This public comment comes after years of refusing to address how the role of cryptocurrencies is connected to chemical weapons development and disposal. This includes refusal to prosecute people— including members of the military who were complicit during their terms of service as well as others after their retirement and classification as veterans—who cooperated with illicit activities as a “substitute” for actual acknowledgement of the role of chemical weapons in the invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War. This has aided and abetted a process of normalization efforts to compel cooperation with organized crime. Necessary support mechanisms to curtail potential infiltration of the government have been lacking while we are exposed to intentional efforts to create bankruptcy in our efforts at appropriate administration. Crime masked as risk has been able to define this offloading and privatization of governmental functions as a means by which to legitimize “warlordism” as part of long- term process. 

​

An audit of the United States Department of State from Oct. 31, 2019 revealed that for much of 2018 through 2019 there were no records of the source origin of transactions coming into the United States. This violated the DATA Act which had been implemented in 2014. Years had transpired in the course of which the Department of State refused to implement the measures necessary to be in compliance. Why did not the Treasury or the federal government intercede? This was the timeframe in which cryptocurrencies were being set up for normalization both domestically and abroad. 

​

There are currently two major legislative tools that need to be considered regarding reporting as would be referenced in this regard: 

​

1. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, which mandated reporting on foreign-based transactions; and 

2. Various aspects of laws connected [to] foreign-origin money laundering, including the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This needs to be considered in regards to the process concerning the veto and then override connected to the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Foreign Terrorism Act as well as actions that transpired on the Executive level following its [signing] into law. 

 

The audit from the Department of State from 2019 said that there was also no information regarding provisions of payments to translators. This is important to consider because where a translator is working would determine matters connected to the tax base around which they are working. Insofar as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney was appointed at the beginning of 2019 to head a task force to consider the use of cryptocurrencies for the federal appropriations process, then taxation and its connection with the potential use of cryptocurrencies takes on another dimension. Taxation can provide people who use cryptocurrencies a potential means by which to track them in order to prevent against them being used in commission of financial or other crimes. To this time there has been no official and public pronouncement on the results of the OMB task force. 

​

It is important to assess if a translator has legal residency or citizenship in a certain country; how to account for compensation based on local factors and local standards of living; as well as if and how transcripts, materials or other factors they were working with may have different payment structures and would make a material difference in considerations of overall accounting.  

​

This can also pertain to concerns about depreciation of currency based on inadequate pairing that is especially problematic without an accurate accounting of equivalencies based on identification of source of origin. How do these forms of depreciation aid and abet other forms of currency devaluation and inordinately impact other factors that accrue as default, liability, underfinancing or underpayment? Refusing to expose this and hold it accountable lends to arguments that such practices are intentionally aimed at currency depreciation in order to undermine entities and operations for political purposes. This is not about actual financial capacity but can also be used to aid and abet crime, including in manners that allow for artificial or contrived appreciative value to currencies that are illicit.  

​

A lack of accountability in these matters can permit a successful expropriation of the capital base of others to be attributed to those from whom they are not derived or from whom they do not originate and hence justify tendencies to work toward normalization of criminal activity. This prevents an accurate and sustainable distribution of wealth, including regarding the information and knowledge bases of extemporaneous wealth creation. Appropriate attribution and accountability disincentivizes criminal and illicit activity and allows for the promulgation of the material conditions for rendering undesirable economic practices obsolete without sabotage or intentional catastrophization that can be used to leverage a cover up of the culprits. 

​

Making a “convertible virtual currency” available for digitization or as part of a cryptoeconomy in terms of valuations in convertibility or exchangeability of the crytoeconomy has to do with the language within which the currency originated as well as how it was applied in translation. Things that mean one thing in English do not mean the same thing when translated into another language. This is relevant in consideration of applications that range from telemedication to electronic warfare. The manners in which particular vocal patterns or phrases are used in the cryptoeconomy are how they elicit a psychoemotional response. This response is going to determine someone’s concept of attraction or repellence in terms of being a recipient or being able to access that currency.  

