decades by Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington Football Team (formerly the Redskins) and the owners of the Cleveland Indians (who have also recently agreed to change the team name after phasing out the offensive Chief Wahoo logo a few years ago).  For Stellantis, the Grand Cherokee is one of Jeep's most popular models selling more than 200,000 units in 2020.

Suzan Shown Harjo, long an activist fighting against cultural misappropriation and offensive use of American Indian imagery, is not buying the "honor" argument.  "Of course it's not an honor" states Harjo, "That’s the assumption that was made by so many people about our land, water, gold, silver, copper — name a mineral. Now it’s about our imagery, our names and our cultural icons . . . When does this thievery stop?"  

The Cherokee Nation describes itself as a sovereign tribal government. "Upon settling in Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) after the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee people established a new government in what is now the city of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. A constitution was adopted on September 6, 1839, 68 years prior to Oklahoma’s statehood.  Today, the Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe in the United States with more than 380,000 tribal citizens worldwide. More than 141,000 Cherokee Nation citizens reside within the tribe’s reservation boundaries in northeastern Oklahoma. . . . The Cherokee Nation is committed to protecting our inherent sovereignty, preserving and promoting Cherokee culture, language and values, and improving the quality of life for the next seven generations of Cherokee Nation citizens."

Whether Jeep drops the moniker will likely depend on whether the same kind of financial pressure is brought against Jeep and Stellantis similar to what was brought to bear on Daniel Snyder and the Washington Football Team and corporate entities like Aunt Jemima, Land-O-Lakes and Uncle Ben's.  Each of these entities have been persuaded to change/drop racist depictions and monikers because of the economic pressure of threatened boycotts and sponsorship withdrawals, particularly in light of the 2020 summer of protests following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

hat tip: Savannah Johnston, Arkansas Little Rock Bowen School of Law, 3L

images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Today, the United States Supreme Court obliterated the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3, in Trump v. Anderson. The language of this section appears simple enough:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Court held that: "the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3." More specifically, the Court held that only Congress may enforce the disqualification of section 3 and that states could only enforce the provision against state candidates for office and state officeholders. Otherwise the nation would face a risk of a patchwork of state outcomes. This, despite the fact that in 1868, shortly after the provision became law, the Governor of the State of Georgia disqualified a federal candidate for office. (See fn 3).

Further, if "only" Congress holds power to enforce section 3 then why did the drafters of the Amendment just insert an "only" in the section granting Congress power. The Court needs that "only" and it simply does not exist. Rather than apply the plain meaning the Court instead pretends there is an only when there is no such word. Section 5 plainly states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Court did violence to the statute to protect Donald Trump.

Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative jurist explains:

The Supreme Court did leave one last avenue for accountability under law that the Biden Administration or DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith could use to disqualify Trump. 18 U.S.C. section 2383 provides:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The Court cited this section with approval. It would provide a uniform federal solution. And, it arises from an exercise of Congressional power. Even this Court (which works overtime to protect Trump) would uphold such an action. 

Why did Jack Smith (or Attorney General Merrick Garland before him) fail to use this section against the obvious insurrectionist Donald Trump? Or, alternatively, why not bring such an action tomorrow morning? Colorado would provide a form indictment and a trial map, complete with comprehensive evidence?

So, the Court today shifted the spotlight to DOJ with today's SCOTUS ruling. Agreement or disagreement with the Court's opinion no longer matters. Many excellent arguments support the use of section 3 in precisely the manner of Colorado. All moot.

Why did DOJ fail (and continue to fail) to seek disqualification through a criminal action a criminal action? 

The most disturbing and vivid reality of all of this: law failed to hold Trump to account as an oath breaking insurrectionist despite many available pathways.

 

 

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.

Donald Trump's longest serving and hand-picked Chief of Staff, Four Star Marine General John Kelley, recently confirmed that Trump called those serving in the military "suckers" and those making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation and our freedom "losers." These comments now confirmed through numerous sources prove Trump's unfitness for office. Some background:

Step aside Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee, the world could potentially have a new martial arts movie star and he is from the north shore.

JOSHUA Atkinson definitely has his running shoes on and he pretty much only stops to pick up some of the numerous awards he’s bagged this past year.

HE jumped off a building on the end of a sling, clambered up a 10m-high zip line in high winds, pounded up and down sand dunes, capsized in a canoe — NRL Rookie David Andjelic loved it.

MARBAM Wichmann has earned selection in the NSW under-12 rugby league team for a mini Origin-style clash against Queensland.

THE GWS Giants AFL club have one of the most multicultural fan bases in Australia — and they want you to join their honour guard in the AFL’s multicultural round.