House Resolution 1: For the People Act of 2021 | Blueprint for One-Party Imperialism

NOTE: External site links highlighted in red

Having secured United States Senate majority with the appointment of Georgia State Representatives Thomas Jonathan “Jon” Ossoff and Raphael Gamaliel Warnock by virtue of the January 5th, 2021 runoff elections; John Peter Spyros Sarbanes, Democratic National Committee (DNC) member of Maryland’s 3rd congressional district, reintroduces 791 page House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1) to guarantee the DNC dominion over the execution of policy governing the voter registration process in future electoral cycles.

Formally titled as the “For the People Act of 2021,” H.R. 1 was a legislative provision that initially appeared in the House Chamber on January 3, 2019, as a 706 page partisan decree designed “to expand Americans access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants,” however, the measure failed to garner support from members of the Republican Caucus, who, at the time of its declaration, possessed senatorial authority, thereby precluding its amendment into the Federal Register.

A written summation of this controversial resolution detailed in the following synopsis with portions of each section emphasized for the purpose of clarification:

1) Enhanced online voter registration capability with the introduction of a government sanctioned electronically transcribed signature submission and verification apparatus. Executed in compliance with the institution of a federal mandate designed to ensure the availability of a viable internet service connection for the express purpose of maintaining public accessibility to the election process

It’s important to note that the Federal Government’s use of technology in the electoral process – specifically with regard to the prospect of a nationally coordinated system of online-based communication – is inherently susceptible to intrusion from a multitudinous array of nefarious ensembles (decentralized international hacktivist collectives, foreign government intelligence operatives, rogue domestic cybersecurity specialists, et al), a fact evidenced with the infiltration of internal email correspondence relays within the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments (Link).

Subtitle A—Voter Registration Modernization

SEC. 1000A. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the “Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2021”.

PART 1—PROMOTING INTERNET REGISTRATION

SEC. 1001. REQUIRING AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET FOR VOTER REGISTRATION.
(a) Requiring Availability Of Internet For Registration.—The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.¹) is amended by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

“SEC. 6A. INTERNET REGISTRATION.

“(a) Requiring Availability Of Internet For Online Registration.—

“(1) AVAILABILITY OF ONLINE REGISTRATION AND CORRECTION OF EXISTING REGISTRATION INFORMATION.—Each State, acting through the chief State election official, shall ensure that the following services are available to the public at any time on the official public websites of the appropriate State and local election officials in the State, in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as the services provided by voter registration agencies under section 7(a)²:

“(A) Online application for voter registration.

2) Rescission of the individual requirement to provide a complete SSN (Social Security Number) for the purpose of voter registration on the basis that stipulations present within such mandates are designed to discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities

SEC. 1005. PROHIBITING STATE FROM REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE MORE THAN LAST 4 DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

(a) FORM INCLUDED WITH APPLICATION FOR MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVER’S LICENSE.—Section 5(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 is amended by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: “, and to the extent that the application requires the applicant to provide a Social Security number, may not require the applicant to provide more than the last 4 digits of such number;”.

(b) NATIONAL MAIL VOTER REGISTRATION FORM.—Section 9(b)(1) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(1)) is amended by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: “, and to the extent that the form requires the applicant to provide a Social Security number, the form may not require the applicant to provide more than the last 4 digits of such number;”.

3) The actualization of a nationwide “Motor Voter” registration apparatus designed to inflate the existing alphanumeric registry of the electorate

The utilization of this methodology being actively employed in the states of California and Nevada where undocumented immigrants are routinely incorporated into the electorate through the acquisition of a valid state-issued driver’s license. In California specifically, by virtue of the New Motor Voter Act of 2015³, voter registration benefits are routinely afforded to foreign nationals on the basis of said party’s claim of lawful permanent residency, with no questions asked and no investigations being conducted by state government agencies to effectively corroborate such assertions (Link).

PART 2—AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION

SEC. 1011. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This part may be cited as the “Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2021”.

(b) FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.—

(1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(A) the right to vote is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States;

(B) it is the responsibility of the State and Federal Governments to ensure that every eligible citizen is registered to vote;

(C) existing voter registration systems can be inaccurate, costly, inaccessible and confusing, with damaging effects on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionate impacts on young people, persons with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minorities; and

(D) voter registration systems must be updated with 21st Century technologies and procedures to maintain their security.

(2) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this part—

(A) to establish that it is the responsibility of government at every level to ensure that all eligible citizens are registered to vote in elections for Federal office;

(B) to enable the State and Federal Governments to register all eligible citizens to vote with accurate, cost-efficient, and up-to-date procedures;

(C) to modernize voter registration and list maintenance procedures with electronic and Internet capabilities; and

(D) to protect and enhance the integrity, accuracy, efficiency, and accessibility of the electoral process for all eligible citizens.

SEC. 1012. AUTOMATIC REGISTRATION OF ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

(a) REQUIRING STATES TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE AUTOMATIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The chief State election official of each State shall establish and operate a system of automatic registration for the registration of eligible individuals to vote for elections for Federal office in the State, in accordance with the provisions of this part.

(2) DEFINITION.—The term “automatic registration” means a system that registers an individual to vote in elections for Federal office in a State, if eligible, by electronically transferring the information necessary for registration from government agencies to election officials of the State so that, unless the individual affirmatively declines to be registered, the individual will be registered to vote in such elections.

4) Alteration of eligibility requirements pursuant to one’s chronological age, specifically with regard to guidelines implemented in prior electoral cycles that restricted an individual’s ability to participate in the voting process if they were under the age of 18 years

(d) TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.—A State may not refuse to treat an individual as an eligible individual for purposes of this part on the grounds that the individual is less than 18 years of age at the time a contributing agency receives information with respect to the individual, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to require a State to permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time of an election for Federal office to vote in the election.

On January 3rd of 2019, when this measure was initially entered into the Congressional Record, the above section was entitled, “Part 10—VOTER REGISTRATION OF MINORS,” with the underlying use of Sec. 1094. ACCEPTANCE OF VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE having also been appended to the bill

5) Streamlined voter registrative mandate with the institution of an automatic and same day registration capability at the national level

PART 3—SAME DAY VOTER REGISTRATION⁴

SEC. 1031. SAME DAY REGISTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III⁵ of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended—

(1) by redesignating sections 304 and 305 as sections 305 and 306; and

(2) by inserting after section 303 the following new section:

“SEC. 304. SAME DAY REGISTRATION.

“(a) IN GENERAL.—

“(1) REGISTRATION.—Each State shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is permitted for a Federal election—

“(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling place using a form that meets the requirements under section 9(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (or, if the individual is already registered to vote, to revise any of the individual’s voter registration information); and

“(B) to cast a vote in such election.

6) Prohibits efforts by independent election oversight committees to maintain ballot integrity across the whole of America

Subtitle C—Prohibiting Voter Caging⁶

“(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR CHALLENGES BY PERSONS OTHER THAN ELECTION OFFICIALS.—

“(1) REQUIREMENTS FOR CHALLENGES.—No person, other than a State or local election official, shall submit a formal challenge to an individual’s eligibility to register to vote in an election for Federal office or to vote in an election for Federal office unless that challenge is supported by personal knowledge regarding the grounds for ineligibility which is—

“(A) documented in writing; and “(B) subject to an oath or attestation under penalty of perjury that the challenger has a good faith factual basis to believe that the individual who is the subject of the challenge is ineligible to register to vote or vote in that election, except a challenge which is based on the race, ethnicity, or national origin of the individual who is the subject of the challenge may not be considered to have a good faith factual basis for purposes of this paragraph.

“(2) PROHIBITION ON CHALLENGES ON OR NEAR DATE OF ELECTION.—No person, other than a State or local election official, shall be permitted—

“(A) to challenge an individual’s eligibility to vote in an election for Federal office on Election Day, or

“(B) to challenge an individual’s eligibility to register to vote in an election for Federal office or to vote in an election for Federal office less than 10 days before the election unless the individual registered to vote less than 20 days before the election.

