Addressing The Myth Of Intel And National Government Financial Aid

Summary

• U.S. Federal and E.U financial assistance does not exist for Intel.
• Intel does not want federal or E.U. or nation's financial aid.
• Intel traditionally accepts State and municipal tax concession.
• Addresses national media banting about the topic of chip industry government funds avoiding critical aspects of report responsibility.

Analysts Note: On March 31 Intel CEO Mr. Gelsinger informed Intel employees not to comment on federal subsidies. One reason is Intel does not currently qualify for federal funds. To accept federal subsidies would result in a reverse false claim as a law violation, pending Intel Inside compensatory federal and States citizen price fix recovery. Intel cannot trade end buyer compensatory recovery on the promise of operations investment although is free to invest and needs to invest. An Intel offer to exchange Intel Inside® end buyer recovery with federal government or any government presents an Intel bribe. That’s the old Intel not the NEW Intel.

Nor would governance fund Intel manufacturing trading against Intel Inside recovery. Or provide manufacturing subsidies anointing Intel above competitive component design manufactures disabled by Intel engaged in cartel operation through a thirty-year monopolization substantiated on racketeering, commerce and antitrust violations.

Historically, Intel will refuse other than state and municipal tax concessions because Intel doesn’t want prying eyes in Intel’s business. U.S. Chip Act fund should go to advanced research, materials production capacity needs wafers there is only one poly producer of wafer grade ingot in the United States.

Clean tech can benefit from government funds on industry cost. Polysilicon is not an environmentally or workforce kind business on process hazards, and from an operations point swings in commodity pricing.

Analog and mixed signal might benefit some funding.

Digital logic and captive charge are well funded. Manufacturers have plenty of cash including Intel coming off consecutive record breaking revenue quarters.

For solid state memory innovation’s now being commercialized government can’t get involved would affect the competitive order.

Otherwise government should stay out of the chip equipment and manufacturing industry where any investment must socially and holistically help all and avoid anointing any.

The following correspondence addresses Intel, U.S. Chip Act and federal funding;

March 30, 2021

To: Ms. Gina Raimondo, United States Secretary of Commerce Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.20230

cc: House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Mr. Frank Pallone Jr., Ranking Ms. Cathy McMorris Rodgers 2125 Rayburn House Office, Washington, D.C. 20515

cc: Commerce subcommittee Chair Ms. Janice Schakowsky, Ms. McMorris, Leader Mr. Gus Bilirakis and subcommittee members 2322 Rayburn House  Office, Washington, D.C. 20515

cc: Senator Roger Wicker, Chair, Senate Commerce Committee 512 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

cc: Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking, Senate Commerce Committee 512 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

cc: Commissioners of Federal Trade Commission; Mr. Joseph Simons, Mr. Noah Joshua Phillips, Mr. Rohit Chopra, Ms. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Ms. Christine Wilson, Bureau of Competition Attorney Mr. Kent Cox, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington D.C. 20580

attn: Mr. Tom Greene, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36046, Room 10-0101, San Francisco, CA 94103

attn: Mr. Brian Rabbitt, Chief Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC20530-0001

attn: Congressman Mr. Mark DeSaulnier, California 11^th District

c/o Ms. Shanelle-Scales-Preston, Aid to Congressman DeSaulnier, California District Office, 440 Civic Center Plaza, 2^nd Floor, Richmond, CA 94804

cc: Mr. Herbert H. Slattery III, Co-Chair, Consumer Protection at NAAG, AG State of Tennessee, 475 Fifth Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37243

cc: Mr. Josh Stein, Co-Chair, Anti-trust, Consumer Protection at NAAG, AG North Carolina, 9000 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-9001

cc: Ms. Letitia James, Co-Chair, Antitrust at NAAG, AG New York, at the State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224-0341

cc: Mr. Doug Peterson, Co-Chair, Antitrust at NAAG, AG Nebraska, State Capitol, Box 98920, Lincoln, NE 68509-8920

