Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.

Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us. To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”- rules. These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.

But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).

Key takeaway is that the "EPA Court" that issues fines and judgements has no authority for anything because it is attempting to usurp Article III authority per application of EPA rules which are not laws. EPA cannot make nor enforce laws per separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine appears to apply automatically to ALL administrative agencies, including the IRS, making all IRS rules not specifically passed by Congressional Bill null and void, ab initio; and uneforce-able by unconstitutional IRS "Tax Courts

Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.

Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us. To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”- rules. These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.

But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).

Key takeaway is that the "EPA Court" that issues fines and judgements has no authority for anything because it is attempted to usurp Article III authority per application of EPA rules which are not laws. EPA cannot make nor enforce laws per separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine appears to apply automatically to ALL administrative agencies, including the IRS, making all IRS rules not specifically passed by Congressional Bill null and void, ab initio; and uneforce-able by unconstitutional IRS "Tax Courts".

Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.

Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us. To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”- rules. These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.

But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).

Key takeaway is that the "EPA Court" that issues fines and judgements has no authority for anything because it is attempted to usurp Article III authority per application of EPA rules which are not laws. EPA cannot make nor enforce laws per separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine appears to apply automatically to ALL administrative agencies, including the IRS, making all IRS rules not specifically passed by Congressional Bill null and void, ab initio.

Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.

Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us. To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”- rules. These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.

But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).

Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.

Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us. To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”- rules. These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.

Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.

Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.

Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf