Comment Text:
This is a follow-up to Comment Number 62288 regarding Comment for Proposed Rule 84 FR 21044 submitted on Jan. 27, 2020. As noted in that comment, there was an unverified process of providing a duplicate electronic account in connection with ones I have been using for some time. I understand that there have been "swaps" concerning my identity as a result of, among other things, attempting to find legal redress after submitting reports of "fraud" that were not answered within appropriate time frames for compliance with response deadlines but that were instead recirculated into public finance regimes, including pension schemes, as well as federal and other appropriations processes. In that public comment, I erred in stating that a July 17, 2019 report had been submitted to the Senate Armed Forces Committee; it was ACTUALLY submitted to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. This "error" was indicated when I said:
Please note that again, I had to re-enter the "Validation Code" a second time, just as I did the last time I attempted a public comment for this agency. This lets me know that my accounts and efforts at a public comment are indeed being "proxied."
I suspected at the time that the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship was "swapping" information with other committees, up to and including the Senate Armed Forces Committee, which was connected to the intentional lack of specification for how the Army Futures Command intended to keep track of the success of its endeavors with engaging small businesses in its efforts. I believe that numerous events have confirmed this suspicion. Not only that, I am concerned that there is much illicit swap activity occurring at this time under the alleged auspices of responding to "COVID-19" as a public health pandemic as opposed to responding to it in another manner more appropriate for the profundity of its implications. That the first response was to attempt to quantify small businesses as the priority financial concern without appropriately vetting the processes by which small businesses were to be considered eligible for the relief is additionally concerning.
I acknowledge that today is an important benchmark date in consideration of the error that was included in my Jan. 27, 2020 comment for another proposed rule change. I also acknowledge that the error is revelatory and indicative of many problems that still persist in appropriate consideration of defining and distinguishing what sort of information should be made available for a swap and what appropriate processes need to be engaged to assure that it is not leveraged in unacceptable manners. It has to be acknowledged as well that the deadline for THIS public comment is the same as the deadline for another public comment regarding updates to bankruptcy considerations. Are these being "'paired?"
4:26 pm CST
June 27, 2020