7) Authorizes the inclusion of convicted felons (individuals sentenced in a state penitentiary for federal crimes as compiled from Title 18 and Title 26 of the United States Legal Code⁷) – a seemingly inexhaustible inventory consisting of those incarcerated for the crimes of capital murder, child molestation, sexual assault, and forcible rape – into the national voter registry

Utilization of the terms, ‘disenfranchisement,’ and ‘disproportionate,’ when referring to the impacts of vote-based restrictions against habitually marginalized segments of the civilian population recognized as yet another ploy by the political establishment to cultivate an atmosphere of division within the electorate at the communal level with the ‘restoration of voting privileges’ hinging on the acquiescence of those states outlined within the contents of the provision to formally ratify the partisan directive into their respective constitutional ledgers. The failure of elected officials occupying positions of authority within each of the aforementioned geographical precincts to acknowledge the Democratic National Committee sponsored mandate as a binding legal precedent equated with the violation of an individual’s civil liberties on the basis of nationality, ethnic predisposition, and/ or ancestral lineage.

NOTE: The absence of a concise delineation of the enumerated listing of felonies appearing in both Title 16 and 28 of the United States Legislative Code (U.S.C. Title 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES • Part 1—CRIMES (§§ 1 – 2725) and U.S.C. Title 26—INTERNAL REVENUE CODE • Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration, Chapter 75—CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES Subchapters A and B (§§ 7201 – 7241)) – the perpetrators of which would otherwise merit exclusion from the electoral process – lends credence to the notion that the application of poll-oriented constraints for the entirety of the federal prison population, regardless of the nature of the crime having been committed, have been vacated.

Subtitle E—Democracy Restoration

SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the “Democracy Restoration Act of 2021”.

(8) An estimated 5,200,000 citizens of the United States, or about 1 in 44 adults in the United States, currently cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction. Of the 5,200,000 citizens barred from voting, only 24 percent are in prison. By contrast, 75 percent of the disenfranchised reside in their communities while on probation or parole or after having completed their sentences. Approximately 2,200,000 citizens who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised due to restrictive State laws. In at least 6 States—Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia— more than 5 percent of the total voting-age population is disenfranchised.

(10) State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities. More than 6 percent of the African-American voting-age population, or 1,800,000 African Americans, are disenfranchised. Currently, 1 of every 16 voting-age African Americans are rendered unable to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, which is a rate more than 3.7 times greater than non-African Americans. Over 6 percent of African-American adults are disenfranchised whereas only 1.7 percent of non-African Americans are. In 7 States (Alabama, 16 percent; Florida, 15 percent; Kentucky, 15 percent; Mississippi, 16 percent; Tennessee, 21 percent; Virginia, 16 percent; and Wyoming, 36 percent), more than 1 in 7 African Americans are unable to vote because of prior convictions, twice the national average for African Americans.

(11) Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised based upon their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system. In recent years, Latinos have been imprisoned at 13 times the rate of Whites. More than 2 percent of the voting-age Latino population, or 560,000 Latinos, are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. In 16 states Latinos are disenfranchised at a higher rate than the general population. In 11 states 4 percent or more of Latino adults are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction (Alabama, 4 percent; Arizona, 7 percent; Arkansas, 4 percent; Idaho, 4 percent; Iowa, 4 percent; Kentucky, 6 percent; Minnesota, 4 percent; Mississippi, 5 percent; Nebraska, 6 percent; Tennessee, 11 percent, Wyoming, 4 percent), twice the national average for Latinos.

This notion of deliberacy on the part of said states to deny prospective applicants their ‘constitutional’ right to participate in the Federal elections process based on their status as ethnic minorities and the legacy of institutional racism in the criminal justice system is refuted by virtue of the aforementioned voting bloc’s penchant to engage in illegal activity (Link).

SEC. 1405. NOTIFICATION OF RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS.

(a) STATE NOTIFICATION.—

(1) NOTIFICATION.—On the date determined under paragraph (2), each State shall notify in writing any individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense under the law of that State that such individual has the right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to the Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 and may register to vote in any such election and provide such individual with any materials that are necessary to register to vote in any such election.

8) Appends retroactive extensions to the timetable of early voting procedures such that the time allotted for individuals to participate in the electoral process is limited only by the prospect of a state or municipality’s interpretation of regulatory protocol

Note that the rule’s specification in the sections appearing below the first declaration references the conceptualization of an ‘early voting period’ as detailed in antecedent iterations of the amended decree with the mention of state sanctioned electoral proceedings commencing 15 days prior to the general election, with each of the states being given a limitless degree of discretion in their adjustment of schedule for the preliminary selections process. This portion of the legislative proposal underlined for the purpose of emphasizing its significance.

“SEC. 306. EARLY VOTING.

“(a) REQUIRING VOTING PRIOR TO DATE OF ELECTION.—

IN GENERAL.—Each State shall allow individuals to vote in an election for Federal office during an early voting period which occurs prior to the date of the election, in the same manner as voting is allowed on such date.

“(2) LENGTH OF PERIOD.—The early voting period required under this subsection with respect to an election shall consist of a period of consecutive days (including weekends) which begins on the 15th day before the date of the election (or, at the option of the State, on a day prior to the 15th day before the date of the election) and ends on the date of the election.

9) Facilitates the creation of a nationwide vote-by mail absentee ballot system, formally authorizes the imposition of extrajudicially sanctioned interdictions pursuant to the requirement of a valid form of personal identification as a precondition in the acquisition of election-related materials, and removes restrictions governing a document’s proof of authenticity with independently verified notarization and/ or witness signature corroboration being excised from the conventional standard

Subtitle I—Voting by Mail

“SEC. 307. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL.

“(a) UNIFORM AVAILABILITY OF ABSENTEE VOTING TO ALL VOTERS.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—If an individual in a State is eligible to cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election by absentee ballot by mail.

“(2) ADMINISTRATION OF VOTING BY MAIL.—

“(A) PROHIBITING IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING BALLOT.—A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent a State from requiring a signature of the individual or similar affirmation as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot.

“(B) PROHIBITING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTARIZATION OR WITNESS SIGNATURE AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING OR CASTING BALLOT.—A State may not require notarization or witness signature or other formal authentication (other than voter attestation) as a condition of obtaining or casting an absentee ballot.

“(2) PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT.—The State—

“(A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and

“(B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.

10) Provides for the replacement of valid forms of personal identification necessary to participate in the electoral process in favor of the presentation of a sworn written affidavit affirming one’s identity – and thereby voting eligibility – to appropriate local or state election officials under penalty of law

The enforcement of this caveat rendered null and void by the prohibition of a witness signature as detailed in subparagraph (B) PROHIBITING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTARIZATION OR WITNESS SIGNATURE AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING OR CASTING BALLOT of subsection (2) ADMINISTRATION OF VOTING BY MAIL.

SEC. 1903. PERMITTING USE OF SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT TO MEET IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING.

(a) PERMITTING USE OF STATEMENT.—Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303 the following new section:

“SEC. 303A. PERMITTING USE OF SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT TO MEET IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

“(a) USE OF STATEMENT.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c), if a State has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot in an election for Federal office, the State shall permit the individual to meet the requirement—

“(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election; or

“(B) in the case of an individual who desires to vote by mail, by submitting with the ballot the statement described in subparagraph (A).

11) Codifies an organized ballot harvesting operation into existence at the domestic level with the retraction of legislative caveats that would otherwise preclude the recognition of documents from third party intermediaries by local and state polling representatives

SEC. 1506. PAPER BALLOT PRINTING REQUIREMENTS.

