July 14, 2020
To: Ms. Joyce Branda, USDOJ, Civil Division
Mr. Kent Cox, FTC, BofC Staff Attorney;
Mr. Brian Rabbitt, USDOJ, Criminal Fraud
cc: Mr. Tom Greene, USDOJ Antitrust San Francisco Office
cc: Congress members and Congress Aids, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Washington, D.C.
Still seeking litigation team for FCA, civil rights and Constitution Attorney; 42 U.S.C. § 1981(A)(B) lawful class seek Intel Inside® boxed and processor in computer chassis PC procurement price fix overcharge recovery “avoidable cost charge” at 15 U.S.C. § 1, 2 on 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)(3) concert denial conceals at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C) ~ 4,115,160,183 end buyer robberies occurring along highways of commerce prior 25 years.
Claims cognizable 15 U.S.C. § 15(1)(2)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(C) tying Intel Inside® to sales outlet cost charge’ disables interstate commerce at U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Commerce Clause 3. Raise’s that economic espionage question at 18 U.S.C. § 1831.
In support 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2 group trade boycott, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1512, 1513, 1516, 1519 on 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, 371, 641, 1001, 1341 proofs at U.S. Constitution 1st association, 5th process, protection, property, 9th rights retained by Congress and 14th confrontation.
July 14, 2020
Competition and RICO case assessment continues where analysts most recent are found here:
Between now and the end of the month analyst will complete;
1) Q2 entering Q3 AMD x86 processor inventory report and product category share.
2) Q2 entering Q3 Intel x86 processor inventory report and product category share.
3) Q2 entering Q3 AMD and Nvidia GPU inventory report and product category share.
In this issue;
Prior three months is civil rights litigation intensify stealing from competition case report time.
In Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal –
STAY OF MANDATE pending Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court; 17-6008, 19-8455, next . . . retained by Congress.
PETITIONER STATEMENT APPEAL SHOULD GO FORWARD
In Northern California District, Burton Court House, Judge William Alsup –
NOTICE OF MOTION AND BRUZZONE MOTION JUDGE ALSUP
VACATE INTEL VEXATIOUS ORDER of AUGUST 2014;
NOTICE OF MOTION and MOTION, Re-hearing under FRCP 60(B)(6)
RE-HEAR ON WHAT BASIS; Irregularities, extraordinary circumstance,
meritorious defense, facts on law, judicial travesty.
Analyst anticipates accelerated escalation in investigative assignment verse Intel Corporation adding United States Attorney Northern California District before end of year.
It’s time for questions and answer where Court of Claims will hear a contract matter however associated tort claims matter necessitates United States Attorney Northern California District named concert Intel Corp. at 42 U.S.C. § 1981(A)(B) subject § 1985(1)(2)(3) aiding theft from the United States, States and citizens;
15 U.S.C. §§ 1 cognizable § 15 at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 241, 242, 371, 641, 1341 subject 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1519, 1961, 1962c cognizable § 1964c raising §§ 1832 and 2382 questions pursuant 31 U.S.C. § 3729 theft from the federal government, theft from citizens at 15 U.S.C. § 1, theft from Intel at 18 U.S.C § 1957, 1961, 1962c disablement of commerce.
United States Attorney’s Office Northern California District, operating within the State of Intel Corporation on a decade of negation that masks, aids, abets Intel Inside price fix robbery does increase $17.0655 billion that is 41% of the total theft in said ten year period. Parallels concealment of Intel Corp. executive theft from Intel Corporation mandates federal intervention on fact and law.
How are Intel’s corporate political placements in District, both in Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern California District being paid off?
Usually Intel relies on job placement and promotion within Intel associate network. And there are pointers to that occurring. At this juncture, this analyst enlisted by U.S. Attorney Mr. Joseph Russoniello (retired) to investigate and recover Intel Inside price fix theft, enlisted by attorneys of Federal Trade Commission authorized by Congress of United States at Ninth Amendment, 15 U.S.C. § 5 and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(B)(1)(C)(3) has no reason to believe the matter is other than an economic espionage cover up.
Enlisted civic servant on long time investigative role seeks United States Department of Justice intervention and federal Marshall assignment in District, federal properties, at U.S. Attorney and Offices of the San Francisco and San Jose FBI to ascertain and complete a situation assessment for legislative and executive branch, which may be no more than a compilation of San Francisco Bureau findings it’s time.