cc: Mr. Kwame Raoul, Co-Chair, Civil Rights at NAAG, AG Illinois, Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph, Chicago, IL 60601

cc: Mr. Gurbir Grewal, Co-Chair, Civil Rights at NAAG, AG New Jersey, State House, P.O. Box 001, Trenton, NJ 08625

cc: Mr. Tom Miller, AG State of Iowa, Hoover State Office Building, 1305 East Walnut, Des Moines, IA 50319

cc: Mr. Brian Frosh, AG State of Maryland, 200 Saint Paul Place, Baltimore, MD 21202-2202

cc: Mr. Keith Ellison, AG State of Minnesota, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101

cc: Mr. Phil Weiser, AG State of Colorado, Department of Law, Carr Judicial Building, 1300 Broadway, 10^th Fl., Denver, CO 80203

cc: Mr. Greg Zoeller, AG State of Indiana, Government Center South, 5^th Floor, 32 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204

cc: Mr. Ken Paxton, AG state of Texas, Box 12548, Austin, Texas, 78711-2548

cc: Ms. Kathleen Foote, Sr. Assistant AG Antitrust, Office of State AG, 455 Golden Gate Ave, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102-3664

cc: Ms. Ashley Moore, AG State of Florida, Pl-01 the Capitol, Tallahassee Florida 32399-1050

cc: Mr. Chris Carr, AG Georgia, 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

cc: Mr. Lawrence Wasden, AG State of Idaho, State House Office, 700 State Street P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0010

cc: Mr. Derek Schmidt, AG State of Kansas, 120 South West 10^th Avenue, 2^nd Floor Topeka, KS66612-1597

cc: Mr. Jeff Landry, AG State of Louisiana, Box 94095, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4095

cc: Mr. Aaron Frey, AG State of Maine, State House Station 6, Augusta ME 04333

cc: Ms. Maura Healy, AG Massachusetts, 1 Ashburton Pl, Boston, MA 02108-1698

cc: Ms. Dana Nessel, AG State of Michigan, Williams Building, 525 West Ottawa St, Box 30212, Lansing, Michigan 48909

cc: Ms. Lynn Fitch, AG State of Mississippi, Department of Justice. P.O. Box 220, Jackson, MS 37205-0220

cc: Mr. Eric Schmitt, AG State of Missouri, Supreme Court Building, 207 West High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101

cc: Mr. Aaron Ford, AG State of Nevada, Old Supreme Court Building, 100 North Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701

cc: Mr. Hector Balderas, AG State of New Mexico, Capitol Building, Fourth Floor, Santa Fe, NM 87300

cc: Mr. Mike Hunter, AG State of Oklahoma, 313 N.E. 21^st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105

cc: Mr. Joseph Shapiro, AG State of Pennsylvania, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120

cc: Mr. T.J. Donovan, AG Vermont, 109 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05609-1001

cc: Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General, State of Washington, 1125 Washington Street, SE, P.O. Box 40100, Olympia, WA 98504-0100

cc: Mr. Patrick Morrisey, AG State of West Virginia, State Capitol Complex, Building 1, Room E-26, Charleston, West Virginia 25305

cc: Honorable Mark Gordon, Attorney General, State of Wyoming, 2320 Capital Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002

attn: Senator Diane Feinstein, Senate Special Intelligence and Judiciary, Committees, 331 Hart Senate Office, Washington, D.C. 20510

Fm: Mike Bruzzone, technical discovery aid in attorneys enlisted civic service; FTC v Intel Corp. Dockets 9288 and 9341 auditor and consent order monitor at 15 U.S.C § 5 subject §§ 15, 22 pursuant Intel Inside® PC price fix relator original source in June 1996 contracted December 2008 at 31 U.S.C. 3730(B)(1)(C)(3) said recovery acknowledged by USDOJ, Federal Court of Claims, 31 States, [e-mail]; 415/250- 4652

Re: Intel Corporation ineligibility for CHIP ACT; federal funding of any type subject unresolved procurement overcharge theft from federal government on reverse false claims. Please refrain from inference Intel Corporation eligibility for federal funds pending resolution of the federal, States and citizens processor end buyer price fix theft recovery. Current federal offer on the table is $1.050 billion which this steward on federal false claims § 3730(C)(2)(D) is authorized to approve. States offer on the table is $9.8 billion + $500 million administrative reimbursement I can only recommend acceptance.