“(iii) MANDATORY AVAILABILITY OF 18 PAPER BALLOTS AT POLLING PLACES USING GRANDFATHERED PRINTERS AND SYSTEMS.—

“(I) REQUIRING BALLOTS TO BE OFFERED AND PROVIDED.—The appropriate election official at each polling place that uses a printer or system described in clause (ii)(I) for the administration of elections for Federal office shall offer each individual who is eligible to cast a vote in the election at the polling place the opportunity to cast the vote using a blank pre-printed paper ballot which the individual may mark by hand and which is not produced by the direct recording electronic voting machine or other such system. The official shall provide the individual with the ballot and the supplies necessary to mark the ballot, and shall ensure (to the greatest extent practicable) that the waiting period for the individual to cast a vote is the lesser of 30 minutes or the average waiting period for an individual who does not agree to cast the vote using such a paper ballot under this clause.

“(II) TREATMENT OF BALLOT.— Any paper ballot which is cast by an individual under this clause shall be counted and otherwise treated as a regular ballot for all purposes (including by incorporating it into the final unofficial vote count (as defined by the State) for the precinct) and not as a provisional ballot, unless the individual casting the ballot would have otherwise been required to cast a provisional ballot.

“(III) POSTING OF NOTICE.— The appropriate election official shall ensure there is prominently displayed at each polling place a notice that describes the obligation of the official to offer individuals the opportunity to cast votes using a pre-printed blank paper ballot.

12) Establishes the framework necessary to reclassify the nation’s capital, Washington’s District of Columbia (D.C.), as well as the United States territory of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as the 51st and 52nd states of the union respectively, with future considerations being afforded to the residents of the following territorial municipalities: American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands

The District of Columbia’s admission into the union identified as yet another ploy devised by the Democratic National Committee to cement their claims of regency over the American electoral process in the modern era, with residents of the nation’s capital having pledged their support for Joseph “Joe” Robinette Biden Jr., the presidential challenger in the 2020 general election, by an overwhelming statistical margin.

Subtitle C—Findings Relating to District of Columbia Statehood

SEC. 2201. FINDINGS RELATING TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The 705,000 District of Columbia residents deserve voting representation in Congress and local self-government, which only statehood can provide.

(2) The United States is the only democratic country that denies both voting representation in the national legislature and local self-government to the residents of its Nation’s capital.

(3) There are no constitutional, historical, fiscal, or economic reasons why the Americans who live in the District of Columbia should not be granted statehood.

Subtitle D—Territorial Voting Rights

SEC. 2301. FINDINGS RELATING TO TERRITORIAL VOTING RIGHTS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The right to vote is one of the most powerful instruments residents of the territories of the United States have to ensure that their voices are heard.

(2) These Americans have played an important part in the American democracy for more than 120 years.

(3) Political participation and the right to vote are among the highest concerns of territorial residents in part because they were not always afforded these rights.

13) Facilitates the establishment of an independently accredited redistricting commission under the authority of Congress as a means of ensuring the adequate representation of its constituents based on the following demographically-inspired factors: ethnic minority status, nationality, race, economic standing, and gender identity

Subtitle E—Redistricting Reform

SEC. 2400. SHORT TITLE; FINDING OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This subtitle may be cited as the “Redistricting Reform Act of 2021”.

(b) FINDING OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.—

Congress finds that it has the authority to establish the terms and conditions States must follow in carrying out congressional redistricting after an apportionment of Members of the House of Representatives because—

(1) the authority granted to Congress under article I, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to enact laws governing the time, place, and manner of elections for Members of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the authority granted to Congress under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce section 2 of such amendment, which requires Representatives to be apportioned among the several States according to their number.

PART 2—INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS

SEC. 2411. INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION.

(a) APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS.—

(B) ENSURING DIVERSITY.—In appointing the 9 members pursuant to subparagraph (B) paragraph (1), as well as in designating alternates pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) and in appointing alternates to fill 4 vacancies pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4), the first members of the independent redistricting commission shall ensure that the membership is representative of the demographic groups (including racial, ethnic, economic, and gender) and geographic regions of the State, and provides racial, ethnic, and language minorities protected under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of the State’s redistricting plan.

14) Provides for the levying of civil penalties pursuant to the manufacture, or dissemination thereof, of ‘patently false information’ as it pertains to the electoral process

By virtue of the “Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2021,” which is outlined in the contents of ‘Subtitle D—Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter Intimidation SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.,’ individuals deemed to be in violation of clause stipulations present within the memorandum are subject to punitive fines of up to $100,000 USD (United States Dollars), as well as the possibility of incarceration in a federal penitentiary for a period of 5 years.

Subtitle D—Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter Intimidation

SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2021’’.

SEC. 1302. PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

‘‘(b) DECEPTIVE ACTS.—

‘‘(1) FALSE STATEMENTS REGARDING FEDERAL ELECTIONS.—

‘‘(A) PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawful for any person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, within 60 days before an election described in subsection (e), by any means, including by means of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, to communicate or cause to be communicated information described in subparagraph (B), or produce information described in subparagraph (B) with the intent that such information be communicated, if such person—

‘‘(i) knows such information to be materially false; and

‘‘(ii) has the intent to mislead voters, or the intent to impede or prevent another person from exercising the right to vote in an election described in subsection (e).

‘‘(B) INFORMATION DESCRIBED.—Information is described in this subparagraph if such information is regarding—

‘‘(i) the time or place of holding any election described in subsection (e); or

‘‘(ii) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election, including—

‘‘(I) any criminal penalties associated with voting in any such election; or

‘‘(II) information regarding a voter’s registration status or eligibility.

‘‘(2) PENALTY.—Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

CONCLUSION: H.R. (House Resolution) 1, also known as the ‘For the People Act of 2021,’ is, in effect, a partisan declaration of electoral supremacy, or what could be more aptly characterized as the ominous presage of a permanent system of one-party authoritarianism in the United States.

LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE

37 Stipulations Present Within the House of Representatives Sanctioned ‘For the People Act of 2021’ That Will Effectively Nationalize the Electoral Process and Guarantee the Permanence of Democratic National Committee Political Reign in the United States

Democrats Introduce Bill That Will Destroy America With One Swipe…

Shocking U.S. Bill Would Allow Dems ‘to Steal Elections Forever’

¹ An abbreviation for the Latin phrase, “et sequentes” or “et sequential,” the English equivalent of which is recognized as, “and the following.” Used in a multitude of state and federal channels to reference specific pages, sections, or inventoried listings within statutes, articles, regulations, or other legally binding documents to indicate that the information being presented is elaborated on in greater detail in the form of written annotation appearing below the original entry.

² Refers to SEC. 7. VOTER REGISTRATION AGENCIES and the designation thereof, specifically as it pertains to the following subsection:

(a) DESIGNATION.—(1) Each State shall designate agencies for the registration of voters in elections for Federal office.

³ Enacted into law on October of 2015, the New Motor Voter Act is a statute requiring the Department of Motor Vehicles to forward records for all eligible applicants for driver’s licenses to the acting Secretary of State’s office for registration solely on the basis of a prospective individual’s claim of lawful permanent residency

⁴ Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) is a transformative electoral reform proposal allowing for the automated registration of prospective voters, a process contingent on the submission of information to federally subsidized agencies – specifically the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles), as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other entitlement benefits/ economic subsistence packages (Supplemental Security Income, or SSI; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF; Housing Choice Voucher Initiative, also known as Section 8 or Tenant Based Rental Assistance; Academic Pell Grants, et al) requiring manual application – whereby an individual’s personal records are utilized as a means of bolstering the electorate in terms of its aggregate number. As of December 23, 2020, twenty states, as well the District of Columbia, have adopted AVR as their default method of enrollment. The areas mentioned in the context of the above statement are as follows:

Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia

The ratification of such measures at the national level heralding the possibility of an additional 50 million voters being added to the system regardless of their country of origin at the time of their entry into the database network.

