The Pensions & Investments report centers on a major institutional-investor concern: SpaceX may be preparing to enter the public markets with one of the most powerful companies in the world, but with a governance structure that many long-term investors believe weakens ordinary shareholder rights from the beginning.

The issue is not whether SpaceX is an important company. It clearly is. The issue is whether pension funds, index investors, and public-market shareholders will be asked to buy into SpaceX while having little meaningful power over how the company is governed.

According to P&I, executives representing more than $1 trillion in pension fund assets had already written to SpaceX before the public filing, asking for a meeting over concerns tied to alleged governance terms described in leaked reports of a confidential SEC filing. Those concerns apparently were serious enough that major public pension representatives wanted direct engagement with the company before the IPO. But spokespeople for New York State pension funds and New York City said SpaceX had not responded.

That silence matters because pension funds are not short-term traders. They invest money on behalf of retirees, public employees, teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other long-term beneficiaries. Their concern is not only whether SpaceX can grow, but whether shareholders will have normal rights if something goes wrong. If public investors are given weak voting rights, limited accountability, or little influence over the board, then the stock may offer economic exposure without real ownership power.

SpaceX’s S-1 filing on May 20 made public the company’s intentions for an IPO later in the month on Nasdaq. That timing is also important because Nasdaq and other index providers have reportedly rewritten admission rules to bring mega-IPOs such as SpaceX and Anthropic into investor portfolios faster. This creates a second major red flag: institutions may not merely choose whether to buy SpaceX. Some may become forced buyers through passive equity funds and index-tracking strategies.

That is where the concern becomes systemic. If SpaceX is added quickly to major indexes, pension funds and passive funds may have to buy the stock even if their internal governance teams object. In other words, retirees could end up exposed to SpaceX not because a fiduciary actively concluded that the governance structure was acceptable, but because index rules pulled the stock into the portfolio automatically. This is a powerful example of how modern markets can transform a private company’s governance choices into a broad public-investor problem.

The report also highlights action from Denmark’s AkademikerPension, a $25 billion pension fund, which placed SpaceX on its exclusion list on June 1. The fund based that decision on both valuation concerns and worries about company management. CIO Anders Schelde’s statement was especially blunt: “if it were just about accountability, SpaceX would be excluded with a snap of the fingers due to the company’s disastrous governance.” That quote captures the institutional anxiety perfectly. The worry is not just price. It is structure, accountability, and the long-term ability of shareholders to discipline management.

Other U.S. pension funds told P&I they also had concerns about SpaceX’s governance, but they emphasized the difficult reality that they will likely still be forced buyers through passive equity funds. This is the contradiction at the center of the story. A fund may object to the company’s voting structure, worry about insider control, and question whether shareholders have adequate protections, yet still end up owning the stock because of index exposure.

P&I also reports that the Investor Coalition for Equal Votes and Railpen, a £34 billion U.K. pension fund, are examining SpaceX’s capital structure and voting rights. Caroline Escott of Railpen, who also chairs the Investor Coalition for Equal Votes, framed the issue as a long-term value problem. Her point is that voting rights are not a technical detail. They shape the discipline of the company. When accountability is diluted, management may have less pressure to allocate capital carefully, avoid conflicts, or listen to shareholders.

Over time, she argues, weak accountability can destroy value,  and the people who suffer are not only investors, but the ordinary savers whose retirement capital supports these companies.

That is the broader theme: SpaceX may be a world-changing company, but the IPO debate is not just about rockets, satellites, or Mars. It is about whether the public market is becoming a place where investors supply capital while founders and insiders retain nearly all control. For pension funds, that is a dangerous precedent. A company can be innovative and still have poor governance. A company can be strategically important and still be overvalued. A company can be loved by the market and still expose long-term savers to structural risk.

This is where the SpaceX governance issue ties directly into long-term investing in gold and silver. SpaceX represents the modern paper-asset model: future promises, founder control, index-driven buying, complex filings, voting structures, and dependence on management execution.

Gold and silver sit on the opposite side of that equation. They have no CEO, no board, no dual-class shares, no super-voting insiders, no dilution, and no governance trap.

That does not mean gold and silver replace ownership in great companies. But they serve a different role. They are hard assets outside the corporate-control system. When public markets increasingly ask investors to trust insiders, index committees, valuation models, and governance structures they cannot control, gold and silver become a long-term anchor. The SpaceX IPO story is therefore not just about one company. It is a warning about the growing gap between owning an asset and actually having control over it. Physical gold and silver remain valuable precisely because they remove that layer of trust. 

Do yourself and your future a favor and Request Your Free Gold & Silver Kit Today! from my partners at Goldco!

Venezula Stole The 2020 Elections!

That’s been the recent headlines and nonstop cavalcade of interviews with a wide variety of election experts, foreign country experts and paid pundits pushing out over the airways.

The use of the word “pushing” on my part is intentional? There are not many ways I can find where the United States can prosecute anyone individual or group of individuals for doing anything from Venezuela to America. Another point, even is the leader (or past leader) of Venezuela could be prosecuted over elections does that even incarcerate the actual companies or individuals who did it? Or does such even fix the United States elections? I think not!

For me, I think proving such a case with real prosecuatable evidence we be very hard if not impossible.

 

In an effort to understand if anything at all could be done to Venezuela over possible election I decided to dig deep and find out LEGALLY what could be done! For me, only hard evidence, which has been proven can change the nefarious nature of our US elections. This is why making sure we PROTECT the Full Forensic Audit Archives. Trust me - it is going to be needed after the midterms. Let’s look at the legal standards and what we can do:

Based on the circulating claims that - voting software with purported Venezuelan origins being used to influence U.S. elections, particularly the 2020 presidential race. These claims primarily involve companies like Smartmatic (founded by Venezuelans but U.S.-based) and Dominion Voting Systems (a separate Canadian-American firm), which some have falsely accused of using software designed to rig Venezuelan elections under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, then applying it to “flip” U.S. votes. For instance, Smartmatic itself publicly accused the Maduro regime of tampering with turnout figures in Venezuela’s 2017 election (unrelated to U.S. systems), and both companies have won massive defamation settlements against media outlets promoting the claims, including Fox News’ $787 million payout to Dominion in 2023.

 

Addressing the “what if” scenario hypothetically which I seek answers for: If software originating from or tied to Venezuela were verifiably used in U.S. elections and believed to have impacted results (e.g., through manipulation, hacking, or undue influence), it would trigger a cascade of legal, investigative, and diplomatic responses under U.S. law. Voting systems are considered critical infrastructure, and foreign interference in elections is treated as a national security threat. Below, I’ll outline potential outcomes based on established legal frameworks, precedents, and how similar allegations have played out.

Immediate Investigative and Enforcement Actions

• Federal Investigations: The Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) would launch probes. For example, in late 2025, Trump’s DOJ reportedly interviewed individuals pushing Venezuela-related 2020 claims as part of broader election inquiries, though no evidence emerged. If substantiated, this could escalate to grand jury indictments for foreign actors or U.S. enablers.

• Election Audits and Recounts: States using the software would conduct forensic audits (as seen in Arizona’s 2021 Maricopa County review, which found no fraud). Federal oversight via the Election Assistance Commission could mandate nationwide reviews.

• Civil Lawsuits: Affected parties (e.g., candidates or voters) could sue for damages under laws like the Voting Rights Act. Defamation suits have already arisen from baseless claims, costing broadcasters hundreds of millions.

Potential Crimes and Prosecutions

If proven, such interference could violate multiple U.S. statutes with extraterritorial reach, allowing prosecution even if acts occurred in Venezuela (as discussed in prior contexts like drug trafficking or terrorism ties). Offenders (e.g., Venezuelan officials, software developers, or complicit U.S. entities) could face charges if extradited or apprehended. Here’s a table of key offenses:

 

At first glance I personally don’t see in these citations above that actually put the real offenders in jail. Yes, there are ways to pressure countries and gain favors in exchange for “offenses”, but no one would really go to prison.

Thus my quesion: Who would actually go to Prison?

Lets continue:

Prosecutions would require a U.S. nexus (e.g., software used in American jurisdictions or affecting U.S. citizens). Extradition from Venezuela is unlikely without regime change, but individuals could be tried in absentia or seized (as with Maduro’s 2026 abduction and New York trial). International bodies like the Organization of American States might condemn it as electoral sabotage.

