OK, hi, everybody, it's John J two is April, the 24th. And this is a Part two of what I began speaking about, regarding the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, as they call it.
And one of you had asked me what I thought of the new rule or regulation. I hadn't heard of it. I did some research on it, and so I'm going to continue the conversation. I began, I think it was two days ago.
It was on Saturday. Yeah, two days ago.
So, I did some more research. And I'm going to change a couple of things. I said, I'm going to recommend some things here, and I'm going to share with you, You can, you can have this letter.
This is going to benefit everyone, if you'll just use it, don't be afraid.
I'm gonna explain myself here, but let me just walk through this letter that I've done.
I think this letter is probably the best way to summarize and explain what we're dealing with here, OK.
So, let me just give you an intro, though.
So, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network FinCEN's administered through the Internal Revenue Service, OK.
And, if FinCEN needs to bring an action against somebody like, Sue, Somebody, or prosecutes, someone in a crime, it goes to the Department of Justice.
FinCEN I believe, is an agency or office also of the Department of Treasury. So, you know, it's complicated.
But we have, there's different oversight for FinCEN. And I'm gonna get into that and I'm explain why that's important.
But FinCEN is implementing certain laws, and this goes all the way back to the the Patriot Act.
The National Defense Authorization Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, the anti money laundering Act, and, more recently, the Corporate Transparency Act, end of 2020, 2, last year, I believe it was September.
And so there's a section in there, 6403 that we're talking about, and the video I've done, I'm not going to rehash the whole thing. but I explain the origin, the foundation, the basis of all this stuff.
So, what I'm going to show you here is how I suggest you should interact with FinCEN. I think we have to do something here, I don't think there's a fix.
I just think that we have to take action, it's going to be very simple.
I've already prepared this. I think if you guys just want to go with this, that says, It's that simple. I mean, I spent many hours on this putting this together. I did lots of research here to see if I can actually say these things, OK, I just made that, I didn't just make this up. It's really important. And I think, if enough of us send this letter off, and we are past the comment period, we're past, the public comment debate. Public comment, period. Because these, this rule is already in the Federal Register, and now it's already adopted, It's it's not going to become implemented until January of this coming year 20, 24.
So, what's interesting is, I think what you're going to see here in my explanation in how I'm doing this, is enough to I think they're going to shut it down or delay it. All right.
Now, I have a collection of, I call this a complaint, an administrative complaint. It's not really in the proper form, I call it that way, for a reason. I wanted to try to exhaust administrative remedy as quickly as possible, and I'll explain what that what I mean by that. But what you, what you're going to see here is a list of questions.
There really legal arguments and also some criticisms as to the foundation of what they're trying to do here.
And among other things, some editorial that I put in there, but basically, and I do you know me a bit of a sense of humor, but this is a very serious matter. So, even though sometimes I come off as a smart ***, there's a there's a message here.
OK, so let me just flip over there, and do a screen, a screen share, and I'll walk through it here.
So what you're looking at is my proposed written correspondence that I'm proposing that you send with the intent of getting a response. Now I have written it, and I'll show you down below, I have written in the way that if you want to, you can send it anonymously.
My hope is that many, many people send it anonymously.
I hope that many, everyone who sends it, wants the response that you also send it anonymously, many of them.
Alright? And so let's just walk through these components here.
So the secured party and we are going to use that security agree that to just bash them in their head.
But before we even get there, I want to share with you the legal aspects of this.
So behind this letter, you're going to back it up with a security agreement.
Just with this letter, you're going to list yourself and maybe it's John Smith, right? And maybe you want to use an alias. Maybe you want to use your real legal name. It doesn't matter. You can put your address here. So that kinda matters that you want to response. You definitely want to give them the correct address, OK? You don't need to give them your e-mail address, although you can.
And, of course, it's versus the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network but actually there's there's some other parties involved but I'm just going to call it fins and we're dealing with OK. So, here's my distribution list, and I always have the habit of putting it at the top of my my correspondences. You guys could do it however you want that's my style here. So definitely, it's gonna go to the chief counsel, OK, the top attorney at FinCEN.
OK, Catrina, Carol, it's also going to go to the Speaker of the House of Representatives because that has to do with oversight.
It's also going to the US. Attorney General. Because that's the Chief Counsel for the United States. FinCEN is the United States.
And then, we have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And there is some role of this agency, There is some role, I don't know what the exact role is, but I believe it is part of an oversight role.
It's not that important that we know that right yet, we will, we'll find out when we get a response.
I am going to do this and get a response.
There is an oversight committee for FinCEN. And it happens to be the House Financial Services Committee, OK, Oversight of FinCEN. All right, here's the address and so forth.
Then, the Inspector General, now, the Inspector General, has his own role OK, now, and we'll get into that. What am I going to put the date in there, The date that you send it, so you can see here it's blank, but I'm referring to this section.
This is what we're talking about, Section 6403 of the Corporate Transparency Act.
And this happens to be for the 2022 amendments and then it's implemented under 31 CFR part 10, 10, specifically point 2 30 where it talks about the collection of, um, beneficial owner interest.
When it comes to in our case members of an LLC, it also applies to any other corporate trustee, trust structure S corp, C corp, you name it OK, not sole proprietorships.
It does not specifically apply to unregistered trust. However, I did make the comment that it would. And the reason why I say that is because I think that the way FinCEN operates and the way I've seen it operate, is I believe that if they catch hold of your use of a trust that's not registered, they will attack it as trying to escape the law. All right.
I'm just going to share that with you. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm thinking of witness that many times.
So what I, what I did here is I said, Look, this is a complaint under the Administrative Procedures Act, OK, in Section 571 of Title five, OK, this explains that government agencies, um, are subject to administrative hearings. By those with, you know, an adverse or complaint or adverse situation. Right. You have to go through this, in order to get permission to sue the United States now. I'm not saying we need to do this. I'm not saying we need to Sue. I think, though, we need to make the case that the United States could be sued.
So, to get that waiver, part of the way, to get the waiver, is that you have to request an administrative hearing, And I also, it, just, as it turns out, I'm asking for supplemental instruction, a copy, the rules of procedure, OK.
Anyways, there you go.
Now, I'm going to make these two logical arguments, that, in my opinion, destroys the entire regulation, destroys the entire ability of the United States to impose this regulation on anybody forming an LLC, first of all.
If the regulation is imposed upon prospective companies, OK, you have it in mind that you're going to set up an LLC, it hasn't been set up yet. It's not recognized as a company yet.
Therefore, it does not yet have a legal duty, according to the regulation.
So, if the regulation prevents the formation of such a company, how can the regulation be imposed upon the company before it is not yet recognized as a company.
So what good is the regulation if it doesn't apply until the company is formed?
Leads me to my next question.
If the United States does not have a system in place to prevent the formation of the company, and therefore the company is, then ultimately registered and recognized.
Then the United States is acting as an accomplice in the violation of its own regulation.
When the company refuses to report and this is what I want to get into the company or it's organized or refuses to report, or the individuals that own the companies that own the company that have the beneficial interest, we refuse to report or refuse to report, let's call it accurate information, OK. Let's say they only want to use aliases, or they don't want to use any information at all.
So there's there's a logical conundrum, if you will, with either the first or second example here.
I could stop talking right there. I can end the letter right there and I think they'd have a big problem in that that will put the brakes on the whole thing. That's why I say, if we could just send this out.
I think that right there is enough to shut this down and have to rethink this monstrosity they're trying to create. So, now, I also want to include something important. There is another important section of this letter. Now, this letter, six pages long, and I'm not saying me really, OK? Send the six page letter. But, more importantly, understand all the different aspects of this letter so that you can understand what's going on with your LLC. OK, if you have one or a new one. And yes, it's going to affect new our existing LLCs.
At some point, I'm not sure how it would affect those that don't have to file annual reports.
I'm thinking it might, I said in my last call that I think that it would so.
I want to point their attention to Section D, and you're gonna like this section because this is where I just destroy them, OK. The reporting company is the company being registered by an organizer. So if you, if you get me to set up a company for you, I'm technically the organizer. I don't use my name is the organizer is just as well to use. your name is the organizer that way. There's less names, right? I mean, it makes your job easier to go to the bank and open the account. That's why I've always done it that way. That's why I named my client as the registered agent. Again, perfectly legal. And that's what you're supposed to do. Make it streamlined for the client so he can just get on the thing he wants to do.
I don't need to make it a dramatic thing for you to set up a company, So the reporting company is, let's say, in our case, the LLC and the responsible party is going to be the organizer, Alright, So regarding this, this law here, and the reg, OK, ... means everything that follows, the US cannot be trusted. So here's how I go into my editorial. So you guys might laugh at this, I'm just say, Look, you, guys, gotta be kidding me, you guys can be trusted look at, look at the long history. We've had of conducting illegal surveillance on your own, people. Even your own public officials have been doing that to each other. I mean, come on, what did you are doing, All, right.
So the US Dollar is the most prominently used and pervasive means that money laundering, Why am I all of a sudden a suspect?
And you don't even have a crime to prosecute or investigate, and I'm somehow suspect, right?
So, it's, I'm asking them, Look at the, look at the enormity of what they're talking about.
First of all, the US, as you know, has been promising or telling that they need this and they need that in order to prevent money laundering and prevent acts of terrorism. Or have they done that?
No, So what is the difference now? Is this whole editorial, OK, if you guys don't like that, you can take it out. Just I just deficient here, but please, I'm asking please explain how collecting 4 or 5 points of data, where they want your name address. They want your ID. They want an image of your ID. They probably want your SSN.
Right. They want your legal name, OK. How's that?
Go from taking it from small businesses that might make several thousand dollars a month, OK. How's that going to enable the United States to accomplish all these noble sounding things? Well, it hasn't even been able to do that so far with trillions of dollars.
All right, So, I'm making fun of them on the carbon tax and the fake climate change and all this nonsense. I had to throw that in there. Then, I made fun of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror as Complete Failure.
Right, had to say that.
Um, then, we get into this.
Now, here's what they're doing, they're saying Our intent in collecting this information through the Secretary of State's Office is to prevent acts of terrorism, money laundering and other financial crimes, including risks and threats to national security mm. How noble sounding does that, But yet, they don't have any pending criminal investigations.
They're just saying, Look, everybody's a suspect today.
In case we ever have a criminal investigation, we will already have the suspects information. Millimeter hmm, That sounds like an end run around the Constitution, doesn't it?
So I call them hypothetical crime So prove that any of these hypothetical crimes still exist, and you admit complete failure, right? So the thing is these hypothetical crimes terrorism, and so forth, those still exist.
That wasn't cured so they failed. So what's different now? They're just all they're doing is more of the same. Let's get more tax dollars less impose more regulations on our population.
That's still not going to help you You've proven that So we can't demonstrate that they've they've been able to Succeed or that there's any causal connection to their legislation and the problem they stay or claiming to be able to solve right? So I'm really making fun of him here, OK? If you want to prevent money, laundering get rid of the bank. Get rid of the reserve. Bank, get rid of Wall Street then. then we're going to be good. OK, don't get it. Don't don't penalize me.
But technically, so, then, I you know, my dresses humorous, but technically speaking.
The stated purpose for the collection of my financial data is disingenuous, because a claim to be calculated to prevent financial crimes of terrorism or threats to national security is based on the implausible fantasy that everyone is a is a suspect and an unidentified, a hypothetical financial crime, just because he has an interest in a corporation.
This is what I'm talking about here, OK.
Now, of course, all these ideas of Fifth Amendment come up in Fourth Amendment, but I'm going to show you how I wording this.
It's a little bit different than everybody else likes to do it.
It's also based on the implausible and ridiculous scenario that everyone has waived his rights to due process. Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Privacy, the right to rely upon and enjoy the protections of the law, when do you ever hear that?
That's a property, right? You have an extra reasonable expectation to that, right?
The right to justice, the right, to refuse to be a witness against himself, or his own interests, freedom of association, and other rights.
Alright, so this is how I worded it. I didn't cite the Constitution.
I just said, Look, I have property rights, and these are your regulation violates my property rights, which leads us into the, the security leap, alright, The security agreement.
So, therefore, while your regulation is a lean upon my private property rights, it is, we can counteract that with the security agreement. It is also the collection and storage use and distribution of my financial information, so along with it's my personal financial tax credit, biographic, biometric identifying information, all that stuff, right?
So, let's do this. Let's talk about from the beginning.
When you collect my information in this manner, I'm going to say I'm going to argue that this constitutes a waiver of your immunity.
So, I call this section A and let's explain.
Please be advised that the practice of conducting a criminal investigation where there is no crime and no warrant for the collection of evidence constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. Now, I didn't do any legal research to find out if that's true. I think it is true. I think I can back it up.