⁵ Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) deals with the institution of voting systems standards, specifically with regard to the “UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS” (The heading of this section capitalized in accordance with the original proclamation, thereby preserving its continuity for the purpose of debate) outlined in Sec. 301 with the maintenance of ballot integrity detailed in subchapter (iii) of the (a) REQUIREMENTS subsection, a written account that appears as follows:

(iii) if the voter selects votes for more than one candidate for a single office—

(I) notify the voter that the voter has selected more than one candidate for a single office on the ballot;

(II) notify the voter before the ballot is cast and counted of the effect of casting multiple votes for the office; and

(III) provide the voter with the opportunity to correct the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted.

⁶ Voter caging is the practice by which a political party or partisan-based affiliate challenges the registrational merit of individuals opposed to the election of a prospective candidate into public office on the basis of their ability to demonstrate proof of residency. It involves the distribution of unsolicited articles, predominantly in the form of registered mail issued notices, to the physical addresses of voters that are either members of, or actively engaged in activities sponsored by organizations or entities deemed antithetical to the status quo.

⁷ Alphabetically indexed inventory of criminal offenses detailed in compliance with Title 18 and Title 26 of the United States Legal Code (the mention of these titles in the context of their elucidation consistent with the foundation of the current U.S. penal structure):

Abusive Sexual Contact
Advocating Overthrow of the Government
Aggravated Assault/ Battery
Aggravated Identity Theft
Aggravated Sexual Abuse
Aiming a Laser Pointer at a Commercial Aircraft
Airplane Hijacking
Anti-racketeering
Antitrust Violations
Armed Robbery
Arson
Assassination
Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Assaulting or Killing a Federal Officer
Assisting or Instigating Escape
Attempt to Commit Murder/ Manslaughter
Bank Burglary
Bankruptcy Fraud/ Embezzlement
Bank Larceny
Bank Robbery
Blackmail
Bombing Matters (Threats to employ the use of explosives or incendiary devices on Federal property, et al)
Bond Default
Breaking and/ or Entering Carrier Facilities
Bribery Crimes
Certification of Checks or the Use of Fraudulent Instrumentation
Child Abuse
Child Exploitation
Child Pornography
Civil Action to Restrain/ Harassment of a Victim or Witness
Coercion
Commodities Price Fixing
Computer Crime
Concealing Escaped Fugitive
Concealing Person from Arrest
Concealment of Assets
Conspiracy (in matters under FBI jurisdiction)
Conspiracy to Impede or Injure an Officer
Contempt of Court
Continuing Criminal Enterprise (aiding and abetting)
Conveying False Information
Copyright Matters
Counterfeiting
Counterintelligence Crimes
Credit/ Debit Card Fraud
Crime Aboard Aircraft
Crimes on Government Reservations
Crimes on Indian Reservations
Criminal Contempt of Court
Criminal Forfeiture
Criminal Infringement of a Copyright
Cyber Crimes
Damage to Religious Property
Delivery to Consignee
Demands Against the U.S.
Destruction of Aircraft or Motor Vehicles Used in Foreign Commerce
Destruction of an Energy Facility
Destruction of Property to Prevent Seizure
Destruction of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy
Destruction of Corporate Audit Records
Destruction of Veterans’ Memorials
Detention of Armed Vessel
Disclosure of Confidential Information
Domestic Security (Violations thereof, including the formulation of impediments)
Domestic Terrorism
Domestic Violence
Drive-by Shooting
Drug Abuse Violations
Drug Smuggling
Drug Trafficking
DUI/ DWI (Driving Under the Influence/ Driving While Intoxicated) on Federal Property
Economic Espionage
Election Law Crimes
Embezzlement
Embezzlement Against Estate
Entering Train to Commit Crime
Enlistment to Serve Against the U.S.
Environmental Scheme Crimes
Escaping Custody/ Escaped Federal Prisoners
Examiner Performing Other Services
Exportation of Drugs/ Narcotics Paraphernalia
Extortion
Failure to Appear on Felony Offense
Failure to Pay Legal Child Support Obligations
False Bail
False Pretenses
False Statements Relating to Health Care Matters
Falsely Claiming Citizenship
False Declarations before Grand Jury or Court
False Entries in Records of Interstate Carriers
False Information and Hoaxes
False Statement to Obtain Unemployment Compensation
Federal Aviation Act Violations
Federal Civil Rights Violations (hate crimes, police misconduct)
Female Genital Mutilation
Financial Transactions with Foreign Government
First Degree Murder
Flight to Avoid Prosecution or Giving Testimony
Forced Labor
Forcible Rape
Forgery
Fraud Activity in Connection with Electronic Mail
Fraud Against the Government
Genocide
Hacking Crimes
Harboring Terrorists
Harming Animals Used in Law Enforcement
Hate Crime Acts
Homicide
Hostage Taking
Identity Theft
Illegal Possession of Firearms (convicted felons)
Immigration Offenses
Impersonator Making Arrest or Search
Importation of Drugs
Influencing Juror by Writing
Injuring Officer
Insider Trading Crimes
Insurance Fraud
Interference with the Operation of a Satellite
International Parental Kidnapping
International Terrorism
Interstate Domestic Violence
Interstate Violation of Protection Order
Larceny
Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys
Mailing Threatening Communications
Major Fraud Against the U.S.
Manslaughter
Medical/Health Care Fraud
Missile Systems Designed to Destroy Aircraft (specifically with regard to the monetary funding and/ or development thereof)
Misuse of Passport
Misuse of Visas, Permits, or Other Documents
Molestation
Money Laundering
Motor Vehicle Theft
Murder by a Federal Prisoner
Murder Committed During Drug-related Drive-by Shooting
Murder Committed in Federal Government Facility
Narcotics Violations
Obstructing Examination of Financial Institution
Obstruction of Court Orders
Obstruction of Federal Audit
Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Criminal Investigations
Officer Failing to Make Reports
Partial Birth Abortion (excluding the states of New York and Virginia, whose legislators codified exemptions into each of their respective constitutions to allow for the procedures to be conducted in a clinical setting – Link)
Penalties for Neglect or Refusal to Answer Subpoena
Peonage (debt bondage, indentured servitude)
Perjury
Picketing or Parading
Pirating
Possession by Restricted Persons
Possession of False Papers to Defraud the U.S.
Possession of Narcotics
Possession of Child Pornography
Private Correspondence with Foreign Government
Probation Violation
Product Tampering
Prohibition of Illegal Gambling Businesses
Prostitution
Protection of Foreign Officials
Public Corruption Crimes
Racketeering
Radiological Dispersal Devices (refers to the usage of, in violation of environmental safety regulations)
Ransom Money (the demand thereof, oftentimes associated with the crimes of false imprisonment/ unlawful detainment, and kidnapping)
Rape
Receiving the Proceeds of Extortion
Recording or Listening to Grand or Petit Juries While Deliberating
Reentry of an Alien Removed on National Security Grounds
Registration of Certain Organizations (unregulated by intergovernmental agencies/ intermediaries in an attempt to circumvent tax law)
Reproduction of Citizenship Papers
Resistance to Extradition Agent
Rescue of Seized Property
Retaliating Against a Federal Judge by False Claim or Slander of Title
Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant
Robbery
Robberies and Burglaries Involving Controlled Substances
Sabotage
Sale of Citizenship Papers
Sale of Stolen Vehicles
Searches Without Warrant
Second Degree Murder
Serial Murders
Sexual Abuse
Sexual Abuse of a Minor
Sexual Assault
Sexual Battery
Sexual Conduct with a Minor
Sexual Exploitation
Sex Trafficking
Shoplifting (felony designation contingent on the value of purloined inventory)
Smuggling
Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence
Stalking (in violation of restraining/ protective order)
Stolen Property; Buying, Receiving, or Possessing (felony designation contingent on the value of purloined inventory)
Subornation of Perjury
Suits Against Government Officials
Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant
Tampering with Consumer Products
Tampering with Vessels
Theft of Trade Secrets
Torture
Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services
Transmission of Wagering Information (gambling offenses related to the orchestration of outcome of organized athletics)
Transportation into State Prohibiting Sale
Transportation of Slaves from U.S.
Transportation of Stolen Vehicles
Transportation of Terrorists
Trespassing
Treason
Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents
Use of Fire or Explosives to Destroy Property
Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Vandalism
Video Voyeurism
Violation of Prohibitions Governing Atomic Weapons
Violence at International Airports
Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity
Willful Wrecking of a Train Resulting in Death (physical damage to railways or track-related infrastructure precipitating derailment)
Wire Fraud

RELEVANT TERMS/ DEFINITIONS

The term, ‘one-party imperialism,’ alternatively known as a one-party state, single-party state, one-party system, or single-party system, refers to the conceptualization of a unitary governmental assemblage whose scope of regency is predicated by the formulation of a centralized locus of control. This consolidation of power a hallmark of communist and dictatorial regimes, with two of the most noteworthy examples being the Marxist-Leninist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, commonly known as the Soviet Union) that exercised dominion over a significant portion of Northern Eurasia from 1922-1991, as well as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), where the CPC (Communist Party of China) – founded in 1921 with the aid of the Far Eastern Bureau of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Far Eastern Secretariat of the Communist International (Comintern) Assembly – seized jurisdictional authority over the Kuomintang (KMT) Nationalist Government of mainland China in 1949 following a series of events pertaining to the Chinese Civil War.

APPENDED DOCUMENTATION/ WRITTEN ANNOTATION

H.R. (House Resolution) 1 | For the People Act of 2019: Part 10—VOTER REGISTRATION OF MINORS (Partitioned Sectional)

H.R. (House Resolution) 1; 117th Congress, 1st Session | For the People Act of 2021

ABBREVIATIONAL INDEX

AVR – Automatic Voter Registration

Comintern – Communist International

CPC – Communist Party of China

D.C. – District of Columbia

DMV – Department of Motor Vehicles

DNC – Democratic National Committee

DUI/ DWI – Driving Under the Influence/ Driving While Intoxicated

FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation

HAVA – Help America Vote Act

KMT – KuoMinTang

PRC – People’s Republic of China

SEC. – SECtion

SNAP – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SSI – Supplemental Security Income

SSN – Social Security Number

TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

U.S.C. – United States Code

USD – United States Dollars

USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule: A Beta Test Exercise Conducted by Constitutionally Subversive Elements Within the U.S. Federal Government in Advance of the UN's 2030 Agenda

Oftentimes characterized as the operant extension of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the AFFH Rule is a legislative provision that was signed into law in 2015 by the Obama Administration granting agencies present within the U.S. Federal Government, specifically the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the power, per the description provided by the National Review's Stanley Kurtz: to “re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood - imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in suburb and city alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education.” The directive formally obligates any state-level jurisdiction receiving federal funding from HUD to conduct a detailed analysis of its housing occupancy by race, cultural ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, economic status, social class, etc. In accordance with the mandate, grant recipients, legally termed as grantees, are in turn tasked with the responsibility of identifying several factors (preexistent zoning regulations, public-housing admissions criteria, and the “absence of regional collaboration”) that would otherwise account for, or contribute to an imbalance in living patterns. Localities must also comply with the public release of a comprehensive inventory of “community assets” (quality schools/ educational institutions, mass transit centers, recreational facilities, and opportunities for employment) and account for disparities in accessibility to such amenities on the basis of racial disposition, heritage, immigration status, language, financial standing, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, etc. Any perceived irregularities must then be addressed by that city’s representatives with revisions to prior stated policies being subject to the approval of HUD. Through the AFFH Rule's enactment, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development can strip communities of government funding and monetary grants or subsidies if they fail to adhere to its regulatory tenets. Kurtz proffers the following assertion regarding these restrictions: 

“[B]y obligating all localities receiving HUD funding to compare their demographics to the region as a whole, AFFH effectively nullifies municipal boundaries. Even with no allegation or evidence of intentional discrimination, the mere existence of a demographic imbalance in the region as a whole must be remedied by a given suburb. Suburbs will literally be forced to import population from elsewhere, at their own expense and in violation of their own laws. In effect, suburbs will have been annexed by a city-dominated region, their laws suspended and their tax money transferred to erstwhile non-residents. And to make sure the new high-density housing developments are close to ‘community assets’ such as schools, transportation, parks, and jobs, bedroom suburbs will be forced to develop mini-downtowns. In effect, they will become more like the cities their residents chose to leave in the first place.”

CONCLUSION: The AFFH Rule, is, in reality, the statutory application of the Disparate Impact Theory, whereby legally binding stipulations present in the Fair Housing Act of 1968 that retroactively prohibit prospective rental property owners from instituting policies that would otherwise be construed as “discriminatory” to members of a protected class are codified into law. 

Examples of Disparate Impact (As illustrated on one of the many paged entries appearing on the National Fair Housing Alliance’s main site) 

1) An apartment complex only allows people with full-time jobs. This bars disabled veterans and other people with disabilities who may not be able to work full-time, even though they can afford the apartment. The complex could instead consider all income to assess someone's ability to satisfy rental obligations.

2) A city decides to prohibit all housing that would be affordable to working-class people, and that has the effect of excluding most, or all people of color in that region. If the city cannot produce a valid reason for the institution of said policy, or if a more fair or conducive alternative is available, then the policy would have to be set aside under the disparate impact approach.

3) A lender has a policy of allowing its loan officers to overcharge consumers at the loan officer's discretion. The result is that women are charged higher prices than their male counterparts - even though both possess similar credit profiles. In a case like this, the lender would have to abandon the discretionary pricing policy and take steps to insure that women are not over-charged for lending products and services.

In the interest of social equity, ratification of the AFFH Rule by the Obama Administration effected the taxpayer funded selective partitioning of suburban population centers into multiculturally integrated districts and municipalities where the relocation of “economically disadvantaged, ethnically challenged, or otherwise opportunity impoverished” segments could be coordinated at the federal level. This renewed preoccupation with a bevy of issues pertaining to the subject of civil liberty by a varying degree of political constituencies merely a ploy of convenience being utilized as a means of exploitation with regard to vulnerable sectors of the domestic periphery to engender some semblance of continuity within the electorate and insure the preservation of the status quo. This government sanctioned redistribution of certain cultural demographics in the interest of environmentalist concern also mirroring the engineered supplementation of urban metropolitan areas with compact, densely concentrated boroughs where any semblance of autonomy is systematically purged from the memory of its inhabitants. All of this being orchestrated in advance of AGENDA 2030 (Link 1, Link 2) where SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) grid, technologically compliant cities - where even the most mundane human activities can be scrutinized or called into question - are born into existence.

CORRESPONDENT ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:

Julian Castro, the Acting Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Under the Direction of the Obama Administration, Threatening to Take Legal Action Against Landlords and Various State Housing Authorities Who Actively Screen Prospective Tenants for Prior Felony Convictions - Citing Several Stanzas in the Fair Housing Act, as Well as Utilizing the Sociologically Derived “Disparate Impact” Theory of Racism as a Form of Justification, the U.S. Federal Government is Prohibiting Landlords From Excluding Convicted Felons From the Premises of Their Establishments on the Basis of Past Criminal History as the Prohibition of Housing is Identified as a Form of Institutional Discrimination

Life in 2030: The Evolution of SMART Grid Technology in Metropolitan Population Centers Being Hailed by Its Progenitors as a Veritable Utopia

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA FY2013) and the Repeal of Restrictive Mandate Governing the Publication of Material Designed to Alter Public Opinion and Influence Perception in the Interest of Corporate Telecommunications Agencies in the United States

NDAA 2013 - specifically Amendment 114, which was approved by the House of Representatives in May of 2012 - effectively negated the protectionist clauses present within both the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-402) ˡ, as well as the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, that would have otherwise shielded impressionable viewers from the pervasive specter of government-sponsored disinformation. Buried within the written contents of the aforementioned provision is the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (House Resolution 5736), portions of which have been excerpted in the following paragraphs:

Section 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may, upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad. 