“might condemn it as electoral sabotage”

Look at that end result, “might condemn it as electoral sabotage”. Is that not the same thing as a strongly worded letter sent out by Republicans?

 

Share

With what you know thus far from legal review, what could actually happen if the “Venezuela conntection” was proven?

• Diplomatic Fallout: Heightened sanctions, asset seizures, or military posturing. Post-2026 Maduro capture, some theorists linked U.S. actions in Venezuela to “uncovering” election tech ties, though officials denied it as a motive. Could strain U.S.-Venezuela relations further, potentially leading to asylum claims or defections revealing evidence.

• Election Reforms: Congress might pass laws banning foreign-owned voting tech (e.g., proposals post-2006 Smartmatic scrutiny). Increased paper ballot mandates or blockchain verification.

• Public Trust Erosion: Even unproven claims fuel distrust, as seen in 2020-2026 revivals, leading to violence (e.g., Jan. 6) or suppressed turnout. Ironically, Venezuelan elections themselves have faced real fraud accusations under Maduro, with international observers decrying manipulation in 2018, 2024, and 2025 polls.

• Cybersecurity Implications: DHS would classify it as a cyber attack, prompting defenses against similar threats from adversaries like Russia or China.

For me, I don’t see how ANY of these things FIX our elections and NOTICE public trust erosion has already happened!

 

When I step back and look at this “Venezuela Did It!” I see another “psychological operation” in play! It’s being broadcast, pushed, promoted and pontificated and the system knows it may not have any real teeth. So, what is the plan?

To placate the American public that something is being done when what the system really wants is the broken system to still be used to control us, place nefarious actors in elected positions and they enable the raping of the system and us!

WHAT SAY YOU?

FOR ME, in the end we 100% need hard physical proof of what happened RIGHT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES by the bad actors here. That is why protecting our Full Forensic Audit Archives is so mission critical! Without hard provable evidence NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

With that said WE NEED YOUR HELP. I predict the midterms are going to be a disaster. Then it will be more than a year of legal battles while Trump is still in office. We cannot ride out the financial delta between now and when this critical information will be needed by the Administration and the United States citizens. Will you help us protect this? Any amount will help, please help!

This is the report I supplied to the President. This is me being 100% transparent so you see it as I sent it. 

POTUS PATH OF VOTER ROLL PAUSE TO PROTECT THE MIDTERMS

Additionally, at the time of Krebs statement to CBS there were 8 states + D.C. (9 jurisdictions total) by that date, which had open election lawsuits. These states are Arizona, District of Columbia, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. At time there may have been as many as fifty in process unsettled post-election laws suits.

None of these lawsuits were allowed to present evidence and CISA undertook no investigatory actions to test the validity of their claims. This again makes it impossible for the assertion of Chris Krebs to be truthful.

In direct opposition to the CISA statements DOJ + DHS (including FBI and CISA). In their March 2021 joint statement, they said foreign actors (including Russian, Chinese, and Iranian government-affiliated actors) “materially impacted the security of certain networks” during the 2020 federal elections.

DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period. This special investigation is directly tied to the security-related issues/threats/challenges tired to the 2020 election but has nothing to do with any votes being changes, but how these acknowledged issues may have impacted the voter rolls and voter lists management.

PROCEEDURES: THE NORM VERSUS EMERGENCY

In non-emergency or non-national security critical times, the recommended method for conducting these measures would be as follows, if the laws or rules were proposed to be changed as the result of security issues:

1.      CISA would issue security determination and technical evaluation.

2.      The State would be notified of such issues.

3.      New laws would be drafted and go through the normal House and Senate procedural process.

The above is the normal process and can be a lengthy process, however when something is an emergency or critical infrastructure issue certain things can be done to accelerate the process. However, the key to remembering this is NOT FOR FORCING OR EVEN INSTITUTING ANY NEWS LAWS. This action is within the laws and only confirms the investigation regarding the use of said voter rolls, backups, poll books and archives version of said voter rolls (in any version) AND the temporarily suspended use of all Voter Rolls until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.