Pursuant competition case assessment, as Federal Trade Commission’s authorized Intel Corp. Docket 9341 monitor has recommended to Commissioners of the FTC up to a three year monitoring extension here detailed;
July 1, 2020, rev 1.2
To: Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission
Messrs. Joseph Simons, Noah Joshua Phillips, Rohit Chopra,
Ms. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Ms. Christine S. Wilson
cc: Mr. Kent Cox, Docket 9341 contact, FTC Bureau of Competition
@ Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20580
attn: Chair, House Oversight, Congresswoman Ms. Carolyn Maloney
and Ranking member Congressman Mr. Jim Jordan
Chair House Commerce, Congressman Mr. Frank Pallone Jr.
and Ranking member Congressman Mr. Greg Waldon
Chair Senate subcommittee Manufacturing, Trade and Consumer Protection
Senator Jerry Moran, Ranking Member Senator Richard Blumenthal, Minority
Ranking Senator Maria Cantwell
attn: Members of the United States Senate
attn: Representative Congressman Mr. Mark DeSaulnier, California 11th
attn: Ms. Sara Winslow, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern California District
attn: Xavier Becerra, State Attorney General, California Dept. of Justice
attn: Mr. William Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice
Fm: Mike Bruzzone, designee of the United States Congress pursuant U.S. 9th amendment; cognizable, Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 5, 15, Federal Trade Commission attorneys enlisted discovery aid on industry witness supports FTC Docket 9288 and 9341 including as enlisted consent order monitor. Federal False Claims Act at 31 U.S.C. § 3730 relator original source steward of Intel Corporation Intel Inside® price fix theft from and for return to United States federal government, States and Citizens; firstname.lastname@example.org, 415/250-4652
Federal Trade Commissioners, Mr. Cox, Members of Congress, Ms. Winslow, California AG Becerra, United States AG Barr;
Following up my correspondence of May 4, this communication addresses FTC Docket v Intel 9341 monitoring on my recommendation up to a three year FTC Intel Corp. consent order monitoring extension. FTC Docket 9341 remedies are not complete; 1) recovery of Intel Inside® price fix; 2) continued by order monitoring impact of Intel production deadweight, laundered values, accelerating obsolescence of back in time quad and dual core CPUs, 9th and 8th generation single threaded impacting secondary market CPU inventory value is a majority source for financing new processor and system hardware procurements, 3) the potential Intel might dump processors at price less than cost, 4) potential Intel and dealing group will fall back into monopoly methods resulting in renewed cartelization.
1) Recovery of computer end buyer’s Intel Inside® cartel channel discriminatory registered metering cost associated with Intel processor in-box and processor in computer procurement cost robberies at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, on 18 U.S.C. § 1962c commercial interstate route fee intent too disable commerce including through United States Post at 18 U.S.C. § 1341, other commercial transport and specific federal 31 U.S.C. § 3729 recovery I am contracted by U.S. Department of Justice to secure at Title 48 §§ 303, 3.303. All federal violations are established on Intel false certifications, FTC Docket 9341 15 U.S.C. § 5 discovery much of which I’m responsible in federal and state attorneys enlisted discovery capacity, EUCC v Intel 37.990 discovery including contracts validating “Intel Inside avoidable cost charge”. EUCC validation follows my earlier system structure finds on Intel Inside program guide for California Department of Justice a decade earlier. Worldwide, in excess of 4,699,494,597 individual purchases are subject channel price fix robbery along the highways of inter-nation commerce.
Buyer compensatory recovery is a U.S. Department of Justice responsibility.
My Congress responsibility pertains to commerce oversight & FTC Docket 9341 monitoring at 15 U.S.C. §§ 5, 15 substituted in by FTC Chairman William Kovacic thereafter designated monitor by FTC Chief litigator Mr. Robbie Robertson, and pursuant FCA, United States Attorney (retired) Mr. Joseph Russoniello. My task is to investigate and recover Intel Inside® price fix overcharge pursuant 31 U.S.C. § 3729 at § 3730(B)(1)(C)(3). There are four issues preventing recovery needing address. First, United States Attorney Northern California District refusal to intervene which aids Intel Corp. “Intel Inside” procurement theft from the federal government and citizens. Intel Inside price fix has grown $17.965 billion since the FCA was first filled in 2008 and is directly a function of non-intervention thought subject case manipulation by Intel corporate political placements parallel known extra-judicial influence occurring under the color or law. These particulars require further investigative definition. Noteworthy a second FCA is filed in 2013 just ahead of EU July 2014 affirmation of the original EU 37.990 decision in May 2009. This test for U.S. Attorney intervention is again negated.