​

Additionally, the timing of this notice affirms my concerns regarding: 

​

1. That no one in an official governmental capacity is going to deal with the material foundations for the development and out roll of the cryptoeconomy;  

2. That numerous people were mischaracterized intentionally as disabled or some other form of troubled asset in order to be downgraded, depreciated and/or discounted so other people could leverage their position to make it look like relativistically they were worth more or more successful than they actually were; and 

3. That it will actually address the fact that the cryptoeconomy was one based upon normalizing people to certain kinds of criminal behavior—ie., “resiliency;” ie., someone does something that is completely unacceptable based on a social norm or law and then it becomes about how you respond or present as if you recover even though there has been no process of restitution and there certainly has been no process by which a deterrent has been put into effect; ie., no criminal prosecution for the crime in order to forestall or prevent for its reoccurrence but rather that people’s behavior is supposed to be modified in order to give the appearance of them not having a negative or deleterious reaction in the face of them being subjected to crime or being victimized by crime; ie., no deterrent in the face of being attempted for enticement or extortion into cooperating with the crime. 

 

As they often do, it seems they are merely trying to change the naming association in order to try to make it seem like this is somehow acceptable – “convertible virtual currency.” It sounds so scientific, as if it were arrived at sterile, in a completely regulated, completely compliant manner, which is not at all what happened. 

​

“…or acts as a substitute for currency but lacks legal tender status.” Now we got the actual instantiation of what COVID-19 is actually really about. We have the pole where you have somebody who is probably highly capable and highly qualified to do what they are actually doing being illegally expropriated so that they can be extracted for someone else who provides the façade, including the aesthetic characteristics, that pleases whoever is actually able to encounter them. This is what that “substitute for currency but lacks legal tender status” reveals, ie., the more you can list it as being banned or black-marketed, the more you can accrue percentage points as it being a black market commodity, the greater the leveragability. So instead now of talking about just disability we can talk about things like being subjected to bans for refusing to cooperate with certain kinds of policies and procedures that are not just about issues connected to public safety or public welfare but appear to be—as we have seen in the last year especially, but also in the last five years—about the appearances of performance without actually being required to demonstrate and authenticate it.  

​

The means have already been set up by which we’ve been able to normalize people to acceding that there is something legitimate about the cryptoeconomy and that they should aspire to participate in it in a certain way. Now there’s been a period of certain people being told or rendered into a sort of isolation or quarantine status, or a virtual kind of imprisonment status, under the auspices that they are somehow subject to some sort of reproachable violation for things that have not been explicitly prosecuted. What that ends up doing is degrading the actual value and the actual validity of the system of jurisprudence. We don’t have the actual security we need in this country to back up what we’re trying to do. In order to have the actual kind of security we in this country need we would have had to back it up with actual criminal convictions for things like racketeering, for things like massive securities fraud, for things like human trafficking, for things like money laundering in order to finance acts of terrorism. We haven’t done that. There are other countries that have and instead what we’ve been trying to do is access as some form of political risk insurance efforts in other countries in order to cover up for criminal culprits in high places in this country with an understanding that there will some sort of bribe on a lower level offered to other people that go along with that cover up, ie. “substitute for currency but lacks legal tender status.” 

​

It says “the agency further proposes to clarify these rules to domestic and cross-border transactions that involve digital currency that have legal tender” … what did I just say? Who gets allowed to have legal tender status? Why for ten years have I not been allowed to have my name on a lease? Why is it that I am not allowed to even get my own starter credit card to rebuild my credit after I’ve demonstrated my own financial performance capabilities? Why did Congress get several years of their personal crypto economy set up and we are remanded to public comments at the Federal Reserve? 

​

It is important that at this time there are visible 18 public comments with the one at the bottom of the list being from the “Independent Bankers Association of Texas” and the rest only name individuals. Why? Why today?  

 

There is nothing LEGAL tender about this. 

 

3:33 pm CST 

Nov. 11, 2020 

 

First draft transcribed and edited on Nov. 3, 2020 

Vocal recording as it was read from [Oct.] 25, 2020 

 

See [underlined] at 7:19 pm CST on May 14, 2021 

​

_______________________________

​

Posted at 2:09 pm CST on Dec. 13, 2021 (At least it COULD have been...)

​

Proofread and posted at 2:19 pm CST

Dec. 13, 2021

​

​