No. 20-7014

Michael A. Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-02-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: antitrust antitrust-law civil-rights confrontation constitutional-rights due-process federal-jurisdiction judicial-procedure privileges racketeering
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FirstAmendment Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-04-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the district court and appellate court erred in denying the appellant's due process, confrontation, examination, privileges, and protections in a federal antitrust case involving allegations of price-fixing, obstruction-of-justice, and racketeering

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . I, On District Court acceptance of appellant’s $505 filing fee can 9" Circuit : Order appeal CLOSED forgetting intake and review of compulsory briefs? Il. In15 U.S.C. § 1 Intel Inside® price fix controversy can in-region District | and Appellant Courts deny a federal auditor engaged by U.S. Congress at . | 15 U.S.C. § 5 cognizable § 15, enlisted by attorneys of the Federal Trade ; ; | Commission as case matter discovery aid and consent order monitor too validate said theft his Constitution 14" guarantee, too establish opposition | network frivolous manufacturer denied his a) due process, confrontation, | . examination, privileges, protections? Where defendants and under their. . color of law, defame the auditor retained by Congress at Constitution 9" suspect to quash discovery 18 USC §§ 1505, 1512, 1513, 1516, 1519, 1961. | b) Can Judges deny equity on associate technique of repeating errors? | c) To send the federal monitor auditor in circles encroaching civil rights? d) To cover up commission of felonies cognizable by courts of United States? | e) Too defraud the United States at 18 U.S.C. § 1371? | II. In same civil controversy can District and Appellant Courts deny 14° ; amendment guarantee to quash speech? Thereby conceal the corporate defendant’s reliance on California anti-SLAPP too libel a federal auditor , : engaged in Congressional policy administration, defendants reversing who is public operator too cover up their enterprise organized crime infiltration | ; detrimental to United States, States of United States, Citizens of the United 7 States, commerce on affirmative antitrust determinations; FTC v Intel Corp. ) Docket 9341 and EUCC 37.990 v Intel Corp., on Federal and State Agent’s discoveries 15 U.S.C. § 1, 2 cognizable § 15 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4, 241, 242, 371, 1001, 1371, 1956, 1957, and pursuant interstate commerce at 18 | US.C. § 1962(c) cognizable § 1964(c) ? 2

Docket Entries

2021-04-05
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.
2021-03-04
Waiver of right of respondent ARM, Inc. to respond filed.
2020-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 4, 2021)

Attorneys

ARM, Inc.
Daniel W. MaguireBurke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Respondent
Michael Alan Bruzzone
Michael Alan Bruzzone — Petitioner