NO LAWS ARE CHANGED NO INDIVIDUAL IS PREVENT FROM CASTING A BALLOT

The best path to accomplishing such is to get an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) / preliminary injunction, the party asking (Trump/DOJ/etc.) to allow for this investigation the use of said voter rolls, backups, poll books and archives version of said voter rolls (in any version) prior to the date of this action, be temporarily suspended until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.

An emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) must show the classic factors:

·         Likelihood of success on the merits - How likely a person or party is to win the case based on the actual law and facts (not just procedural issues). This investigation is only a continuation and security evaluation and check up based on items already claimed by DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG in previously published reports.

·         Irreparable harm without the order – if in fact there are issues with publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period and they were to go thoroughly uninspected, ill managed or not forensically examined, then such would cause Irreparable harm to both the American Voter and the United States of America.  

o    Noting the President Of The United States take an oath to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
(Article II, Section 1, Clause 8) , and; the general federal oath of office of the DHS, DOJ and other in federal office is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...”
(5 U.S.C. § 3331)

It is the undertaking of this forensic investigation of our Critical Infrastructure which can faithfully assure these oaths are exercised and no irreparable harm is cause to both the American Voter and the United States of America.

·         Balance of equities is required to favor the order. This is defined as:

A judge asks:

o    If I grant this request, who gets hurt and how much?

§  Under this order no laws are changed, and no one is not allowed to cast a ballot. This is an investigation to assure COMPLIANCE and SECURITY ONLY!

o    If I deny it, who gets hurt and how much?

§  If this order is denied, the whole of our government and citizens have lost faith in our elections will be harmed. If people do not have faith in our elections, they will stop participating and America as we know it will be irreparably harm by poor voter turnout.

o    Which result is fairer while the case is still being decided?

§  Since no laws are being change and no one will be prevented from casting their ballot, this is no way affects the American citizen and the audit of the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America is in the best interests of the Federal government, State government and The Citizens of The United States of America and is both expected and demanded.

·         Public interest favors the order.

o    A judge considers whether issuing the TRO would help protect things the public cares about, such as:

§  public safety

§  constitutional rights

§  fair elections / lawful procedures

§  health

§  order and stability.

§  enforcement of the law

Each step in this investigation protects public safety, constitutional rights, fair elections/lawful procedures, health, order and stability and the enforcement of law.

RECAP OF REQUEST:

1.      No legal voter will be denied their right to cast their ballot.

2.      No laws (State or Federal) are being changed or dropped.

3.      This is only a security and forensic review of possible and know election security issues - are issues with publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period – as reported by DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG

4.      This is only a temporary request for “the voter rolls be temporarily suspended until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.”

5.      In such as the suspension is in place while the investigation is underway, and for the foreseeable 2026 mid-terms, general mail-in ballots will be adjusted in the fact no mail-in ballots (except for medical reasons or UOCAVA) will be printed for execution of the election. Voters, during this investigation and temporary suspended use of the existing voter rolls will be able to cast their ballot in person by identifying themselves with approved ID and showing up at their proper voting Precinct.

6.      Once the investigation is complete, forensic risk assessment is done and no known security threats continue to exist and the investigation can confirm that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America are safe and secure, the Voter Roll use can reopen and be used provide any needed security changes and protection procedures are implemented and active.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Considering the House passed the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) and sent it to the Senate on April 10, 2025; Congress.gov still shows it as “Passed House” and the latest action as received in the Senate, not enacted it is apparent, even in the most basic of needs and circumstance, Mitch McConnell is the Chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee is not “acting as fast as possible”, thus inaction – this is why an emergency court order is needed.

Furthermore, tremendous evidence has come forward which further shows just how imperiled the elections of the United State of America are, such as:

NON-CITIZENS ON THE VOTER ROLLS:

·         Iowa: 277 confirmed noncitizens on the rolls (and it separately reported thirty-five noncitizens voted in the 2024 general election review).

·         Texas: reported 2,724 “potential noncitizens” (not “confirmed” in the announcement; counties investigate).

·         Louisiana: reported 390 people who they believe are noncitizens on the rolls, and seventy-nine who voted at least once (their announcement frames this as an investigation with notice and opportunity to prove citizenship).

