Free Essay

Cromwell

In:

Submitted By finimits
Words 4876
Pages 20
Analysis of Antitrust Concerns Regarding XM/Sirius Merger

This memorandum sets forth an initial analysis of the competitive effects of the proposed
XM/Sirius transaction and identifies consequences of the merger that appear likely to substantially lessen competition in violation of antitrust law. This analysis is based on publiclyavailable sources regarding the parties, the transaction, and the industry in general. We will continue to refine our analysis as additional facts become available and arguments are developed.
I.

Introduction

The proposed merger of XM and Sirius will combine the only two providers of satellite digital audio radio service (“satellite DARS”). The parties claim that DOJ should not be concerned about this merger to monopoly, because there are other suppliers in the purported market for audio entertainment. Those claims will be evaluated by DOJ pursuant to the rigorous analytical framework set forth in the agencies’ Merger Guidelines1 and decades of federal court decisions interpreting Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Under that framework, there can be no doubt that the effect of the proposed transaction “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly” in any relevant line of business.2
The parties further suggest that regulators should not be worried about their merger to monopoly because they will submit to price regulation that temporarily locks in the current rates to ensure that satellite DARS customers do not pay more after the merger than they did before.
This argument completely disregards the very reason the antitrust laws apply to mergers – to ensure that markets are structured in a way to encourage competition. The very notion that a competitive market structure, which so far has produced a given degree of price competition between the parties, should be replaced by a monopoly provider subject to price regulation is antithetical to the purpose and foundation of the antitrust laws.
Finally, the parties argue that their merger to monopoly should be allowed to proceed because they will achieve efficiencies and cost savings from the transaction. Although in some cases procompetitive efficiencies achieved by a merger that are not achievable through any less anticompetitive arrangement may ameliorate anticompetitive effects that result from a transaction, there exists no set of efficiencies that could offset the very significant competitive

1

U.S. Department of Justice/FTC Joint Horizontal Merger Guidelines (April 2, 1992, revised April 8,
1997) (“Merger Guidelines”).

2

15 U.S.C. § 18 (emphasis added). Note that unlike the standard applicable to review by the Federal
Communications Commission, the antitrust laws do not require that the parties demonstrate that the transaction is in the public interest, but rather that it does not substantially lessen competition in any relevant market.

harm that will result from this merger. For these reasons, the DOJ should move to block XM and
Sirius from combining to form a monopoly provider of satellite DARS in the United States.
II.

Market Definition

Under the Merger Guidelines approach, the first step in an antitrust analysis of the proposed transaction is to define the relevant product and geographic market(s) involved. This includes identification of the existing and potential participants in that market, and an assessment of the proposed transaction’s impact on concentration within the relevant market.
A.

Market to Provide Satellite DARS

The logical starting place for defining the relevant market is satellite DARS, as provided by both XM and Sirius. The question then is whether the relevant market, as properly defined by the antitrust laws, is broader. The parties argue that the relevant market is much broader, and also includes alternative, not-in-kind audio delivery services such as terrestrial radio, MP3 players, mobile wireless phones and other technologies. Industry commentators, taking this cue, have speculated that such a broad market for audio content delivery services could include
“iPods, Internet radio, HD radio,”3 “wireless music and videos,”4 and “standard radio . . . and cellphones.”5 XM and Sirius would like the regulators to ignore the fact that, from its inception in
1997, satellite DARS was considered a unique and separate market from terrestrial radio
(AM/FM) – a complement, not a substitute. Consequently, from the beginning the FCC rejected a satellite radio monopoly in favor of competition between two providers. In addition, the parties have failed to explain why today’s popular pre-recorded media playback devices (MP3 and iPods) are meaningfully different from the pre-recorded media playback devices in use in
1997 (CD players and cassette recorders). These devices were not then considered substitutes for satellite radio. Also, the parties completely have ignored the fact that Internet radio is generally unavailable in automobiles both today and in the foreseeable future. Internet radio is offered via Internet servers to an entirely different audience than Sirius and XM serve with their constellations of orbiting satellites. Although Sirius and XM offer their programming to subscribers via the Internet, and satellite DARS receivers can be used in the home, this does not make Internet radio a viable substitute for the vast majority of satellite DARS consumers who use the service while they are mobile.
Moreover, the FCC unanimously agreed in its most recent report on satellite competition that satellite DARS is defined “to consist of satellite audio programming provided to persons
3

Richard Siklos and Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Satellite Radio in Plan to Merge,” New York Times
(February 20, 2007).

4

Chris Nolter, “Satellite Radio Groups Agree Merger,” Daily Deal (February 20, 2007).

5

Charles Babington and Thomas Heath, “Satellite Radio Firms Plan to Merge: XM, Sirius Face Antitrust
Hurdles,” Washington Post (February 20, 2007).