But time will tell I don't really care.
I'm just making a statement, OK.
At least for the reason that this conduct exceeds your legal duties and authority, exceeds the purview of your office, Now, that's true.
If you act outside of your office, you're not immune, OK.
Furthermore, these practices exceed the authorized use of Public Funds, for the reason that the United States never obtained budget approval, to investigate any crime before the discovery of any evidence that a crime had taken place. Makes sense.
No law permits a government agency, even one with a police power, such as FinCEN, because it does have a police power.
So, does the IRS to investigate a crime and collect evidence against anyone solely upon the possibility that the person may someday be a suspect in a crime?
It's at least unruly reasonable. If not illegal.
So, moreover, the collection of information are the guys, uh, the claim of the false claim. Investigating a crime or hypothetical fantasy, where no crime has been committed have been using this information for commercial purposes, Which you'll find out soon enough that's what they're doing. Such as distributing or disclosing the information to private parties, such as the financial institutions for their own business purposes.
This is actually part of the discussion of what they're doing with this information. Also constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. This is this, my argument. I don't, I can't back it up yet. That's OK.
Your refusal or fail to answer these questions in good faith constitutes an exhaustion of all administrative remedies under Title five, vice anyone of the admin, you know, the APA and, therefore, a waiver of sovereign immunity. So, furthermore, this conduct and these practices may also constitute the abuse, fraud, and waste of public funds. And that brings in your Attorney General's, or your Inspector General's Office, OK? That's why copy the IG's Office on this one line here. All right. I mean, we can make a case if we wanted to.
Now, if you were going to collect this information, or, if I decided to give it to you, I want to be immune.
I have immunity from civil or criminal prosecution if I'm going to give you give up information that could be used as evidence against myself later, even though there's no pending criminal investigation.
There's a hypothetical one, possibly.
I just basically tell him that that's the quid pro quo. That's what you get. That's the exchange. I get immunity, transactional immunity. That means the whole thing, I mean, from everything, not just my testimony.
Alright, Anything related to your investigation, even if I'm committing the crime, money laundering.
If I give you up, give up the information first, because the regulation says I have to.
Then I'm going to say that I want transactional immunity, even if I'm involved with a crime later on, et cetera.
So that's the idea behind section B, all right, so section C, I'm going to tell them flat out.
And again, you guys may not like this, but this is what I'm gonna do.
I'm going to tell him, I deliberately intend to exercise my rights to have privacy, I'm going to do whatever it takes to defeat your regulation, I'm going to avoid it. I'm going to create another structure in any means necessary, OK, You can see the colorful language I've put in here, OK? I fully intend to use any and all means, including, but not limited to cash bartering, the dark Web Precious Metals, blah blah blah OK.
Furthermore to secure these rights this is where we get to the security agreement to secure these rights.
On the collection of my information if somehow you are able to affect this, you will be required to waive sovereign immunity and submit to the terms of a perfect security interests.
Now I took the security agreement that I was working on, which is pretty well done, by the way, if any of you all want to do it. And I revised it slightly for this purpose, because I want to describe a different set of rights, which I didn't include in the first one. This is a little bit different and I did make some important modifications, including this thing about immunity. Alright.
And I'm including binding arbitration, I can talk about that. But they're going to be required to weigh the rights to a jury trial in a court of law.
So, this security agreement is going to really kick them in the balls, All right, But this letter is going to make them sit up and take notice, and they might just discontinue the program even before we get into, into next year.
The reporting company, as I mentioned before, Section D, the reporting company.
That's the company that you want to form or that you're using your company, your LLC or whatever regarding the legal duties of the reporting company. And here's how you have it working.
So, the reporting company is supposed to collect information from the members. So, let's say you hire me to set up a company. And let's say John Jay is going to be the organizer, and he's forming the reporting company. And as the organizer, he's legally responsible, according to this Reg, you don't have to read it. I will tell you, you can read it you want, but I'm just telling you what the reg says.
The organizer is legally responsible for collecting the information from the member.
So, if you're my client, and you have me do this, and you're 100% on or let's say, I'm legally required to collect your true legal name, Then maybe you don't want to give me a legal name because you don't have to deal with the banks.
You just want a company to own title to real estate for your mom's estate, right?
Well, you can lie to me and give me a fictitious name, I don't care. It's all legal to do that. It's legal to use an alias. They're just not going to let you do that.
