What is this Company
SDP Multimedia Group does not sell consumer equipment for small business and students. We build systems for
computer professionals who want gaming performance (high response rate) in business computing (industrial
and scientific processing and memory) for long term (10 year) use and ownership.
Tablets and cell phones have replaced most casual computer use scenarios, leaving word processing and multimedia
to enthusiast users. Retail stores and integrators deal in risk and volume. They will not sell a computer over
$2000 in value and design obsolescence into their product.
SDP Multimedia Group is like an early American car manufacturer. We build custom computers for professional use case
scenarios that are built for maintenance and upgrade cycles similar to military aircraft and milspec equipment.
The firm does not accept clients without written contract for consultation due to fraud and espionage efforts
against our infrastructure, employees, and clients.
The firm requires a minimum $2,000,000 contract value per quarter to consider prospectus offers
for task groups. Smaller clients will not be considered due to legal obligations.
We are a boutique firm and
efforts to force the sale or forfeiture of our stock in fraud are documented and filed in current litigation
related Interstate Commerce Interference and human trafficking threats. Any reliance on these claims will be
grounds to terminate service to clients based on a 1998-2019 ongoing pattern of abuse under criminal complaint.
Due to security threats including firearms use (Sept 2019) the identity of our employees, clients, their families
and children are confidential. Effort to instigate violence against them or their property will be construed as
direct threats in this fraud and human trafficking activity, and companies including ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGIES
and Tek Systems are prohibited from further contact with our firm due to the actions of their employees in fraud
now under criminal complaint.
Prior clients include Best Buy USA, FirstUSA, BankONE, AT&T, Northern Telecom (NT), Sprint, and such work done
under threat of coercive fraud since 2001 regarding criminal misconduct and investigative analysis at these firms
of former employees and cause for their termination. Security practices are similar to diplomatic and law enforcement
practices, and themed on numerous sustained incidents in physical and electronic felony stalking (18 USC 2261A) of our
personnel to suppress testimony in Federal Criminal complaints against the perpetrators of the fraud.
Oklahoma Anti-Terrorism Act
(A Terrorist Hoax / Attacks on Networks and Property)
Efforts to these legal claims as "mental illness" are unfounded constructive 'gaslighting' in 'automatic mistrial'
and now a part of a formal "Oklahoma Anti Terrorism Act" complaint
paired with theft and unlawful use of registered trademarks, publicity, identity theft, and overt criminal fraud to
kidnap under complaint in PONTOTOC COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF OKLAHOMA.
The same kind of 'gaslighting' and 'ad hominem' fraud in Federal Entitlement theft (18 USC 666) has become evident
in STATE OF TEXAS and STATE OF OKLAHOMA, similar to the December 2019 House handling of the articles of impeachment.
Not only are these actions illegal, but organized criminal racketeering which the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals
has identified in organized human trafficking. Use of media to promote human trafficking under color of law is a very
serious crime, and when paired with NTT and Telia abuse to support a monopoly over United States long-haul data transport
and defamation of competitors raises the matter to foreign influence of utilities and registration of patents and trademarks
named now in a formal complaint of criminal activity and civil suit now open from November 2018 to January 2020 by this firm.
With computers and software valued at $10,000 USD each, these "shakedown" tactics are no different than if they
were being employed against a jeweler or landowner to obtain false title, and a criminal act under "Terrorist hoax"
in the taking and concealment of children from the property of our employees for perpetual concealment on ransom
themed a false civil procedure violating 586 U.S. case 17-1091 and 588 U.S. case 17-647 rule affording civil suit
vacating all State and Federal immunity claims.
Regional negligence and obstruction of justice are formally filed in criminal complaint, citing 18 USC section 666
fraud against the Treasury of the United States United States barred by 45 CFR 303.6 and other Federal Regulations
so affirmed December 16 2016 and prior (25 years the rule, per policy stated in estoppel). As this has to do with
National policy and State sovereignty ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL abuse of office and a hoax executed to restrain a child
under color of law in perpetuity for extortion of money and right to business practice prior established in INTERSTATE
COMMERCE a legal fact at-law over two million USD in value, it is contested at-law and a UNITED STATES matter
at-law now settled 9-0 in 2019 and 5-4 in 2011, subsequent 2007 decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in case P100
voiding the claims carried forward in fraud to support child concealment and refuse a claim of possession by the
STATE OF TEXAS not enforced conditional bribery demand now under criminal complaint.
Witnesses in this case are not obligated to answer questions outside of legal channels nor appear outside of formal trial, granted motion
in January 2019 under 21 O.S. 21-748.2(B) rule of civil suit and 23 O.S. 23-9.1 subsection D class III "unlimited
punitive damages" sought in filing. The value is currently themed $17 billion USD in damages or more by STATE OF OKLAHOMA vs
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, awarded $572 million USD per year with admitted $100 million fraud in false testimony by STATE OF OKLAHOMA
now a final judgment - on similar public nuisance complaint of false publicity in injury to a child and commerce of the people
of the State of Oklahoma as executed in PETERSEN vs ALLEN (2018) and case 01-17702-R, a fraud on default of the petitioner
wrongly registered default judgment against the respondent in Title IV hoax.