2

within the United States for a fee.”6 The FCC’s assessment of competition in satellite DARS was based on an examination of the relevant market utilizing the Merger Guidelines. The FCC stated, “[a]lthough this Report is not an analysis of a proposed merger, the Merger Guidelines provide useful principles for the analysis of competition in satellite communications markets.”7
It is noteworthy that the FCC specifically excluded from the report satellite services that it deemed are part of broader industries, such as satellite-based MVPD providers (DBS), which are part of the broader video industry, and mobile satellite service (MSS) providers, such as Iridium and Globalstar, which are part of the CMRS industry.8
Satellite DARS was considered as a separate market in the report, and its pre-merger
(duopoly) concentration is summarized in the following table:
MARKET CONCENTRATION IN SDARS9
2002

2003

2004

2005

XM Market Share
(Revenue)

96.1%

87.7%

78.5%

69.7%

Sirius Market
Share (Revenue)

3.8%

12.3%

21.5%

30.3%

HHI (Revenue)

9,262

7,843

6,627

5,779

XM (Subscribers)

92.1%

83.9%

73.6%

64.1%

Sirius
(Subscribers)

7.9%

16.1%

26.1%

35.9%

HHI (Subscribers)

8,538

7,298

6,138

5,400

While the degree of concentration has decreased over the past four years due to growth in the number of Sirius subscribers, satellite DARS today is a highly concentrated market, both in terms of revenue and subscribers.
Under the Merger Guidelines analysis, the broader market definition urged by the parties fails because most consumers would not substitute other services for satellite DARS in the event
6

Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Domestic and
International Satellite Communications Services, First Report, at ¶ 55 (March 26, 2007) (“Satellite
Competition Report”).

7

Satellite Competition Report at ¶ 29.

8

Satellite Competition Report at ¶ 26.

9

Satellite Competition Report at Table 4.

3

the price of satellite DARS were to increase by a “small but significant and nontransitory” amount – such as 5 to 10 percent.10 Although consumers may rely on a variety of complementary forms of receiving audio content, it is unlikely that satellite DARS customers would cancel their subscriptions and switch to other sources of audio entertainment if such a price increase were to happen. Nor have the parties appeared to offer support for the proposition that these alternative formats have a disciplining effect on the ability of XM/Sirius to raise prices or diminish the quality of their services.
1.

Satellite DARS Pricing Is Unconstrained

XM and Sirius are the primary – if not only – competitive restraint on each other’s prices.
In fact, Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin is on record suggesting that satellite DARS pricing is undisciplined by alternative modes of audio content delivery. On December 6, 2006, in remarks to the Credit Suisse Media and Telecom Week, Karmazin remarked:
We also believe that there is price elasticity in our subscription price. Too many of you raised your hands when you said you were satisfied. Thank you for that. That's what tells me that maybe if in fact we went from $0.43 a day to something higher than that, that would be an opportunity for us to drive ARPU.11
Karmazin elaborated further on January 10, 2007, at Citigroup’s 17th Annual
Entertainment Media & Telecommunications Conference, when asked whether Sirius would consider higher pricing in 2007:
Yeah. I mean we’re open. One of the things about the company is that people are satisfied with the product, would recommend it to a friend. We have a price point of $12.95. We believe that there is elasticity in our price point. We think we offer great value for under fifty cents a day. Our churn rate reflects the fact that consumers are happy with it. We see what’s happening in Canada, where we have a significant lead in satellite radio and we are priced at a higher price point. So, we have no announcement to make on anything regarding any price increases, but we think that that’s an option that the company has, and it’s a good option for us.12 10

Merger Guidelines at ¶¶1.11-1.12.

11

Mel Karmazin, CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio, Keynote Address at the Credit Suisse Media & Telecom
Week: Sirius Satellite Radio (December 6, 2006) (transcript available from Voxant FD (FAIR
DISCLOSURE WIRE).

12

Mel Karmazin, CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio, Citigroup 17th Annual Media & Telecommunications
Conf. (January 10, 2007) (webcast available at http://investor.sirius.com/medialist.cfm, last visited Mar.
9, 2007).

4

Notwithstanding the fact that Sirius does not feel constrained by alternative technologies in setting prices, the prices charged by the two satellite DARS providers have been amazingly consistent. Since 2005, both providers have charged $12.95 for their basic services. By contrast, alternative technologies are priced very differently. Most notably, terrestrial radio is free. The economics of other formats, like iPods and cell phones, are very different from satellite DARS.
For example, unlike satellite DARS, iPods entail incremental charges for individual content.
Although mobile phones can deliver audio content, there is no evidence that the monthly charge for such usage is anywhere near as low as $12.95 per month, or that satellite DARS providers consider those charges in determining how to price their services. In sum, these types of steep price differences among services support the inference that satellite services do not compete in the same product market.13
2.

Terrestrial Radio Is Not in the Relevant Market

The parties have attempted to make much out of the notion that terrestrial radio is a primary source of competition for satellite DARS. However, this ignores the fundamental characteristics of the two services. Satellite DARS is marketed as a “premium” service, with better audio quality, greater programming variety, and little (or no) commercial interruption. For example, according to Sirius:
How is your programming different from regular radio?
The biggest difference is that SIRIUS has 100% commercial-free music channels. What this means for you is that we offer you music the way it should be and the way the artist intended it: without a single commercial interruption. Our music programming also has a breadth and depth of programming basically unavailable on regular radio. We play the songs that you know and love, and many songs that we know you'll love when you hear them for the first time.
We also have loads of original programming. We host hundreds of exclusive live interviews and performances you won't hear anywhere else and produce many interesting and engaging live talk shows in our national broadcast studios.14
13

See, e.g., F.T.C. v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 1984) (300 percent price difference between home-recorded and pre-recorded tapes supports government assertion that the two should not be included in same relevant product market).

14

Sirius Website, FAQs, About Sirius, http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=Page&cid=1018 209032792, last visited March 9, 2007.