The late Michael Hastings, an individual whose untimely demise became the subject of conspiratorial conjecture and speculative reasoning (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3), penned a statement alluding to the consequences associated with the ratification of such a measure:

“The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public.”

A Pentagon official whose identity remained withheld from the general public at the time of the mandate was quoted as saying, “It removes protection for Americans. It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, or entirely false.”

Justification regarding the amendment of the 1948 provision was bipartisan, with both William McClellan ‘Mac’ Thornberry, acting Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and RNC-affiliated Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas’s 13th District; and Adam Smith, a DNC-affiliated Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Washington’s 9th District, voicing their support on the basis of national security concerns, specifically the radicalization of foreign nationals residing in the United States through their exposure to propagandist elements deemed sympathetic to terrorism.

ˡ U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-402) - Oftentimes referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act (SMA) in academic circles, this legislative provision was first introduced in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (HCFA) in October of 1945 at the request of the U.S. State Department. Named after DNC-affiliated HCFA chairman and New York State congressional representative Sol Bloom, the Bloom Bill proposal was announced  in December of 1945 in the 79th Congress and subsequently passed by the 80th Congressional assembly on January 27, 1948 prior to its addition to the Federal Register by acting President Harry S. Truman. This particular measure, initially designed as a form of peacetime instrumentation in the actualization of foreign policy objectives during the height of the Cold War, authorized the U.S. State Department to actively promote sensationalist rhetorical discourse via the telecommunications industry, intergovernmental intermediaries, formative exchanges (inclusive of educational, cultural, and technical documentation and material), internet-oriented correspondence, written literature and publication (books and magazines), etc. to audiences whose geographic location rested outside the territorial boundaries of the domestic periphery. The principal purpose of the legislation was one of engagement - in compliance with a phrase attributed to Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower - emphasizing the reality of a global war on information brought about by the desire to influence the will, and thereby the subconscious mind, of foreign nationals who may otherwise view the United States in a negative light. This directive also facilitated the creation of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (Link 1, Link 2), an independently contracted agency of the U.S. Federal Government heralded by its progenitors as a beacon of transparency in the manufacture of material drafted by the political establishment to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

The Market Financialization of 1982 as a Function of Income Inequality in the United States

A term oftentimes associated with the concept of finance capitalism, whereby debt/ fiscal liability is monetized as income in the aggregated determination of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), and the commodification of outstanding monetary obligation yields the manufacture of financial instrumentation collateralized from market assets deemed to possess low-risk classification. Financialization exists as a pyramidal¹ appraisal of risk and market-derived speculative investiture that is predicated on the commutation of industrialism and innovation with articles of leverage and divergent modality as its principal method of profit engineering.

The use of this terminological descriptor possesses an innumerable host of interpretations, the most notable of which are listed accordingly:

DoD (Department of Defense) 1033 Program | The Unacknowledged Successor to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984

Founded on the pretext of providing law enforcement agencies at the domestic level a significantly enhanced measure of offensive and defensive capability in instances of crowd control relating to the onset of civil disturbance or mass demonstration, the DoD (Department of Defense) 1033 Program was born into existence following Congressional passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (FY 97) (Also known as H.R. 3230, this legislative stipulation authorized appropriations for the fiscal year of 1997 for military activities involving the Department of Defense, for the construction of facilities, and for the national defense capabilities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes). The prior stated directive, through its inclusion in the Federal Registry, permitted the transfer of military-grade equipment - including but not limited to the following: ballistic armor accessories, mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) transportation, automatic weapons, explosive ordnance, biochemical agents and derivatives (RCAs, or Riot Control Agents incorporating the use of tear gas and respiratory irritants such as 2-chloroacetophenone [CN] and 2-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile [CS]), ammunition stockpiles, etc. - to auxiliary civilian contingents throughout the continental United States, as well as its territorial municipalities. In October of 1995, more than four years after the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (legislative provisions authorizing the transfer and appropriation of surplus DoD property and materials to federal and state agencies for use in counter-narcotics trafficking operations - the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 significantly expanded the 1033 Program’s initial scope of influence to include the requisition of military weapons and armament by domestic law enforcement/ civilian city and state government appendages for use in the event of civil disturbances and public demonstrations), the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (USDLA) acquired jurisdiction over the program, with the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) - an intergovernmental mediary whose base of operations is recognized as the DLA Disposition Services Headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan - assuming a proprietary role in the directive’s implementation. These organizations, particularly the USDLA, possess a long and storied history with the DoD, a fact evidenced in the following account:

At the close of 2014 there were a total of 3,900 military defense contracts listed for the United States Defense Logistics Agency, with only solicitations possessing a value in excess of $6.5 million USD (U.S. Dollars) being formally acknowledged by the U.S. DoD. Each contractual listing is arranged in descending order, with the date of formal agreement between parties appearing from the most recent calendar equivalent to the first documented article of solicitation. The itemized register below the contents of this written stanza encompasses the current fiscal year of 2014, with the entirety of the inventory in question being located in the appended link:

The Engineered Insolvency of America Through the Actualization of a Debt-Based System of Finance

 

The content presented in the following paragraphs is conclusive evidence of complicity between the Federal Government and the international banking syndicate to effectively engineer the insolvency of America through legislative decree, in essence, altering the social, economic, and judicial strata through the introduction of a debt-based system of finance. This viewpoint is reflected in the following statement, an utterance made by Colonel Edward Mandell House (The use of ‘Colonel’ recognized as a jocular affectation denoting an inflated sense of self importance) during a series of private communications with acting President Woodrow Wilson (US President from 1913-1921), a revealing sequence of intonations emphasizing the emergence of a corpocratic exemplar, a sociopolitical dynamic authored into existence by Elitist malefactors within the financial industry acting at the behest of a transnational collective (A term symbolic of the Global Oligarchy, referencing one, or perhaps all, of the familial dynasties acting in concert).

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the Civil Assets Forfeiture Program

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, specifically the inclusion of established provisions outlined within the contents of 28 U.S.C. § 524(c), granted the Department of Justice a significant degree of autonomy relative to that agency’s pre-acknowledged jurisdictional privilege. The principal reason for the enactment of this particular measure was one of born out of expediency, as its implementation was specifically designed to coincide with various legislative provisions deemed essential to the Federal Government’s ‘War on Drugs’ campaign. This written directive, enacted on October 12 of 1984 by the Reagan Administration (coincidentally the same political establishment that authored the REX 84 or Readiness Exercise 84 preparedness operations), is widely recognized as the first comprehensive revision of the U.S. criminal code since the early 1900s.
The A and F subset together represent the most egregious violations of the 4^th Amendment, in that through the creation of the civil assets forfeiture program as well as its ancillary availability of appropriations specificity clause, new opportunities for the abuse of this edict were revisited.

The A subset in UNITED STATES CODE - SECTION 524 allows for a considerable expansion of the Attorney General's jurisdictional authority, specifically in the delegation of fees or expenses essential to the seizure, detainment, inventory, or disposal of property obtained through the civil assets forfeiture program.

The F subset in UNITED STATES CODE - SECTION 524 explains how the militarization of law enforcement agencies throughout the country has attained precedence, specifically through the misappropriation of monetary or material assets via civil forfeiture proceedings.

The advent of this particular measures enactment effectively fostered an atmosphere of policing for profit, as the following registry links* will attest to:

*NOTE: The inclusion of the first link functions as a tool of reference concerning the full contents of US CODE - SECTION 524 in contextual form.

LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:

28 U.S.C. § 524 : US Code - Section 524: Availability of Appropriations
Policing for Profit Examined: The Documented Abuses of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Program
Policing for Profit: Purchasing Military Equipment and Ordnance With Stolen Assets
Under Civil Forfeiture, Americans Who Haven’t Been Formally Charged With Wrongdoing Can Be Stripped of Their Monetary Assets, Vehicles, or Place of Residence

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the Civil Assets Forfeiture Program as Operant Extensions of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 is, in reality, the operant extension of the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) (Link 1, Link 2) Statutes - a set of stipulations created through the passage of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-452), an Act of Congress sponsored by Democratic Senator John L. McClellan and signed into law by U.S. President Richard Milhous Nixon. The RICO Statutes implementation effectively merged state-level law enforcement agencies with their Federal counterparts, overturning several protections ascribed to the outlined guarantees presented within the contents of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right of due process. These protective clauses are emblematic parameters of the Fifth Amendment (Link 1, Link 2 - The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy," and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law" be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use), a legislative measure negated by the actualization of the RICO Statutes. The aforementioned stipulation is essentially the seizure of one’s assets or property rights obtained as a result of ACCUSED or SUSPECTED criminal activity. In accordance with the RICO Statutes, an individual who is believed to have committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 criminal infractions - 27 federal offenses and 8 state crimes - within a 10-year time frame; acts which are found to be inherently connected in one of four specified methods pursuant to the active establishment of an “enterprise,” would be subject to the charge of racketeering in a court of law. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business acquired through a pattern of “racketeering activity.” The RICO Statutes also permit private entities adversely affected by the actions of the offending parties to seek civil restitution, that; if successful, would allow for the collection of treble damages (damage assessments triple the amount of actual/ compensatory fines levied in accordance with the court’s decision). The confiscation of an individual’s personal property, in conjunction with that person’s presumption of guilt, violates the basic tenets associated with the Fifth Amendment, as these assets oftentimes remain in the custody of the law enforcement agency initially involved with the documentation of these suspected infractions - items later sold in auction to the benefit of the parties in question, a fact lending credence to the notion that such actions have effectively engineered the creation of a militarized domestic extension of government subsidized entities. The following illustrations alluding to these findings in greater detail:

Historical Precedents

 

Precedents exist as a chronicled sequence of events that effectively alter the course of history. Developments evincing a distinct pattern, or possessing a discernible order of progression, may or may not be related to the manifestation of transnational precedents; thus the occurrence of these types of events, as well as their subsequent relevancy, maintain a semblance of negligibility in the sense that their principal functions could be inclusive of a geopolitical catalyst or could exist as by-products of causality. Historical precedents are inclusive of a wide array of categorizations, encompassing the financial sector (specifically banking/ commerce, internationalist consortiums affiliated with the Federal Reserve, mal-investiture, credit and securities fraud, toxic derivatives, predatory lending, etcetera), government legislative policy (specifically the enactment of policy contradictory to the preservation of individual freedoms and liberties, extrajudicial sanctions, pre-emptive military sanction, wasteful spending/ fruitless monetary allocation, currency wars, etcetera), technological innovation (specifically the establishment of a global network of surveillance, the proliferation of an automated defense network - unmanned aerial reconnaissance, militarized drones, biochemical warfare as a precursor to the establishment of a global eugenics program, transgenic mutation, biogenetic transmutation, etcetera), the corporate industry (specifically the emergence of a corpocratic paradigm as a prevailing mechanism of influence within the current geopolitical spectra, the emphasis of profit through the exploitation of natural resources and commodities, the evolution of a globally syndicated campaign of monetary aggrandizement at the expense of viable employment opportunities, etcetera), multinational telecommunications agencies (specifically the genesis of a propagandized system of nomenclature, informational monopolies, the concentration of revisionist methodology, the omission of pertinent documentation as a means to alter public opinion and influence perception, etcetera), etcetera.

The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933, the Revocation of Constitutional Viability, and the Acknowledged Insolvency of America

What follows below is the written transcript of the Congressional memoranda of record dated on March 17^th, 1993. In the context of this written proclamation the revelation of America’s dissolution via the enactment of the Emergency Banking Relief Act on March 9^th of 1933 effects the permanent revocation of its national sovereignty, bequeathing all financial holdings and debt obligations to various internationalist organizations and financial consortiums, most notably the following: the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
In the ratification of such measures, all obligatory responsibility endemic to the public interest is henceforth nullified - meaning that the existence of debt obligation pursuant to the citizens of the United States is a contrived artifice designed to perpetuate an illusion of co-dependency, ensuring the adherence of its residents to the tenets of a blatantly fraudulent enterprise.
It is also important to note that within the contents of this written Congressional article of record that the recognition of the United States as a Constitutional Republic ceases in its scope of validity, thereby granting constituencies present within the Federal Government unfettered authority to circumvent preexisting legislative edict as outlined within the Bill of Rights.

Written Preface by Michael Reign

Subject: The Bankruptcy of The United States

United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (D) (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11... Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Relief Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Statute 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund.

Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:

"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing
the United States."

 

* LAYMAN’S SYNOPSIS - The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 completely redefined the system of governance applicable to the United States via its inception, transforming it from the Constitutional Republic for what it was originally intended to represent, into a democratic sociopolitical exemplar. Through this legislative measure the viability of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights were effectively nullified, thus facilitating the preclusion of once guaranteed civil liberties and freedoms as recognized under the aforementioned documentation.

Further information concerning the various nuances governing the ratification of such a measure can be obtained at the following registry link:

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:

The Bankruptcy of the United States

Conclusive Evidence of America’s Dissolution and the Intent of RNC Political Affiliates in Texas to Achieve Resolution with Regard to the Subject of Constitutional Debasement Following the Ratification of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933
 

“…The Republican Party of Texas recognized that acts of the Congressional body and the office of the President of the United States of America created an emergency condition, and that on and after March 6, 1933 and March 9, 1933 the same said Public offices effectively impaired and suspended the Constitution for the United States of America under pretense of these same created emergency conditions, and that the impairments and disabilities yet exist and are in full force and effect throughout the nation… [and] …that the Republican Party of Texas being duly apprised of the continuing emergency declared on March 9, 1933, demands that Gold and Silver Coin be fully reinstated and maintained as the lawful money and tender of payment of debts within the United States of America, and that any and all notes and obligations heretofore or hereinafter issued be brought back to and maintained at par value with the said coin. Be It Further Resolved that the Republican Party of Texas hereby demands the rescinding of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933 and all subsequent related acts thereafter and demands the termination of Presidential proclamation thereby returning the United States of America to its original peacetime Constitutional Republic.” [Quoted in Part. Ed.]

Not only has the Republican Party of Texas recognized that the Constitution has been suspended but so did the 1994 Republican Governors Conference and the 1994 California State Republican Assembly. When three separate “professional” entities begin to not merely consider, but endorse, then advocate a theory as extraordinary as Dr. Eugene Schroder’s, the researcher who discovered this, then it becomes imperative that a greater degree of credence should be given with regard to the validity of such assertions.

The following registry links document a portion of these findings by the esteemed physician:

Dr. Eugene Schroder on the Declaration of War and Emergency Powers - (Part 1)
Dr. Eugene Schroder on the Declaration of War and Emergency Powers - (Part 2)

Dr. Schroder made the following statement regarding the declaration of emergency power mandate:

“During times of war or national ‘emergency’ Americans have no rights; instead, the United States government becomes custodian of our rights. Under an emergency government, all rights to due process of law (long process) are suspended, leaving no bar against governmental violations of our rights. The people become mere objects (In rem ˡ) with no unalienable rights to be protected.