·         As of this report Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Michigan, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, and Colorado (24% of the states and suspected to be as high as 60%)

KNOWN VOTER ROLL HACKS

·         Voter Rolls Hacks/Theft and Attempted Hacks has been reported and documented in

o    Arizona

o    Illinois

o    Michigan

o    Alaska

o    Kentucky

o    Wisconsin

o    Forty-two percent of the State have reported such activities and in 2016 Russia election-cyber targeting figures that are most often cited, the commonly reported number is twenty-one states targeted.

INSIDE JOB - KNOWN VOTER ROLL HACKS

·         Voter Rolls Hacks/Theft and Attempted Hacks has been reported and documented to have been at the hands of employees, officials or subcontractors have been reported in

o    Arkansas

o    Connecticut

o    Michigan

o    North Carolina

o    Virginia

o    Oregon

o    Iowa

o    Texas

o    Michigan

o    South Dakota

o    Documented 20% of the States

FURTHER CONFIRMING EVIDENCE ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN NOW:

Major U.S. government “confirming” reports of compromises and question regarding the security of the elections and election systems utilized in the United States of America:

1.        ODNI Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections (Jan 6, 2017).

2.        DHS/FBI Joint Analysis Report (JAR) — GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity (Dec 29, 2016).

3.        Joint DHS/ODNI/FBI public statement attributing Russian malicious cyber activity (Dec 29, 2016).

4.        U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Volume I (2019) — part of the 5-volume Russia report.

5.        SSCI Volume II (2019) — same series.

6.        SSCI Volume III (2019) — same series.

7.        SSCI Volume IV (2020) — same series.

8.        SSCI Volume V (2020) — same series (final volume).

9.        DOJ Special Counsel Report (Mueller Report) — Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election (public release 2019).

10.     House Intelligence Committee “Russia Investigation Report” (2018) — also affirms Russian active measures and discusses cyber/influence activity.

High-impact, widely cited peer-reviewed empirical studies regarding contested elections and election security and foreign interference:

1.        Assessing the IRA’s impact / exposure & effects (PNAS, 2020)

2.        Exposure to IRA campaign on Twitter and relationship to attitudes/voting (Nat. Communications, 2023)

3.        Troll Factories: manufacturing specialized disinformation on Twitter (Political Communication, 2020)

4.        Cross-platform state propaganda: Russian trolls on Twitter & YouTube (Intl. Journal of Press/Politics, 2020)

5.        Reduced trolling on Russian holidays (PLOS ONE, 2022)

6.        Who falls for online political manipulation? (ACM conference proceedings, 2019)

7.        Engagement/coordination dynamics of IRA operations (Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2020 — peer-reviewed)

8.        Reflexive control / cognitive vulnerability in 2016 election (peer-reviewed journal on JSTOR, 2019)

9.        Bail et al. (2020) — Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact… (PNAS).

10.     Eady et al. (2023) — Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign… (Nature Communications).

11.     Linvill & Warren (2020) — Troll Factories: Manufacturing Specialized Disinformation on Twitter (Political Communication).

12.     Linvill & Warren (2020) — Engaging with others: How the IRA coordinated information operation made friends (HKS Misinformation Review — peer reviewed; PDF link on page).

13.     Simchon et al. (2022) — Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (PNAS Nexus; includes IRA context and analysis).

14.     Linvill et al. (2019) — “The Russians are hacking my brain!”… (Computers in Human Behavior; IRA tweet tactics).

ADDITIONAL RECAP:

·         No legal voter will be denied their right to cast their ballot.

·         No laws (State or Federal) are being changed or dropped.

·         This is only a security and forensic review of possible and know election security issues - are issues with publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period – as reported by DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG

·         This is only a temporary request for “the voter rolls be temporarily suspended until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.”

·         In such as the suspension is in place while the investigation is underway, and for the foreseeable 2026 mid-terms, general mail-in ballots will be adjusted in the fact no mail-in ballots (except for medical reasons or UOCAVA) will be printed for execution of the election. Voters, during this investigation and temporary suspended use of the existing voter rolls will be able to cast their ballot in person by identifying themselves with approved ID and showing up at their proper voting Precinct.

·         Once the investigation is complete, forensic risk assessment is done and no known security threats continue to exist and the investigation can confirm that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America are safe and secure, the Voter Roll use can reopen and be used provide any needed security changes and protection procedures are implemented and active.