5

Moreover, the nature of satellite DARS makes it available on a consistent basis to mobile subscribers moving through multiple local broadcast areas (such as truckers) or out of reach of local broadcast areas (such as marine craft). These are the precise reasons that satellite DARS subscribers choose to pay a subscription fee to access service that they prefer to free terrestrial radio. Although there is evidence that overall demand for terrestrial radio has declined coincident with the increase in satellite DARS subscribers, that does not mean that the two services are in the same relevant antitrust market. This erosion of demand is a one-way street:
The relevant issue here is whether satellite DARS subscribers consider terrestrial radio to be reasonably interchangeable with satellite DARS, and not whether terrestrial radio listeners consider satellite DARS to be reasonably interchangeable with terrestrial radio. There is no reason to expect that the cross-price elasticities are symmetric. The parties have not pointed to any evidence suggesting that if satellite DARS prices were to increase (or quality of service or level of output decrease), consumers would readily cancel their subscriptions and rely on listening to broadcast radio full time. Indeed, this argument is belied by the fact that the parties have suggested their willingness to agree to price caps as a condition of their deal. If terrestrial radio had a price disciplining effect on satellite DARS, such price regulation would not be necessary. Instead, satellite DARS and terrestrial radio are complementary services. As Sirius’s
Karmazin has explained, industry research indicates “that satellite radio subscribers are heavy listeners to radio in general, and spend even more time listening to AM/FM radio than they do satellite programming.”15
This conclusion is further supported by the regulatory analysis of a closely analogous proposed transaction: the DirectTV/Echostar merger. In that transaction, the FCC and DOJ defined the relevant market as “no broader than the entire MVPD (multichannel video programming distribution) market,” declining to include terrestrial broadcast TV services in the relevant market.16 The FCC left open the possibility that the product market in question “may well be narrower than that,” and noted that the administrative law judge hearing the case would need to decide whether the two satellite television companies competed (1) only with one another, (2) with each other and high-capacity cable providers, or (3) with each other and all cable providers.17 There is no evidence that the parties even attempted to argue that free, terrestrial local broadcast TV should be included in the relevant market.
15

Regarding the Digital Future of the United States: The Future of Radio, House Energy and Commerce
Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (March 7, 2007) (statement of Mel
Karmazin, CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio).

16

See, e.g., In the matter of applications of Echostar Commc’ns Corp. and Hughes Electronics Corp.,
FCC Hearing Designation Order, 17 FCCR 20559, ¶ 33,115 (October 9, 2002) (parenthetical added).

17

Id.

6

Further, there are certain categories of customers who do not have terrestrial radio available as a substitute for satellite DARS. These customers would be extremely unlikely to switch away from satellite DARS in response to a price increase.18 In particular, consumers of audio radio service who listen on marine craft far from terrestrial radio stations, who live in rural areas with little terrestrial radio service, or who travel in vehicles that frequently move between the broadcasting areas of terrestrial radio stations, are more susceptible to an anticompetitive price increase. A single, merged satellite DARS provider would be able to engage in price discrimination with respect to these consumers – charging more, say, for a receiver to be used on a boat or in a truck cabin than in a minivan. Under these circumstances, separate relevant product markets might be warranted for those groups of customers subject to price discrimination.19 Accordingly, evidence that terrestrial radio services lose overall minutes of demand to satellite DARS is not sufficient to show that satellite DARS subscribers view terrestrial radio services as a close substitute. Terrestrial radio should not, therefore, be included in the relevant product market.
3.

Other Sources of Delivering Audio Content Are Not in the Relevant
Market

It seems intuitively obvious that other forms of audio entertainment will also prove to be complementary to satellite DARS service. However, this is an empirical question, and little information currently seems to be available to evaluate the extent to which customers would switch to using these technologies if satellite DARS prices increased. For example, while it may be the case that usage of iPods in cars is increasing, a consumers’ choice to listen to an iPod or satellite DARS service depends on a complex weighting of the incremental content charges associated with an iPod versus the ongoing subscription fees of satellite DARS. The burden should be on the parties to come forward with empirical evidence demonstrating that such alternatives competitively restrain prices for satellite DARS service.
B.

Market to Purchase Content for Satellite DARS

In addition to competing with one another for subscribers, it seems evident that satellite
DARS providers compete to buy content for this unique format. The proposed merger may therefore have competitive effects in this upstream market for certain content. For example, recent high-profile deals with Howard Stern and Major League Baseball (MLB) illustrate the significant sums each provider is willing to pay in order to attract content compelling for its paid subscribers. 18

See Merger Guidelines at ¶¶1.1-1.2.

19

Id. at ¶¶1.0-1.2.

7

Although satellite DARS providers generally compete with many other outlets to acquire content, satellite DARS appears to be a unique format for the delivery of audio content. In that case, satellite DARS providers may be a unique group of buyers (or among a relatively small group of buyers) for certain types of content. Thus, DOJ should consider whether the proposed transaction will substantially lessen competition in a market for the purchase of content.
III.