Second, Intel Corp. portraying no contest and parallel U.S. District Judge Alsup falsely portrayal Bruzzone “not relator” and “no United States involvement in FCA matter” both of which are false statements on federal statute; Writ of Certiorari No. 19-8455 is filed in U.S. Supreme Court April 20, 2020 raising each question. Third, regional BAR boycott parallel U.S. Attorney Northern California District and Judge William Alsup disinformation subject 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 371, 1001, 1341. Fourth General Service Administration investigator in-availability follows shelter-in-place pursuant my proposal to draft and deliver a communication noticing Intel Corp. Legal Department to reimburse Intel Inside procurement price fix over charge. On July 9, 2020 GSA and for the fourth time “declines to investigate at this time”; 2008, 2011, 2013 and now July 9, 2020. However, recovering under federal false claims act is thought this simple. Write Intel legal asking for reimbursement. Where stall delivers unnecessary complications while concealing to aid price fix robbery denying afflicted “lawful class” civil rights at 42 USC § 1981(A)(B), in state at §1983 subject §1985(1)(2)(3) on Constitution 5th and 14th amendment denial. This has become a corporate and political, and law embarrassment in my opinion.
Solution; Pursuant general buyer recovery, relator original source is an afflicted product buyer at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2 cognizable 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964c. United States Department of Justice follow through assigning relator one staff attorney to deliver the end buyer and federal settlement offer to Intel Corp. is here sought please advise. DOJ attorney can contact relator monitor (415) 250-4652 or by e-mail email@example.com. This is a settlement offer, not litigation.
Note there is nothing that prevents this relator from filing the Intel Inside® general end buyer complaint. However, I’m not here to do United States Attorney’s or the Department of Justice’s job, other than assuring that job gets done pursuant federal false claims recovery. Which is similar to my prod along Intel strategy too expose, validate, embarrass, deliver legal proofs of extra-judicial and forms of corporate political and criminal accomplice to Congress. And where I truly believe it’s time to call United States Attorney and Intel Corp. for question and answers on the judicial floor. Northern California District stall and negation is not tolerable and Intel corporate political and network associated. One has to wonder if and how Intel is paying people off? Usually it’s employment advancement in Intel associate network. Attorneys, including adverse, are contracted by Intel Corp. to prevent working for lawful plaintiffs. Today, known Intel supporters are thought not promo-table within their professions, senior Judges for example. One has to wonder if there are now hard dollar pay off’s into numbered bank accounts? It could be this bad.
Intel has had five quarters of record profits. Subsequently it’s a good time to get Intel Inside deliverable taken care of and behind us. Please let’s get this area of governance & law responsibility wrapped up for everyone’s interest on remedies. There are mutual benefits getting these matters resolved and behind parties. It’s my responsibility on authorization the matters are not covered up but completed including the federal false claims contract result delivered.
It was never my responsibility to police Northern California District, or CDOJ, or U.S. Department of Justice to recover Intel Inside for general end buyers, solely federal government which certainly leads the general consumer recovery. Please note I cannot condone negation and stall aiding to abet and cover up Intel Inside price fix theft as it makes me an accomplice; 15 U.S.C §§ 1, 2 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 241, 242, 371, 1001, 1341, 1503, 1505, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1516, 1519, 1956(A)(i) promotion, (A)(II) evade taxes, (B)(i) concealment, (B)(II) avoid transaction reports requirements (A)(2) international, (A)(3) sting, (H) conspiracy, 1957, 1961, 1962c, 1964c, 1831 & 2382 questions, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 theft from federal government.
Now it’s my responsibility to monitor Intel, gather, sift, guide through data, the reopening of commerce facility includes monitoring the financial impact of Intel CPU deadweight & laundered values. Values that threaten channel accumulated capital on exchange for primary market re-engagement. Task monitors against secondary market inventory financial melt down on potential of Intel processor production throttling to regain cartel control on this monopoly abuse. There are a number of system abuses I monitor include suspect cost less than price sales bundles. Extends to vertical and horizontal tying including products tied to kick backs. Intel Inside in tied horizontal by vertical “bridge monopoly” form appears remedied but “price fix’ negated. I am contracted by the federal government to recover this theft. And while United States Attorney and Department of Justice are farting around, I’m being pressed into bankruptcy, my family properties threatened, my professional and good reputation smeared on framing’s, boycott and defamation to quash a federal witness. Comprehend why this has become a worldwide political and governance embarrassment?