And they're not going to let me let you do that as the organizer or so that are, so they think, OK, so as the organizer, if you give me whatever information that the regulation says you have to give me, I have to certify its accuracy incorrectness enough.
And if I don't, it's supposed to be a crime in which I'm liable, OK. But what happens if I certify it and you lie to me, or you gave me false information, or a fake document, or something like that?
I've certified the Accuracy and Correctness, and I'm still liable Criminally liable.
How's that fair? And, how's that fair? If I don't have the police power to investigate what you're telling me?
FinCEN has a police power.
but FinCEN is telling me that I have to do that for the reporting company where I'm the organizer for the owner of the company.
OK, the member, The Managing Member, the member you, Hey, my client.
In this case, how's that legally enforceable?
How do I have control over whether or not you tell me the truth? And if I have no resources, I don't have any police power, I can't require that you give me correct accurate information, And if I did, it would cost me money. I'd have to subscribe to follow a fire, and I have to hire a private investigator, possibly. Subscribe to, you know, websites that have this database information. You see what I'm getting into.
So they're creating this duty on the person who organizes the company that's not legally enforceable.
So this is what I explain here.
Well, when I'm explaining here, is, it's creating this situation where people are just going to go and avoid the secretary of State. You could form a company by publishing the articles in the newspaper.
They know this, You can actually form a company by not publishing the article. So there's all kinds of ways of doing it. I just want to hear and just kind of rub their nose into what I'm gonna do. I'm going to resist, so, that's just my thinking.
And maybe some of you are thinking, Well, John, why should we tell him? And at a time, you know, sometimes I do sometimes like that.
But, anyways, so, back to this reporting company must certify that the report is true, correct and complete, please enter the following. So, this actually is quoted from the private sector in 19 95. I believe this is where they're getting this from the certification requirement under the FinCEN rule.
I believe that's where it's coming from, I didn't quoted here because I'm not sure, I kind of don't care.
It's good enough. Alright.
So, here's my real question, important question.
If the regulation requires a reporting company, it's organizer to report this information, what legal duty does.
It have to compel the company or myself, it's organizer for its owners to disclose this information for its duty to report.
I don't have a duty to get the information from the members, The owners, the investors, I can only ask for it.
I can make them give it to me. I don't, I'm not a police. I don't have the police power, I don't have the facility, I don't have the training, I don't have the resources to do that, it's not my job, Really. I'm not required to assist the government a criminal investigation, when there's not even a crime going on.
You see, See what kind of problem they're gonna run into here.
So, what happens if the individual that would be you, OK, the individual managing member or a member of my client? What happens if the individual refuses to give me the information?
I don't have to turn them away, some people will. I won't.
Who's liable if he refuses?
What authority or duty does the reporting company have?
And which regulation specifies these conditions, which it's in there. It's in there. But what I'm saying is, I don't think there's going to be legally enforceable. I don't think they're even logically enforceable.
Realistically, I think they're unrealistic at least. Then how can a reporting company be held liable for reporting data for which it may have no control or custody? So this is the punchline.
This is why we're going to beat them over the head. They can't.
I don't think they can push this through.
I think maybe they'll wait till the last minute and then pull it for the, extend the program, right. A little delay it, right. I think that's what they'll do, but I bolded these more important questions.
What if the individual provides the reporting company, the individual meeting yourself?
You give me no information or false information.
What does that mean? Who has what liability the airways, how's that my fault? Right? What's the reporting companies, legal duty or authority to investigate and authenticate the information provided before making this report to FinCEN? I have to make the report according to what their exit. How is the reporting company required to or able to certify the accuracy of the information? one has no police powers to conduct investigation when receives no compensation or training. For this is another unfunded mandate like the collection of sales tax and wage withholding. We never think about that.
I'm doing, you're collecting taxes for the government as a tax collector, but you're not a tax collector.
And that power is not able to be delegated. Oh, interesting, and then no police powers to access any official database to verify that the information is accurate. How am I supposed to be? How am I supposed to pull that off?
Reasonably, how does the United States intend to indemnify the reporting company for acting as an agent of the United States in the collection of financial and beneficial owner information, which requires the exercise of a police power that cannot and has not been delegated to the private company? It also creates a burden of having a data retention policy on there and also increase the risk of suffering a data breach while I'm doing my job, right? So, I'm collecting this information. What if I suffered a data breach? Or what if I'm required to keep the information for a period of time? Who's going to assure me it gets a data breach?