The Proposed Transaction Will Substantially Harm Competition

In the market for satellite DARS, the combination of the only two providers of service will “substantially . . . lessen competition,” as prohibited by the Clayton Act, resulting in higher prices or lower quality of service or level of output .20 The proposed merger will reduce the number of competitors in the relevant market from two to one, producing a monopolist with a
100 percent share. In such cases, the detriment to competition is obvious, as the only effective constraint on either seller’s anticompetitive behavior is removed. Such transactions are almost never permitted because of the combined firm’s obvious ability to harm competition.21
The parties have suggested several theories as to why their merger to monopoly will not result in harm to competition. First, they suggest that alternative forms of delivering audio content will constrain their ability to act in an anticompetitive way. For the reasons discussed above with respect to market definition, those alternative technologies are not an effective constraint on the two satellite DARS providers today, and they certainly will not be an effective constraint for a future monopolist satellite DARS provider.
Second, it has been suggested that the FCC could allocate additional spectrum to permit entry by a new satellite DARS provider.22 However, such potential, even if possible, would not be sufficient to ameliorate the very certain anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction.
The Merger Guidelines require that, for such potential entry to be considered, it must be “timely, likely, and sufficient in its magnitude, character and scope to deter or counteract the competitive effects of the” proposed transaction.23 With respect to timeliness, DOJ will generally consider only entry “that can be achieved within two years from initial planning to significant market

20

15 U.S.C. § 18.

21

See, e.g., Merger Guidelines at ¶2.22 (noting that “[w]here the merging firms have a combined market share of at least thirty-five percent, merged firms may find it profitable to raise price and reduce joint output below the sum of their pre-merger outputs because the lost markups on the foregone sales may be outweighed by the resulting price increase on the merged base of sales”); FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d
708, 717 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (in the course of issuing an injunction against a proposed merger, court notes that “[a]s far as we can determine, no court has ever approved a merger to duopoly under similar circumstances”); FTC v. Staples, 970 F.Supp. 1066, 1081 (D.D.C. 1997) (enjoining merger that would have produced single office superstore in 15 localities and only two superstores in 27 others).

22

See, e.g., Steve Rosenbush, “New Conditions May Ease XM-Sirius Merger,” Business Week,
(February 28, 2007).

23

Merger Guidelines at ¶3.0.

8

impact.”24 This is extremely unlikely in the case of satellite DARS, as evidenced by the fact that it reportedly took XM and Sirius nearly four years from the grant of spectrum by the FCC to commercial availability, including the technically difficult step of launching broadcast satellites.25 Other entry barriers are extremely high, including capital costs, programming acquisition costs, and subscriber acquisition costs. For example, it is reported that a new satellite could cost more than $300 million.26 Therefore, the threat of such entry is not likely to constrain short-term price increases by the merged firm.27
IV.

Claimed Efficiencies Are Inadequate and Not Merger-Specific

The proposed transaction will not create pro-competitive efficiencies that are likely to offset the severe competitive harm that is certain to result. The merging parties have been touting certain cost saving and consumer benefits in an attempt to secure regulatory approval of the deal, such as: a “much stronger programming lineup,” a lower cost structure based on the elimination of overlapping facilities and personnel, and accelerated “development and commercial introduction of radios allowing consumers access to a full range of programming offered by XM and SIRIUS today.”28
It is true that, in transactions that may present some degree of competitive harm, the agencies will consider potential efficiencies to determine whether, on balance, the transaction can be considered procompetitive.29 However, even the greatest efficiencies are rarely (if ever) enough to justify a merger that threatens serious competitive harm. According to the Merger
Guidelines, “[e]fficiencies almost never justify a merger to monopoly or near-monopoly.”30
24

Merger Guidelines at ¶3.2.

25

Charles Babington and Thomas Heath, “Satellite Radio Firms Plan to Merge; XM, Sirius Face Antitrust
Hurdles,” Washington Post, February 20, 2007.

26

Forbes.com, “XM Could Launch XM-4 A Year Early” (June 9, 2005).

27

As a last-ditch strategy, the merger parties could assert the “failing firm” doctrine to argue that the merger is not likely to lead to anticompetitive unilateral effects because one or both parties were doing so poorly that they would exit the market except for the proposed merger. Merger Guidelines at ¶¶ 5.0-5.2.
However, given public statements from Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin that he is “optimistic” about the company’s future whether or not the merger takes place, this argument would be difficult to make. See
Maxwell Murphy, “Karmazin Talks Sirius-XM Pact on Stern Show,” Dow Jones News Service (February
26, 2007).

28

Sarah McBride, Dennis K. Berman and Amy Schatz, “Sirius and XM Agree to Merge, Despite
Hurdles,” Wall Street Journal (February 20, 2007); Charles Babington and Thomas Heath, “Satellite
Radio Firms To Merge; XM, Sirius Face Antitrust Hurdles,” Washington Post (February 20, 2007); Sirius and XM, Analyst Presentation (regarding proposed merger) (February 20, 2007).

29

Merger Guidelines at ¶4.0.

30

Id.

9

Accordingly, as a merger to monopoly among satellite DARS providers, there is no set of efficiencies that will make this transaction overall procompetitive.
Moreover, the parties’ claimed efficiencies are not of the type to be given much, if any, weight. The agencies should only consider efficiencies that are “merger-specific,” meaning they are “likely to be accomplished with the proposed merger and unlikely to be accomplished in the absence of either the proposed merger or another means having comparable anticompetitive effects.”31 For example, the parties claim that the merger will allow them to develop equipment that is compatible with both parties’ formats is not merger-specific; there is nothing preventing them from undertaking such a joint project today except for the fact that they compete to retain customers on the basis of sunk costs in equipment. In addition, some of the parties’ claimed efficiencies – such as “enhancing cash flow” – may inure to the benefit of shareholders but are not the type of consumer-enhancing benefits that are credited under the Merger Guidelines.
V.