ˡ In Rem Jurisdiction - A legal standard referencing the prospect of court authority being exercised over property (either real ² or personal ³) or the designated ‘status’ of an individual over whom the court does not possess “in personam jurisdiction.” Precepts governing the imposition of such mandate assume that the property or court designated status is identified as the principal object of the action in question, it exhibits exclusivity with regard to personal liabilities that may or may not be associated with the property.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction - Purportedly discontinued, defined as a legal standard by which Federal or state government affiliates can exercise power over the principal assets of an individual through the prospect of financial holdings, outstanding debt obligation, stock shares, equity, or land possessing applicable territorial jurisdiction as outlined within the contents of a particular region’s legislative mandate. Quasi In Rem actions are commonly utilized as a means of obtaining jurisdictional authority over individuals whose place of residency rests outside the territorial boundaries of the state.

² Real Property - In English Common Law reference concerning the use of such terminology is synonymous with the mention of real estate, realty, or immovable property and is defined as any legally acknowledged subset of land upon which improvements in accordance with the construction or aesthetic appearance of buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, etc. have been effected through course of human intervention.

³ Personal Property - Generally considered private property whose relocation remains possible, as opposed to immovable assets such as land or buildings. Movable property on land, that which was not automatically transferred in deed with the purchase of a plot, articles inclusive of larger livestock such as horses or cattle (wildlife and smaller livestock like chickens, by contrast, were often sold as part of the land) satisfies the necessary conditions associated with this particular distinction.

“Once the government gains ‘emergency’ power, it is reluctant to relinquish that power. During the Wars of 1812, 1847, 1861, 1917 and 1941, the ‘emergency war powers’ were gradually and insidiously defined. However, on March 9, 1933, our government declared a National Emergency and, based on the public’s ignorance and their complacency, took permanent control of the people.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has remained in a continuous state of declared National Emergency. Since that time, the American people have lost their rights to government, and these rights have not been restored. The American government now claims the power of right, and rules the people by Statute – not the Constitution – in all cases. Under emergency powers, government can do whatever it deems ‘necessary.' The courts change from protectors of the people’s unalienable rights to enforcers of the government’s statutes.

However, if the ‘national emergency’ were ended, government abuse and injustice would also end. When the American people demand that congress end the ‘national emergency’ they will restore the U.S. Constitution, and regain their rights, freedom and property…”

Mr. Alfred Adask, a legal expert but non-lawyer who ran for the Texas Supreme Court in 1992 describes in AntiShyster Magazine (vol. 5 #4) the Emergency War Powers Act in America. He says that “during World War I, Congress passed the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act as an ‘emergency’ (unconstitutional) measure to prevent American products from being sold and shipped to our wartime enemies. [Germany became our enemy after Zionist leaders promised Britain they would bring America into WWI in return for a British occupation of Palestine. This they did in 1917. Ed.] In general terms, that 1917 Act granted the Federal Government significant new powers to license, regulate, and tax the business transactions of foreign nationals who lived in the USA but worked as commercial agents for our enemies.

On October 6, 1917, the Congress had passed the Trading with the Enemy Act, dealing with how the government may control the activities of those considered to be enemies or allies of enemies of our government. Prior to 1933, Paragraph 5(b) of that Act read, "That the President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules as he may prescribe by means of foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)…”
Since 1917, then, the President had the power to seize or block financial transactions of those considered to be our enemy. It is also very clear that, in 1917, the Congress wanted to exclude the American people from the oppression of such powers. The bill was, after all, supposed to define our government's posture in dealing with our enemies or allies of our enemies.

The Emergency Banking Relief Act, passed by Congress in special session on March 9, 1933, modifies paragraph 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act just discussed. The modified paragraph reads:

Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of the subdivision of any license, order, rule or regulation issued there under, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000.

Following the conclusion of WWI, soldiers returning home found that life had resumed its normal routine in ‘the land of the free’ – except for one, largely unnoticed difference: the 1917 Trading With The Enemy Act, invoked as an ‘emergency’ (unconstitutional) wartime power was not revoked even though the war and the ‘emergency’ had ended - as a result, those ‘emergency war powers’ granted to government remained in effect.

“No matter, they only applied to foreign enemies, so America danced through the Roaring Twenties ‘til she crashed into the depressing 1930’s.” On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany; on March 3, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office as the 32nd President of the United States.

Within days of his inauguration, FDR amended the dormant 1917 Trading with The Enemy Act to include the American People on the list of ‘enemies’ of the United States, declared a ‘national emergency’ (the ‘Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933), and invoked the ‘Emergency War Powers’ of 1917 to rule the United States exactly as if we were at war, i.e. as a dictatorship.

“During the declared ‘emergency,’ the Constitution for the United States of America was suspended as ‘supreme national policy’. During the ‘emergency,’ what was once mandated by law is merely recommended by policy. In other words, as a government agent, if you had the time and inclination, you can follow the precepts of the Constitution: but if you are too busy, too hard pressed by the emergency, screw the Constitution, kick in some doors, start shooting and kill anyone who gets in your way. After all, the law of emergency is no law, only power.”

“In fact, when FDR first asked Congress to ratify his declaration of ‘national emergency’ and grant him the unconstitutional powers of an American dictator, he promised to terminate the ‘emergency’ and restore the constitution before he left office. If FDR ever truly meant to keep that 1933 promise, he apparently changed his mind when WWII broke out, and kept these powers intact until he died [or was murdered by the Illuminati conspiracy which he served. Ed.] in office in 1945.”
 
“Harry Truman took over the presidency dictatorship, and apparently found the emergency powers so helpful in running the United States, he didn’t revoke the emergency either. In fact, in over 62 years [to 1995 Ed.], not one American President-Dictator has even hinted that the ‘emergency’ should be ended, the war powers surrendered, and the Constitution restored as supreme law. Not one.”
 
“The ‘President’s role in ending the national emergency is crucial because, although congressional approval was required to initially grant the emergency powers to the executive, once these those virtually absolute powers were granted, no one but the almighty President Dictator himself could rescind them. In other words, if every representative and senator in Congress voted unanimously to end the national emergency, the vote would carry as much weight as if they had voted to end aging, gravity and death. [The Congress could, however, pass a resolution to end the emergency power and then suggest the President follow their suggestion. Ed.] Just as the people in the Bible once insisted on having a King (and came to regret it), the 1933 Congress also created an American ‘King’. And so long as that ‘King’ rules, we shall regret it because we are all relegated to status somewhat like a POW (Prisoner of War)…”

"End the national emergency and almost every ‘alphabet-agency’ will cease to exist since they have no Constitutional foundation. OSHA, FDA, FCC, CIA, FBI, FTC, NASA, TVA and even the IRS will be gone…”

12 U.S. Code § 95A and 12 U.S. Code § 95B

 

 

At first glance, the actualization of 12 U.S.C. 95A & 95B into federal mandate appears as an overtly paranoid gesture taken by the Congressional caucus in response to the prospect of a burgeoning influx of foreign nationals inundating the North American periphery. However, upon closer examination and using the argument that, in today's hostile world, foreign-born immigrants are either real or potential threats to national security, the state’s judiciary could affirm the necessity of 12 U.S.C. 95A & 95B being lawfully enacted by Congress pursuant to the authority given it by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution for the United States of America. The aforementioned stipulation, Clause 11 - also known as the War Powers Clause - vests in Congress the power and authority to declare war, as detailed in the following:

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

An important term of distinction meriting further clarification is mentioned in passing in the above statement, this being listed accordingly:

Letters of Marque and Reprisal - commissions or warrants licensed by the Federal Government authorizing the use of assembly (commonly referred to as privateers - a term synonymous with the use of ships owned and officered by private individuals holding a government commission and authorized for use in war, especially in the capture of enemy merchant shipping lanes and vessels) in the military engagement and capture of enemy sea liners found to be acting in violation of admiralty/ maritime jurisdiction as determined by the Federal Judiciary - a sequence of events resulting in the condemnation or sale of these foreign articles.