Why do I have to get insurance to collect the government's information for a future possible criminal investigation, just crazy?
Right. So, how does FinCEN expect to impose this duty on a private party when offense and currently has no means?
Or mechanism in place to verify the authenticity or accuracy of the information for itself?
What the regulation says, I have to certify the correctness of the information, but right now, as of today.
April 24th, FinCEN does not have the means to do the same that is requiring of its reporting companies and organizers mmm hmm, hmm, Interesting.
So, and I guess I'm maybe I'm a little bit redundant here, but what is your authority for collecting my financial and beneficial ownership information from a private party in order to prevent the commission of a hypothetical crime, even though there was no evidence of any crime involving myself or my financial interests?
And even though the private party, the reporting company, or organizer, has no police powers, there is no such authority.
In Section E, So, I broke these intersections. Here's where we get into the data retention stuff, Right? Actually, it's the data retention. Well, there's the data retention aspect of it.
But then there's also as part of that, there has to be a procedure whereby the custodian of the records can destroy the data or or return original documents to whomever originally provided them.
The owner, mostly data that's collected in this way is destroyed and has done with a certification process is very important. This is an international standard. I'm gonna show you what it looks like. By the way, this is part of the security agreement, When you guys see it, a lot of this, a lot of these provisions are already in the security guard.
So, regarding the collection of financial, beneficial information in a corporation, what is your purpose, right, So we always ask them to start, What's your purpose?
Um, if you, if you intend to prevent all these crimes, I'm not aware of any pending criminal investigations for any such crimes where I'm a suspect please inform me if I'm a suspect in any criminal investigation related to my financial interests in a corporation.
Yeah, they're really going to answer that.
How am I financial beneficial information to be stored?
OK, this year, more generic questions that you would ask your chiropractor or these idiots, OK, Who will have access under what terms? So, there's gotta be somebody who's accountable for those records.
You can't just have it available in the lobby of some office location and everybody that walks in can see your private information, right? It has to be available for the intended purpose, It has to be secured, and there has to be a custodian assigned. So someone's responsible for that data.
Now it could be a group of people, this responsible, but still it has to be a custodian specific person or a group of people OK, provide me the name, employment, title and physical address of the custodian.
We're entitled to know that.
Where is it going to be stored, right? Once you obtain my information, how do you intend to verify its accuracy? They don't know yet, that's why I asked them.
If my data is stored electronically, I need to know the identity of the eye, the editor's note. All that, how to get access to it? What's the cybersecurity training? So I get into how you guys trained for this, how you get, how do I know that? You're holding my records and information in a way that you have the actual training to understand how to do that correctly.
All right, do you know how to use your software?
What happens if your people get fired?
Can any of your employees what happens in a situation where one of the employees or his family's held ransom until he breaches the security?
What kind of trainings they are. I don't even know what that is. But these are questions that we have a right to ask.
What is your financial responsibility? So, so, how much money would you have to pay me? What is your insurance limit?
Because my data is expensive, or my data is valuable, and maybe it's a blank check.
Maybe we don't know how valuable it is. Well, how are you covered for this?
By the way, I don't think you can get coverage for an infinite risk.
So please provide a copy of your insurance payer. So I want to see evidence of your financial responsibility That's an insurance binder or certification or some document saying for this specific thing data breach regarding such and such and such.
Here's the limit of our liability Just like a car insurance, OK, same idea, and you can see this goes on and on and on, so I'm just go through this real quick, So we have a copy of your whole policy, All right.
I want to know what technology you're using um, what what do you believe you are relying upon that constitutes a waiver of my rights?
And again, this is all explained here, right?
How did they waive any rights here?
Did I please describe the reasonable basis for you to collect my financial beneficial ownership information for a hypothetical crime?
Again, this is kind of redundant, but still I'm gonna, you know, keep on bringing this up. Describe the rational, reasonable basis for you to collect my, my information for hypothetical crime and from a private party having no police authority.
I mean, imagine if the cops were Now, OK, so imagine if the cops this is stupid hypothetical but, imagine, if you were suspected of shoplifting, right?
to the cop, show up on the scene, and they tell the store manager, OK, so, I'm the I'm the police officer responding to your call for for a shoplifter, And so because you're the store manager, I'm going to tell you to go over the shoplifter and I want you to arrest him.