There Is No Adequate Remedy

Finally, there is no possible remedy – short of blocking the transaction – that will restore the resulting harm to competition. Some industry analysts have already begun to speculate with respect to potential remedies, including price caps or other price regulation, or requiring the combined firm to offer wholesale satellite DARS service to resellers.32 However, as a matter of policy, DOJ disfavors “conduct” remedies, such as price regulation, that require ongoing oversight and regulatory involvement.33 Instead, “[s]tructural remedies are preferred to conduct remedies in merger cases because they are relatively clean and certain, and generally avoid costly government entanglement in the market.”34 The classic example of a structural remedy is to require the merging parties to divest an ongoing business entity capable of replacing competition lost in the merger.35 Where this is impossible, the DOJ may consider the divestiture of a smaller package of assets, but in such cases it “must be persuaded that these assets will create a viable entity that will restore competition.”36
In this case, there is no conceivable partial divestiture or other structural remedy that will restore competition in the market for satellite DARS. Both XM and Sirius provide service nationwide and this aspect of their service is critical to the nature of the product they sell, as well
31

Id.

32

Steve Rosenbush, “New Conditions May Ease XM-Sirius Merger,” BusinessWeek.com (February 28,
2007); David Lieberman, “XM, Sirius Quit Head-to-Head Competition,” USA Today (February 20,
2007).

33

See DOJ Antitrust Division Policy Guide to Merger Remedies, at 20 (Oct. 2004) (hereinafter “DOJ
Remedies Policy Guide”) (“[T]he use of conduct remedies standing alone to resolve a merger’s competitive concerns is rare . . . .”).

34

DOJ Remedies Policy Guide at 7.

35

DOJ Remedies Policy Guide at 9-13.

36

DOJ Remedies Policy Guide at 13.

10

as their leverage in purchasing content. Accordingly, divestiture limited to certain geographic areas would not be sufficient. Further, requiring the merged firm to sell wholesale service is not an effective remedy for the loss of a facilities-based independent provider.
The only “remedy” suggested by the parties for their anticompetitive merger is that they would agree to maintain today’s price levels for a certain period of time.37 However, such conduct based remedies “generally are not favored in merger cases because they tend to entangle the Division and the courts in the operation of a market on an ongoing basis and impose direct, frequently substantial, costs upon the government and public that structural remedies can avoid.”38 Moreover, to the extent that satellite DARS prices might fall below $12.95 per month in the absence of the merger, such regulation would be unequivocally welfare-reducing. For these reasons, price regulation is disfavored.39
VI.

Conclusion

The proposed merger between XM and Sirius will eliminate the only effective competition among the two providers of satellite DARS and is clearly anticompetitive. The growth of satellite DARS over the past five years, and the pricing of those services, illustrates that the parties’ offerings are not price constrained by other forms of audio content delivery.
Instead, the only restraint on the ability of either firm to charge supra-competitive prices, or offer less-than-competitive quality of service or output, is the very existence of the other firm as its only competitor.
The proposed merger would replace this duopoly market structure, set up specifically by the FCC to ensure at least some level of price and service competition, with a monopolist that is unrestrained in its ability to harm competition. There simply is no “fix” that will restore the competitive structure of this marketplace.

37

See, e.g., Mel Karmazin, Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Task Force
Regarding "Competition and the Future of Digital Music" (February 28, 2007).

38

DOJ Remedies Policy Guide at 18.

39

See, e.g., DOJ Remedies Policy Guide at 8.

11

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Oliver Cromwell

...Oliver Cromwell was a strict Puritan, and played really important roles, not only in the civil war, but even in the government. He came from a gentry’s family, and when he was young, after having a good education at Cambridge, toke part of the Short and the long parliaments. Even if being a puritan, Cromwell supported the idea of militarism. In fact, during the first Civil War, having a strong commanding voice, and a huge military ability, Cromwell was authorized by the parliament to start his military career by razing a regiment to help the roundheads to fight the royal forces. The Ironsides, Cromwell’s own regiment, actually distinguished at the battle of Marston Moor and in many other minor engagements. In 1644 he was appointed second to Sir Thomas Fairfax, and was also authorized by Parliament to reorganize a new army which became a “New Model Army” in which Cromwell spread his puritan’s ideas. In fact he said to his soldiers: “I think that who prays best will fight best. Anyways, his new army had a great success by defeating the king in the First Civil War and the Scottish and Irish royalists in the second one. After taking over Ireland and Scotland, Cromwell, initiated a policy of systematic dispossession of the conquered lands by giving them to new puritan owners. In 1650 he also invaded Schootland and defeated all the royalist forces at Dunbar. When the second civil war ended, Cromwell realized that he had a lot of power. He was in fact controlling the army that controlled...