Note, an earlier WW recovery offer is also on the table at $18.9 billion all inclusive. Intel is sitting on more cash then declared and is not hurting for cash. Intel Inside® WW recovery at $18.9 billion Intel could pay tomorrow and not even feel it. Intel fabrication / manufacturing investment; PE&C, is similar. Intel is sitting on a lot of cash for expansion and if need be the formulation of financial instruments. Intel is not hurting for money and needs no government financial aid. Intel does like government and other customer procurement and sales contracts. This is what Intel likes, product sales, current and into future time.

Ms. Raimondo,

I follow Intel Corporation and industry closely as a former employee of Intel competitors; Cyrix, NexGen, ARM, AMD, and in consulting roles to Samsung, Intel, Integrated Device Technologies.

The majority of my work experience is directly Intel competitive and for prior two decades focused on remedial activities pursuant Intel end buyer price fix, tech export restriction violations, Intel CPU and system product in channel monopoly mess clean up. Finally, a substantial Intel employee theft from the corporation associated with the 28 year Intel enterprise inter-nation cartel operation.

In May 1998 I’m enlisted by attorneys of Federal Trade Commission as Docket 9288 discovery aid, lettered to work report too and by California Department of Justice March 2000. I return to Federal Trade Commission for Docket 9341 in 2008 on the referrals of Congress, a retiring FTC economist Professor Mr. Frederic Mike Scherer and placed by Chairman Kovacic with Bureau of Competition attorneys.

Among the voluntary academic roles I fill in federal and State service is related to documenting and validating Intel Inside processor in computer chassis end buyer price fix; affirmed 2009 and 2010 by FTC and EUCC respectively. I was the first to describe Intel Inside system on contact knowledge to FTC and CDOJ in March / April 1999. One of my 9341 discoveries determines $42 billion in stolen monies on INTC 10K false certifications associated Intel Inside kick back for cartel administered sales report to Intel. All up approximately $2 billion in federal procurement overcharge is associated with federal contracts including Intel Inside and PC supplier cartel monopoly price overcharges not sought on the discovery hurdle and EUCC 37.990 amnesty to said suppliers.

I am currently Docket 9341 consent order monitor acknowledged by FTC Docket 9341 Chief litigator Mr. Robbie Robertson September 2010 advised a dangerous assignment. I’m the target of three assassination attempts and a poisoning. I am unpaid in this federal service and rely entirely on my federal false claims act contract to recover Intel Inside to recoup 28 years of professional career losses. I’ve lost property on my belief the matter could easily resolve which has never been easy, a job I recommend to no one unconsciousable to expose others on the dangers of this deep knowledge  assignment.

Currently the offer on the table to Intel seeks remedies and federal recovery of the Intel Inside price fix overcharge for return to federal government. I’m optimistic the NEW Intel will cooperate to get old Intel cartel operator behind the enterprise’s evolutionary and worthy endeavors thus avoiding a Clayton Act confrontation.

Please be advised and certainly seek additional counsel pursuant Intel Corp. current ineligibility for CHIP ACT and certainly federal funding until the Intel Inside price fix recovery is complete. On the export restriction violations I’m one of if not the original Department of Commerce source pursuant Intel export restricted processor sales to the Chinese Ministry of Defense in 2012. Which likely continued associated with the more recent Intel Data Center Group division CPU product laundering theft’s certainly ended up in Asia and elsewhere thought violating tech export restrictions.

Thank you for the Department’s cooperation in the matter.

/s/

Mike Bruzzone, 31 U.S.C. § 3730 false claims act steward for Congress and Intel Inside recovery class at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 5, 15, 22 subject 42 U.S.C. § 1981(A)(B) on Griffen v Breckenridge