2) Pursuant Docket 9341 monitor, analyst is instrumental in a civic management role tracking Intel monopoly surplus, deadweight, Intel laundered values leading managed channel exchange for enabling the purchase of new processors without financial loss to open market commerce. FTC monitor’s role assures channel data to track secondary holdings for exchange of accumulated capital values that are CPUs in system’s found a home that funds procurement of new CPUs and systems. This monitoring, for which the FTC monitor is paid nothing and suffers extraordinary litigation costs defending reputation, tracks Intel CPU production, watches for throttling and dumping of deadweight. As Intel Corp. transitions from supply to demand side production monopoly surplus enters channel associated with Xeon Lakes, 9th generation Core desktop, 8th and 7th generation mobile and quad core CPUs Intel & AMD have made obsolete threatening channel inventory value. Don’t think there are not going to be channel financial losses from Intel monopoly and AMD on industry error correction. Objective is to mitigate channel financial loss from monopoly surplus clean up. To date monopoly clean up has lead to inflationary pricing and the question of deflationary values robbing from capital. Economically this task is as important for the economy as Intel Inside recovery is too maintain the Institution of law, order, justice, Constitution and civil rights. Pursuant Docket 9341 this is a primary reason for extension of Docket 9341 order within the Commission’s authority; channel inventory monitoring for sell through free from monopoly games. Please authorize Docket 9341 monitor up to an additional 3 year extension.
Analyst’s Intel channel inventory reports and other public submissions for project transparency are found here; Mike Bruzzone's Blog Posts
Pursuant Intel Inside® price fix, I’ve associated with States AGs to recover Intel Inside kick back one half of the total cartel overcharge. However I believe in this preferred option, that U.S. Department of Justice assigns me an attorney cohort to offer Intel negotiated settlement at $350 M federal + $6.2 B representing last four years of Intel Inside kick back match under civil RICO, plus $500 million in administrative costs to oversee the end buyer reimbursement.
I also anticipate discovering that four year minimum settlement sum will be found low on total consumer claims; invoices, property tags, operating system licenses, revealing many more laundered CPU values than visible on data in period 2014 through 2018; but it’s a start, you have to start somewhere.
On Intel 10K false certifications recording Intel kick back match at six years tallies $9.9 billion in consumer cost charge, at eight years $13.865 billion, at ten years $17.0655 billion. Intel Inside total ‘kick back’ recoverable through 25 years on the continuous predicate act is $41,567,500,000. Limiting Intel Inside® recoverable to less than 10 years satisfies law, afflicted end buyers, corporate responsibility and governance, makes whole and leaves Intel whole who recently secured a $13 billion credit line. Under Intel Inside® 4 year settlement Intel accesses one half of available credit while guiding $70ish billion in annual revenues of which one third is gross profit. Intel satisfies compensatory recovery in a couple quarters.
United States Department of Justice has the ability to offer Intel Corp. amnesty from criminal RICO. Subsequently would free Entity Intel from liability on further investigation including on the result of Congress hearings including pertaining to Intel Corporate theft by Intel’s own employees. Perhaps some of the theft including price fix theft from media cartel ringmaster Softbank can be recovered Analyst calculates Intel processor production value theft exceeds $1.2 trillion prior ten years, at cost, ~$300 billion. Over 25 years the theft is larger.
So please, let’s get this behind us assigning my attorney cohort. Intel would be stupid to disagree with settlement. Moving to settlement enables identification of a starting place and identifies middle ground. I note that if a move too litigation, opens up securing EU discovery from Intel, rather than EUCC. Intel likely would stall discovery unless immunized from criminal harm to resolve that portion of the matter. Is a function of moving forward over negation, cover up and stalls. Noteworthy EUCC Secretary General has informed me evidence would be made available at the conclusion of Intel’s EUCC appeal subject EU Court of Justice. However, nothing prevents securing EUCC submissions from Intel Corp. now, which is thoroughly detailed in the redacted EUCC decision of May 13, 2010.
Alternatively, if authority continues mum on this topic or continues to negate, aid, abet, cover and stall, I will file for court time Q&A claiming United States Attorney Northern California District, California Department of Justice and Intel Corp. are engaged in a conundrum subject 18 U.S.C. § 1962c intent to conceal consumer and federal corporate robbery; while stripping your designee of his Constitution, civil rights and properties. Meaning to punish and pillar in public forum has been opposition’s objective implementing their defamation targeting this civic servant on industry witness, for 25 years, its truly time to bring this matter to its managed deliverable; a successful completion recovering Intel Inside price fix, too assure open interstate and inter nation commerce and within industry the freedom to compete.
Federal civic servant
Economic assessment continues.
Clean up work continues.
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing
FBI Original Source of Intel Network RICO in 1996
FTC Invited Field Report Docket 9288; 1998 – 2001
CDOJ and NYDOJ First to Report Intel Section 1 Violation 1998
CDOJ Lettered to Work Report, Intel Section 15 USC 1 Violation 2000
SEC Notice of INTC Stock Market Rig, Accounting Fraud; 2007 and current
U.S. Attorney Northern California District FCA Relator; 2008 and current
FTC Witness Analysts v Intel Corp. Docket 9341; 2009 and current
Court of Appeals Federal Circuit Acknowledge 31 USC 3730 FCA Relator; 2014