Words: 507 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Richard Cromwell

... 2012 Richard Cromwell Have you ever wished that you came from a royal family? Well lucky for Richard Cromwell, his father was a very wealthy man. He was Lord Protector from 25 December 1653 to 3 September 1658 (“Collins, Jacquelin” Dictionary 380). After his father passed away, Richard took his role of Protector. He took office in 1658 immediately after the death of his father, and lasted in office all the way to 25 May 1659 (“Cromwell Richard”Encyclopaedia Britannica). This shows what type of leader he was. Richard had mostly ineffective qualities such as being unable to protect the parliament, lack of experience, and inability to use money wisely. Oliver Cromwell for the most part, was a good leader. He did not like having the Parliament in charge of England. He knew the Parliament was treating the Army poorly, so when he took office, the first thing he did was take the Army’s side. He really pushed the execution of Charles I (“Collins, Jacquelin” Dictionary 380). For a while everyone loved Oliver but by the end of his term, he became a much hated man. The citizens became tired of having such strict rules. Why did he feel he needed to be so strict on the citizens? After his death, his body was exhumed and his head was placed on a pole above the West Minister Hall (“Collins, Jacquelin” Dictionary 381). Richard Cromwell took his father’s place as Lord Protector of the Common Wealth. Richard was born on 4 October, 1626. His parents were Oliver Cromwell and Elizabeth Bourchier...

Words: 882 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Oliver Cromwell Dbq

...Oliver Cromwell was one of the leaders of the Puritan side of Parliament during the English Civil War from 1642 to 1646, he had some questionable actions which he would generally justify with religion. When the King of England’s forces were defeated by Cromwell’s army at Naseby in 1645 he would say that this victory was entirely the work of God and only God; he would also justify the massacre of Catholic forces in Ireland by saying “this is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches-”. Later on, when King Charles escaped from capture to get help from the Scots, Cromwell would eventually capture him again after he won the second phase(1648) of the civil war. Then he would execute the king, not in the name of God, but for treason...

Words: 922 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Thomas Cromwell

...Thomas Cromwell was born in southwest London 1485. He had a modest upbringing and left the capital for Europe when he was a teenager. Initially fighting as a soldier in the French army he somehow acquired a broad education including some knowledge of business and law. Cromwell was the second of the great ministers to Henry VIII. He became legal secretary for Cardinal Wolsey who was in service to Henry VIII. Wolsey fell out but Cromwell survived, becoming a member of parliament. In 1523, Cromwell became a member of parliament, where he greatly extended the power of the house. During this time, he also started to dissolve monasteries to help build a college and school for Wolsey. Cromwell is thought to have been responsible for drafting the Supplication of the Commons against the Ordinaries in 1532. This parliamentary petition resurrected the protests against church courts originally made in 1529 in the attack on Wolsey; it was used to secure the submission of the clergy, which finally subjected canon law to secular review. Cromwell took charge of the drafting of the Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome (1533) and the Act of Supremacy (1534). Cromwell persuaded Henry to agree to marry Anne of Cleves, a German princess, in hope to secure support against the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor, and strengthen the bonds of Protestantism. The marriage failed Unlike Wolsey and his predecessors, Cromwell was never Lord Chancellor; he can be regarded as the first chief minister of a new type, a...

Words: 286 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Oliver Cromwell: First Lord Protector of the Commonwealth

...Oliver Cromwell: First Lord Protector of the Commonwealth Oliver Cromwell, a well-educated, strict Puritan, and eventual temporary ruler of Great Britain, was born by his parents Elizabeth and Robert Cromwell in 1599. Born of a growing group of Puritans from Huntingdon, Cromwell was born into a time in which his gentry began to seek and demand large changes from the Church of England. His early education came from that of Doctor Thomas Beard, a family friend and very knowledgeable Puritan clergyman. At age 18, he left Huntington to attend law school in London, at Sydney Sussex College. It was only a year later, his father had passed away and Cromwell had abandoned his studies in London to return home where he had to take responsibility for his family and its’ estate. By 1620, Oliver married the daughter of a London merchant, Elizabeth Bourchier and eventually led to a family of nine children that still resided in his hometown of Huntington. Eight years later, he was elected as the representative of Huntington to the Parliament, sponsored by the Montagu family. However, just one year later, Parliament was dissolved by King Charles I, who thought the criticisms made by the members of Parliament were a threat his role as king. This resulted in Cromwell Prior to an epiphany induced by illness and depression in the late 1620’s, Oliver had never been particularly been devoted the Puritan way of life. However, after these visions, his faith had forever renewed, changed, and focused...

Words: 635 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

How Did Oliver Cromwell Lose The English Civil War

...Oliver Cromwell, a devout and somewhat fanatical Puritan, played a key role in securing the Parliament’s success in the English Civil War against the king, Charles I. Through his amateur yet skillful military tactics, he gained the respect of not only his soldiers but commoners as well. Combining this with his aged experience in the Parliament before the war, Oliver Cromwell was an effective leader of England during the 17th century. In the span of his reign, Cromwell created and dissolved many forms of government, from the Rump Parliament to the Instrument of Government. Oliver Cromwell’s forceful religious views combined with his political and military ingenuity proved to be essential in the creation of a less authoritative monarchial rule in England. Religion in the English Civil War played a pivotal role of generating motivation for Cromwell to win, which ultimately also created the weaker English monarchial government. Cromwell’s Puritan belief of providence—the idea that God controls all world...