That's not going to work. That's actually illegal, OK.
Because the cops there, he's supposed to do it. Describe the rationale to collect data, having, OK, provide a list of individuals who have been, who have been, and will be given access to my data, and the terms.
And disclosures and access. Again, it's kind of done it, but how do you expect financial institutions to benefit from your, your collection use and storage of my beneficial ownership interest in a legal entity? And they do. There's a commercial benefit to the financial institutions, to your banks, to collect this and use it. Now, if they get it from the government, it's different than, maybe than they, if they get it from you, when you open the account. Now, by the way, you've been giving this information this way at first. I said, It's OK to disclose it now. I'm saying Refuse.
You've been giving the same information already to the banks. What I've come to understand here by reading all this is that FinCEN didn't have the authority to go to the banks and get it.
What they're trying to do is say, ah, you know, why do that? Well, we can just go right to the Secretary of state's office.
Hmm, hmm, I think that's a big mistake.
There have been much easier to get it to the banks quietly.
Now, we, like I said, we're going to bash them over the head with this.
Explain the manner, or certification process, by which my data will be discarded, disposed, or destroyed, including the time period from disclosure, does your data. And now, here I go into your data destruction policy, comply with international standards. You guys can read that for yourself, Please be advised that a product collection, my financial information. You will become the debtor, any security agreement, with a perfect security interest in such data. You may also be liable to third parties with whom you expect to share my information. Other banks or whoever.
Do you have authority or budget approval for these practices and obligations In order to respond?
Now, this is where if you want to do this passively and not get a response but you just want to Pinkham, so to speak and make them wake up.
I would finish the letter here with this last line.
Hey, if you respond, just publish your response in the federal register.
However, if you add this in here, this is when you intend for them to respond back so that you get a letter back from somebody, or several organizations, or several of these recipients, OK.
And I know seven days is kinda ridiculous. You guys can make it whatever you want. I mean, they can ask for more time if they want, but I would leave it like that, and no, you don't have to sign it. All you really need is to provide them with a means by which they can send you a letter back, all right. You can even include a stamp address template, stamp, stamped, addressed, envelope if you want self addressed envelope.
But anyway, so this is, this is what I'm suggesting It says, so. If you want to know my full take on this so far my, my, my way to deal with this is to refuse, refuse refused and make them take action against you.
Now somebody, you might be afraid, to do that, see, the need, to be afraid.
Um, I think it's necessary, otherwise it would say so. But I've done a lot of research on this, I'm going to do more research on this, but I think this is the way to go right here. And I think if we do this enough of a sim letters like this and send it to all your friends, that's why I'm giving you this. I'm gonna put this in the Telegram room. An async coins. You're welcome to use it. I'm gonna put the the Libra Office version.
So, you can edit this, and you can, I'll put the PDF also if you just want to send it around. And also, I'll put the link to this video that explains what I'm doing here.
I hope that I've covered everything, and certainly, we can have a discussion on this because I know there's going to be questions that are not addressing right now.
So, let me just stop that here, so good. This would be a good place for ending.
The recording, Thanks for hanging in there and listening to me, read off a letter. But, uh, this is my response if you're asking me about what to do on the new regs and the LLC formations.
1. John J discusses the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and its new regulations about reporting financial beneficial ownership in LLCs.
2. FinCEN is an agency of the Department of Treasury and is implementing laws from the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
3. The new rules are already in the Federal Register and will be implemented in January 2024.
4. John presents an administrative complaint against the new regulation, arguing it violates the rights of individuals.
5. He disputes the rule that makes the LLC owner criminally liable if they certify incorrect information about their beneficial ownership, which could be based on false data provided by the LLC members.
6. John asserts the new regulation interferes with individuals’ privacy rights, property rights, freedom of association, and the right to refuse to be a witness against oneself.
7. He criticizes the rule for assigning responsibility to LLCs and their owners to collect and certify information, arguing that it exceeds their legal duties and authority.
8. John queries how FinCEN will ensure the accuracy of the information provided, given the agency has no means to verify it.
9. He expresses concerns about data security and requests information about how the collected data will be stored, protected, and eventually destroyed.
10. In conclusion, John states his intention to resist these regulations and questions the rationale behind collecting data on beneficial ownership interests.