Intel Corp. Continues to be Above the Law With Massive Proof of Fraud, Corruption, Collusion .. Anti-Trust Violations, Sherman and Clayton Act ...

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 Document
http://www.investigativeblogger.com/2011/02/proof-of-intel-corruption-ignored-by.html

Also Check Out
CEOpaulOtellini.com

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....

http://www.antitrustviolations.com/2011/01/intel-shareholder-fraud-over-iviewit.html

http://www.brucesewell.com/

More on the Proof of Corruption Reports that YOUR U.S. Officials IGNORE

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51737284/Proof-Of-Intel-Cartel---RICO-Proof

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal @CrystalCox.com

FTC in Intel Settlement Talks; before July 22? Intel Closed Door Settlements with the FTC? Intel Executive Amnesty???

"FTC in Intel Settlement Talks; before July 22?

Please be advised this analyst is opposed to Intel closed door settlement with FTC on or before July 22; transparency being at issue.

Commissioners and discovery team know RICO, Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 per se violations are documented.

This analyst encourages the September hearing proceed accordingly for full disclosure, full remedies, consumer recovery which is a core value of the FTC’s charter.

Advantageously and for hearing efficiency, all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims lacking specific per se condemnation precedent, can be reviewed between the Section 1 and RICO Proofs, without fear of FTC 9341 overall case loss.

Including waste of Federal financial and manpower resource, further, that FCA has already been won on weight of evidence and is itself capable of recovering a portion, if not all, FTC 9341 litigation costs.

This analyst believes it important that every American know how to spot competition espionage occurring in the work place in real time, how to report in real time, how to resolve in real time and not over 18 year’s time as in my case.

In this continuing case of Intel Monopoly analysis, meant for FTC and DOJ discovery, leadership, error correction, law augments, inter Nation competition policy evolution, Intel Network, system and structural improvement, RICO and competition remedies and consumer recoveries.

In addition financial recovery of the economic damages for all targets harmed and pushed under by Intel Network, including in the Docket 9288 case obstruction are required under Intel’s DOJ antitrust compliance obligations.

That is for Intel and Network Executive Amnesty and or immunity from maximum antitrust and RICO damages. This would seem to include those associated with FTC Docket 9341.

I’d presume Intel is Participating in reversing the frame and fraud associated with Docket 9288 obstruction.

Alternatively in the face of a known obstruction in the administration of justice which includes witness tampering, fraudulent construction and white wash, the Docket 9341 clock could be reset to June 11, 1991.

June 11, 1991 is the inception of the Intel Insider Scheme enabling a complete Intel monopoly consumer recovery.

Pursuant to Docket 9341, I am concerned that $72 billion dollars in monopolization have been calculated.

And that the worldwide consumer recoverable from Intel tied charge back, and monopoly price of up to $42 billion, will be left un-recovered or left on the negotiating table in any FTC closed door Docket 9341 settlement.

Our knowing this fact of the consumer recoverable, legitimately, consumers are due their return from Intel and Network members.

The history of Intel class actions suggests any privately litigated consumer class action will be blown or settled on disproportionate values too harms.

This attorney opinion is supported by historical evaluation, including attorneys who would take the FCA, if not for their knowledge of the history of Intel market rigging, the various corporate political, time trap and litigation hurdles.

Intel Network adverse litigation for year’s has been sand bagged, blown, thrown and settled on minor causes with slim remedies and minor financial recovery in relation to harms. Here our countries history of private antitrust litigation ends until attorneys who would risk toughest corporate, political, legal and judicial hurdles resolves itself.

FTC and DOJ can restart that tradition of private antitrust litigation with full Intel Network disclosures, monopoly encompassing remedies and recoveries, where world wide consumer recoveries are due consumers including the Federal government.

Bursting boilers and the Federal Power, Garrison Dam Disaster and the Federal Power, Bar Pilots and the Federal Power, Finance & Securities Disaster and Federal Power, broken oil well valves and the Federal Power, broken regulatory & the Federal Power; fixing broken Intel and the Federal Power, transparently, offers the potential for one of Intel’s greatest legacies.

A cornerstone on which willing members of Bar and Bench, and corporate entities, will see and take action regulation seriously. Lacking Bar and Bench free from corporate political network control, I fear broken regulatory will remain.

A functional regulatory, Bar & Bench, are required first lines of monopoly and rackets error detection and correction.

Pursuant to FCA, I will be requesting Congress and/or President Obama please assign a Federal attorney for qui tam representation.

A case to whom I am recognized Relator and hold the U.S. Attorney recovery reward letter, having been steward for many years before and following my official Relator status.

No legitimate private attorney will take the case in the face of the market rig.

Fifth, finance and investment bankers use Quanda model, with price projection tools, to model Intel revenue and margins; like media retrospectively, to play the stock up to two years in advance.

Sixth, Intel inside individual stock traders can do the same thing as I’ve demonstrated to FTC and U.S. DOJ.

Seventh, the Intel Quanda on mass weight of use, retrospectively, extended Intel’s x86 and PC market rigs to the NASDAQ; including in relation to other exchanges.

Think about it, Intel Insider ability to play the stock of Intel and PC Dealers up to two years in advance is an extreme catalyst to rig not only individual stock prices, but the NASDAQ index itself.

The Quanda was used to rig markets;
Intel had DOJ 1st report responsibility.

Eight, combination and cartel proofs exist throughout Intel economic and system structural proofs. Structural proofs are easily deciphered from their component patterns and prove intent to monopolize per se. No other conduct proofs are required.

Nine, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are well aware of the Section 1 per se condemnations, Section 2 per se intent, RICO, Quanda and its reliance by Intel Network as one of their many market rigging tools.

Ten, for FTC there is no risk of Docket 9341 case loss where all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims concerning access to Intel component taper, Intel benchmark rigging, false statements to Federal procurement by Intel, Dealers and Agents concealing fraudulent and monopoly costs assessed on the Federal Government computer payment claims.

All can be heard within the bracket; Section 1 structure, Section 2 intent and RICO proofs. Please consider one of multiple proofs below:

In the RICO proof below, find partial classic Intel Xeon Tanner and Xeon Copper mine economic analysis. Playing signaling revealed by the Quanda, savvy PC Dealers were informed to stick with the quasi static equilibrium and back eddy offered by Xeon Tanner, and to avoid being washed over the falls that is Xeon Cascades.

Cascades is the Intel desktop microprocessor Copper mine 256, repackaged as a high performance Xeon server product at monopoly price premium and for dumping onto AMD. Xeon Cascades was not a high performance product and by June 2000 main board suppliers serving the broker system market, had rejected it, causing Intel to cancel its retail boxed version of the Cascade product line. Cascade’s was then left to sell through Intel primary Dealer channels.

Please note that AMD Opteron code names; Sledge Hammer and Claw Hammer, follow in response to Intel Network notice of Tanner signaling and pending Cascade predatory product dumping. Dumping is relied on by Intel a lot.

Strategically to stop current competitive product flows in channels or to make it unprofitable for competitors to enter that product category.


Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...

Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy

posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Got an Intel Insider Trading TIP?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com