Words: 903 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Kwero-Gkj

...the people of England had never experienced. This left many people frightened due to the extreme change, however, some embraced their freedom and began doing in what they believed in, such as forming new religious groups/cults, something they had been unable to do in the past. Many historians believe that this period was very important in British history as for the first time a monarchy was not in charge and a ‘revolution’ had taken place. In this essay I will explain why Britain underwent a revolution. Firstly, the most important change was the absence of the monarchy. After Charles I’s execution, there was no monarchy and Cromwell and the army took control over England. Also, the Rump parliament had been dismissed when Cromwell had enough of their control. This left poor stability in England, as without a leader, people didn’t know who to listen to. Cromwell became Lord Protector and didn’t rule like a usual monarch. Firstly, he rejected the crown as he didn’t believe in monarchies, Jews (which had been expelled in the 1200’s) were allowed back into England and finally, although a strict Puritan, he was tolerant to many new groups and the beliefs of others e.g. the Quakers. This showed how much Britain itself had changed, people believed in what they wanted and ordinary people felt free united republic, showing there was no real revolution as it ended so quickly. Also, there was still persecution and hatred towards different beliefs. The Diggers, who believed that all land was...

Words: 348 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

The World Turned Upside Down

...“The World Turned Upside Down” by Christopher Hill reveals the unsung heroes during the English Revolution and their radical thinking that did not seem so radical after all. These ideas that Hill mentions throughout his book are radical ideas of the lower class groups such as; The Ranters, Levellers, Quakers, and Diggers. This Marxist Historian presents the “lunacy” of these groups during the 17th century. During this time those groups were referred to as lunatics, but may have well been saner than the society which rejected them, as Hill says, “If we dismiss such ideas because they seem irrational to us, we may be depriving ourselves of valuable insights into society.” (pg ___) Hill is interested in such radical thinking not only because they influence societies, but because they reveal the societies which gave rise to them. He tries to acknowledge to the reader not to be ignorant of what the common people thought. Hill discovers religious movements in England abundant with the ideas and themes that would eventually give birth to secular radical ideologies like materialism, secularism, and communism. He also is far more empathetic and understanding to those revolutionaries who introduced economic ideas of national communism. If you do not have the slightest interest in history this book is not for you. This book is not something a beginner reader would read, your average reader would struggle with his extensive vocabulary and lack of prior knowledge of the English Civil wars...

Words: 1058 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Did a Revolution Happen During the Mid-17th Century?

...The English Revolution was a period of armed conflict and political turmoil between 1642 and 1660. This included the execution of the Charles 1st, the rise of the Commonwealth followed by the Protectorate under Cromwell and then the eventual restoration of the Monarchy. Richardson is correct to state that the events that occurred were “inherently controversial… momentous and far reaching” which are still debated today. This debate rages on whether these events can constitute a Revolution. It is dependent on what definition of the word Revolution is enacted. Historians such as Jeff Goodwin provide interpretations of what it means to have a Revolution, which shall be further explored, however what ultimately accounts is how the events and interpretations of the time fit into these interpretations. Ultimately there are two ways to look at Revolution, firstly there is the struggle or initial violent uprisings of the populous against the established state. The other way of looking at a revolution is to also examine the more long term changes or effects in the mind-set of the contemporise. In other words the changes in the way men think. Richardson pushes the idea of the initial struggle constituting a Revolution whereas others such as Hill believe that the long-term effects are more significant. Both arguments both valid against differing definitions of Revolution. Similarities between the French and English Revolutions will also provide a stark comparison of the English situation...

Words: 3214 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

You Are Required to Write an Individual Report (Maximum 1500 Words) Which Compares and Contrasts Two Online Retailers Namely (Ebuyer vs Pc World) with Regard to the Following Criteria:

...“Monarchy returned mot because of its own strengths but because of the weaknesses of the regimes it replaced.” Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1658 to 1660 Following the death of Oliver Cromwell England needed a ruler that could gain support of the army, who, since the execution of Charles I in 1649 had been the most influential groups in the country. The successor of Oliver was his son, Richard who seemingly did not possess the characteristics of his late father. The key to control of the country and the regimes following those of Oliver lay in whether a leader had the military prowess similar to that of Oliver. Furthermore the issue of whether monarchy came to power as a result of its own powers or due to the failures of various regimes that preceded it is only answered by taking into consideration the weaknesses of the regimes and the strengths of the monarchy. Following the death of Oliver Cromwell, Richard Cromwell became Lord Protector under the terms of the Humble Petition and Advice. Unlike his father Richard found it difficult to keep a balance with the remands of the army, religious radicals and traditionalists. Due to the amount of power held by the army, the power of the Protector was dependent upon the army. The lower ranks of the army resented the fact that Richard was not a soldier; on the other hand the higher ranks supported such a leader mainly because they could easily manipulate him and use him to voice their views. It is...

Words: 1288 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

The Execution of Charles I

...The Execution of Charles I Illegal, that (in my opinion) would be the best way to describe the process leading to Charles’ execution. Then again aren’t some of the best political movements illegal to begin with? There is the argument, should they have executed the King only to have a new king in the future, unlike France when the King was overthrown that was the end of royalty. Instead they took most of the monarch’s rights and put a new king on the throne (England seems to follow some sort of middle way in the end). The first procedure of the execution was a trial. There were 286 Members of Parliament, out of those 286, 240 thought Charles should have been given another chance. When Parliament was to meet for discussion those 240 were stopped by Oliver Cromwell’s troupes from entering Parliament. This left 46 Members of Parliament to decide what to do with Charles and by 26 to 20 votes, it was decided that Charles should be put on trial. Then 135 top judges and lawyers were chosen to try him. Due to the fact that 260 out of the 286 Members of Parliament disagreed with the trial this was the first ‘illegal’ part of the trial. On Saturday 20 January, 1649 Charles was brought to court by armed soldiers. This was the first day of the trial, yet only 67 out of the 135 appointed judges turned up. Charles was charged as being a tyrant, traitor and murderer. Charles was also charged for all the murder, burning, raping, damage and desolation caused during the wars against Parliament...

