Why are Government Officials, and U.S. Courts Ignoring So much Blatant Proof of Corruption at Intel Corp. ? Is it because Intel Corp. Has to Much Money ? Is it because, as Sources Tell me that Intel Corp. will gas your home if you Speak Out against them? Why do so many "Officials" Ignore So much Evidence against Intel Corp. ~ ~ Decade After Decade.
Report on Intel Corp. Blatant Violations of U.S Laws ~ Proof of Intel Corp. Corruption.
"FTC Inspector General
FTC Commissioners
SEC Commissioner
Senate & Congress
State Attorney Generals
United States Attorneys
Director Robert Mueller, FBI
Honorable Eric Holder, DOJ
Vice President Joseph Biden "
ALL Continue to Protect Corruption at Intel Corp. - Why?
" FTC Inspector General, Senate, Congress, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, FTC & SEC Commissioners, Director Mueller, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, DOJ Antitrust, DOJ Cartel Divisions and Vice President Joseph Biden:
On non address of up to $49.071 billion# consumer recoverable and no antitrust remedies associated with FTC v Intel Corporation Docket 9341 consent order, please find analyst comment on reorganizing Federal Trade Commission toward financial self sufficiency, pros and cons of Section 5 for competitive case investigation, summation of Intel Inside tied charge back, statistical analysis isolating Intel microprocessor brokers who are PC Dealers and Sales Agents, seventeen Intel Microprocessor Production short run examples on which 9341 Intel recovery estimates are economically calculated.
.....
Herein multiple discovery examples, 1993 through 2003, are meant to show economic cause why Intel Network manipulation of FTC vs. Intel Docket 9288.
That cause is Intel intent to monopolize markets for the next decade actively concealed in real time at that time by an inter nation Cartel.
A cartel composed of Intel, PC Dealers, Media Sales Agents, investment banking, security operatives, corporate political relations and network confidence agents embedded by Intel, Media Sales Agents, and foreign Nation’s interest into domestic x86 competitors, to steal from, and dismantle competition.
A network of extended relation’s who long time conceal Intel vertical by horizontal matrix of integrated dealing cells streaming intra platform computers to end buyers in system field effects. Where Federal authority in position to resolve systematic economic crimes, have not, raising question of blockers, detractors or a continued investigation?
Law Violation Findings from Dockets 9288 & 9341 Case Research Analysis:
DOJ Antitrust Compliance Intel failure to 1st Report by Federal Obligation
31 USC 1832 Economic Crimes destabilizing U.S. industrial potentials
Sherman Act Section 1 Contract for horizontal combination as a restraint.
Sherman Act Section 1 Conspiracy to conceal contract & combination.
Sherman Act Section 2 Intent to monopolize and predatory conduct.
Anti Kick Back Act 1986 Kick back for product routing across State Lines
Clayton Act Part 2 Channel discrimination & sabotage of facilities.
Clayton Act Part 3 Limiting by product routing; barricaded essential facility.
Clayton Act Part 4 Attacking competitor employees who refuse to participate.
Clayton Act Part 5 Unfair and deceptive practices.
Clayton Act Section 13c Payment/acceptance commission compensation to route.
Clayton Act Section 13d Payment for services or facilities for processing a sale.
Clayton Act Section 13e Furnishing services or facilities for processing/handling.
Clayton Act Section 14 Pressed into agreement not to use competitor’s goods.
USC 1961 RICO - 222 Cross enterprise, cross professional network crime.
USC 1341 US Mail Fraud Consumer Route Fee paid PCs mailed across State lines.
USC 1956 Laundering Intel advance revenue paid to PC OEM & Media in trust
Corporate Procedure 1714.9 Attorney & client conspiracy.
Penal Code 182 Crimes against public justice.
Nothing in Docket 9341 consent order addresses these facts, continued Nations, society harms and consumer financial recovery form this history of anticompetitive system’s conduct, racketeering, industrial and economic espionages.
An environment understood by industry players for nearly two decades.
And many in government who seem to sit on the side lines?
In fact the extent of those in DC with knowledge of the high level espionage and enterprise network corruption case investigations are really quite extensive."
.....
"All aspects of Intel monopolization beyond commercial fraud remain deleted from Docket 9341 consent order as accepted by FTC Commissioner’s on November 1. Resulting in this third Federal example of Intel Corporation dodging competition, racketeering and espionage violations pursuant to three investigative tracks that also validate Federal agency failures to regulate competition, racketeering, cross enterprise, cross profession network crime including in progress economic espionages;
DOJ v Intel 1991 – 1993, FTC v Intel Docket 9288 1998 –
2001, FTC v Intel Docket 9341 2009-2010.
How is one to explain the result of continuous compounded series of misfeasance, and failures in oversight, across Intel case matters now for two decades?
FTC Reorganization on 9341 Result
On two of three Intel case anomalies this analyst suggests the Federal Trade Commission should be reconfigured for financial self sufficiency. Up to $49.071 billion and antitrust remedies is a lot of consumer recovery to leave off the table.
Too earn its keep can FTC be reconfigured to lead virtual competition case actions? Like any private plaintiff attorney partnership paid for monitoring, regulation, investigation, leading case work for competitive recovery from the very corporations the agency is suppose to regulate under Sherman and Clayton Acts.
Too modernize an agency held captive by the political agenda of corporate legal guild in relation to employment and professional placements beyond the agency itself.
Including where corporate political and institutional influences are often responsible for making and sustaining employment placements in those agency’s in question.
Obviously not a fault of the institution or its Congressional Charter but of society and the personal boundaries of individual actor’s responsible for implementing and overseeing that charter.
And where there are questions of oversight control perhaps State Attorney Generals should be included as added check under FTC Congressional charter?
Certainly more desirable than this False Claim’s Act Relator.
Where, perhaps, State Attorney Generals should be able to initiate and oversee cases within FTC for spot control across the country.
Who’s been minding shop in DC?
Where Intel case matters are concerned why are the continued symptoms of regulatory, oversight, corporate law enforcement and attorney fiduciary dysfunction so pronounced and for so long?
In the face of Intel Network again demonstrating administration of corporate and attorney fraternal ties that are greater than the Federal Power itself, making FTC financially self sufficient is designed to increase competitive effectiveness, to cut corporate ties, earn its keep under Charter on the very recoveries FTC is supposed to be delivering.
No different from Relator under False Claims Act. Why shouldn’t FTC be rewarded operating returns on antitrust and commerce case recoveries?
In doing so like any partnership offer an incentive to federal employees on that return, under the Federal Power, which would surely keep FTC focused on the high value cases.
With of course some ratio of funding for all other types of matters that require attention. Delivering on the administrative front a lean organization in step with its ability to self sustain organically. To counter corporate guild control it just might take a separate stronger independent public partnership. "
Source of Intel Corp. Corruption Proof and Full Documenthttp://www.investigativeblogger.com/2011/02/proof-of-intel-corruption-ignored-by.html
Intel Corp. Continues to be Above the Law, Accountable to No One. CEO Paul Otellini of Intel Corp. Continues to Hide Massive Shareholder Liabilities over Intel Corp.'s part in the Stealing of a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology over a Decade Ago from Iviewit Technologies.
To This Day Intel Corp. Board of Directors and Intel CEO Paul Otellini HIDE this
Massive Shareholder Fraud....
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal @CrystalCox.com
