NAR is Corrupt - STOP Using Realtors in your Real Estate Transaction

Real Estate Agents... Most are Good People ... However NAR is Corrupt through and through..
and NAR will NOT protect you from the Real Estate Agents who are NOT "good"..

www.RealtorSucks.com

About Buyer Representation and NAR/REBAC's "CBR" Designation

NAR acquire the "CBR" as part of the REBAC acquisition in 1997?

In purchasing REBAC, NAR bought a "history" in buyer agency which they never really had, but could now lay loose claim to as long as they kept in within the context of their new buyer agency sub section (i.e., "front") -- but now I see them using language getting closer and closer to the claim that the "CBR" was a NAR designation since 1991.

http://www.realnetlearning.com/cbr.html

The Certified Buyer Agency (CBR®) designation is an independent nationally recognized designation that has been offered to REALTORS® through local and state associations since 1991.

Over 24,000 REALTORS® currently benefit from the knowledge that they acquired in this highly rated program.

"" Technically, they do not say that CBR was a Realtor designation since 1991. What a masterpiece of sleazy spinmeistering! And what an example of absence of respect for truth coming out of the Chicago mob. "" ~ Ray Wilson

NAR Accredidations are a SCAM to get you to Have Faith.. NAR will NOT stand behind Consumers in ANY way.. You are Screwed.. Prove and NAR member Lied - Cheated you Out of your Life... and NAR does Nothing..

the National Association of Realtors is A Corrupt Cartel and most Consumer DO not Know that a Real Estate Broker Does NOT have to Be an NAR member in Fact.. I say you have BETTER protection in your Real Estate Transaction if use a NON-NAR member in your Real Estate Transaction ...

Boycott the Lying, Cheating, Stealing National Association of Realtors

posted by
Investigative Blogger
Real Estate Industry Whistleblower
Broker Owner
Crystal L. Cox

FTC Docket 9288, May 1998.. So How Long has the FTC, SEC, DOJ Protected Intel Corp.?

Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998.. So How Long has the FTC, SEC, DOJ Protected Intel Corp.?

Over a Decade. WHAT !!

Prior Reports IGNORED by those Paid to Protect YOU???

"" Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998, various reports and analysis are submitted by this analyst to FTC now operating in voluntary civic service capacity under Department of Labor Code 3363.5. Today a decade of analysis delivers tens of Docket 9341 discovery proofs or pointers to proofs.

Many of which this audience are familiar from prior reports by this analyst submitted to U.S. Senate, Congress, State AGs and U.S. Attorneys.

Under Docket 9341 discovery rules, work from this analyst is passed by FTC Bureau of Competition to Intel for legal rebuttal.

Three Components of Monopoly Recovery

Monopoly recovery is a worldwide financial value having three main components:

1) Consumer recovery is based on the system costs of Intel Inside tied charge back for routing Intel microprocessors across state lines and inter nation boundaries inside a computer chassis. See prior analyst submissions for specific details covering the illegal aspects of this market rigging rebate fee scheme.

2) Consumer recovery from monopoly price premium associated with some Intel microprocessor and PC product introductions.

3) Industrial harms which include predatory product dumping, Intel selling at a price less then average total cost, measures of variable down to average fixed cost.

Finally, estimation of the marginal cost for Intel to produce a single x86 microprocessor in relation to price sought with variable cost cross check. Where price is within or lower then average fixed cost, variable or marginal cost, revenues from those quantities are recorded as an industrial monopolization recovery value for FTC discovery.

Consumer Recovery Subset 1; kick back, in violation of Sherman Act Section 1, Section 2, Clayton Act Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 13e, 13c, 13d, Title 48, 1986 anti kickback act

Of the $26.442 billion subset of consumer recovery documented from Intel production estimates (where $42 billion total set is documented by contract), $22.657 billion or 85% is associated with Intel Inside tied charge back sum misrepresented in Intel and PC Dealer financials.

That sum is split between Intel and PC Companies 50:50 for the purpose of this analysis based on the Intel Inside monopoly system metric. Yet Intel’s portion is known to increase, and PC Companies decrease, over the 15 year duration of this Intel Insider operation.

Intel financials associate Intel Inside as a marketing cost credited to PC Company micro- processor sales. When this commissionable sales value is actually an accrued Dealer rebate passed through Intel as a sales reward for Media Sales Agents taken as their fee, to sustain the supply chain’s product distribution ties between Intel, PC Dealers and Media Agent’s sales channels. Sales Channels include PC Week, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Family Computing, PC World, Windows Magazine, other PC and some general media.

Rebate values are sustained from back in time with forward time purchase agreements. Production short run to short run, Dealer’s microprocessor purchases are unnaturally weighted to benefit them guiding Media Agents sales preferences.

Intel 1st tier Dealers purchase microprocessors in excess of end demand solely to strip margin values, including consumer transport charge, prior to reselling overage into secondary broker channels.

PC Dealers who are Intel’s 1st tier brokers monopolize majority of Intel margin values, including tied charge back, sustaining their Media Sales Agent artificial attractor and the cross industry distribution tie in total.

This relationship is a financially driven one, planned and implemented for Media Sales Agents to register, meter, report level’s of Intel microprocessor flows through PC dealer channels back to Intel. That is the nature of the charge back; for media registering and reporting back channel sales flows through PC Companies to Intel.

Over time the system evolved into one which accelerated Dealer product flows artificially from one Intel product generation to the next, on the weight of Intel kickback placements meant to discharge certain Dealer inventory, to end market buyers, on an Intel time schedule. ""

Source of Post
Document the FTC, DOJ, SEC, State Attorney Generals, FBI and more know of and seem to be ignoring.. Go to www.CEOpaulOtellini.com document at top of blog...

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com