Words: 1127 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Fgeaf

...John Milton (1608-74) Biographical notes Born into a strict Protestant family in London, Milton received an excellent education which he completed at Cambridge University. After Cambridge he dismissed a career in the Church, shocked by the corruption he saw there, and decided to concentrate on writing and studying the classics. In 1638 he travelled to France and Italy to further enhance his education and culture but returned to England after just over a year when he heard of the outbreak of the Civil War. Milton was a passionate Puritan and saw in Oliver Cromwell, leader of the Parliamentarians, not only a figure intent on suppressing Catholicism once and for all, but also one who would challenge the monarchy's belief in its divine right to rule. He was so supportive of Cromwell's cause that he gladly took office for him as Secretary for Foreign Tongues for the Commonwealth after the Parliamentarian victory. Following the Restoration, however, having been publicly on the side of the Parliamentarians during the war, he was in danger of prosecution. He was in fact imprisoned for a short period but was eventually granted a full pardon. By this time his eyesight had already begun to fail him and by 1652 he became completely blind and could continue writing only with the help of secretaries. This makes the completion of his greatest works, Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, in these later years, even more extraordinary. In his final years he was cared for by his daughters...

Words: 953 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

17th Century

...as James I. the relationship between the monarch and his people and the relationship between England and Scotland would be sources of friction throughout his reign. After James died in 1625 and was succeeded by Charles I, tensions persisted and intensified. Charles attempted to rule without summoning Parliament at all between 1629 and 1638. By 1642 England was up in arms, in a civil war between the king’s forces and armies loyal to the house of Commons. The conflict ended with Charles’s defeat and beheading in 1649. Although in the early 1650s the monarchy as an institution seemed as dead as the man who had last worn the crown, an adequate replacement proved difficult to devise. Executive power devolved upon a Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, former general of the parliamentary forces, who wielded power nearly as autocratically as Charles had done. Yet without an institutionally sanctioned method of transferring power upon Cromwell’s death in 1658, the attempt to fashion a commonwealth without a hereditary monarch eventually failed. In 1660 Parliament invited the eldest son of the old king home from exile. He succeeded to the throne as King Charles II. From a literary point of view, 1603 can seem a particularly capricious dividing line because at the accession of James I so many writers happened to be in midcareer (Shakespeare, Donne etcetera). The restoration of Charles II, with which this section ends, is likewise a more significant political than literary milestone:...

Words: 308 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Socioskksd

...A great hero has died, Oliver Cromwell Lord protector of England. This well-known legend died at the age of 59 in Whitehall, London. Cromwell sadly died of Malaria and will be remembered for thousands or millions of years, never to be forgotten. Cromwell was born in Huntingdon on 25 April 1599, to Robert Cromwell and Elizabeth Steward. Oliver's parents had ten children, Oliver, the fifth child, was the only boy to survive infancy. He was baptised on 29 April 1599 at St John's Church and attended Huntingdon Grammar School. He went to learn at Sidney Sussex college, Sidney. Then a recently founded college with a Puritan culture. He left in June of the year 1617 without taking any degree. Cromwell then married Elizabeth and had nine children, 3 of whom have died at a very young age and one of whom is a well-known man, Richard Cromwell, he was his father's successor as Lord protector. Oliver became a Member of Parliament for Huntingdon in the Parliament of 1628–1629. He contributed little at this stage until Charles I took the throne and the civil war took place. This is where Oliver showed his true skills as a military commander, and also where he showed how gifted he was at being a military commander. He did so much at this stage, introducing the commonly-used military rank system which is still in use today, showing how good of a PM he was and showing all other talents he had. to the left: Cromwell in his early days as a PM and military commander. The New Model Army...

Words: 401 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Fffff

...Case Study Counter urbanisation in St Ives, Cambridgeshire St Ives is a small town in Cambridgeshire, about 200km north of London. It lies on the A1123, 8km east of Huntingdon and 25km north-west of Cambridge, just off the A14 trunk road. The town is close to both the A1 trunk road and the main east coast railway line. Regular trains to London make the area accessible. St Ives is a picturesque town on the Great Ouse. It has a narrow six-arched bridge with a central chapel that was built in the 15th Century. The town has connections with Oliver Cromwell and his statue stands in the market place. There are also splendid buildings, including the Corn Exchange and All Saints Church. The building styles contribute to the character of the place and add to the attraction of living there. The surrounding rural area is mainly farmland. However, in recent years there have been many housing developments on the periphery (edge) of the town. A substantial number of exclusive apartments have also been built in the heart of the town, particularly on the south bank of the Great Ouse. Changing population and prosperity The population structure of the town is changing. One section of the community is ageing, but another is becoming more youthful. A large proportion of the working population is now employed outside of town. There has been an influx of commuters from in and around London. Housing in the area is affordable and there has been a boom in demand for property. People in...

Words: 669 - Pages: 3