I have already paid my way
- Charity Colleen Crouse
- Sep 28, 2020
- 25 min read
This is being edited from the original that was put here before 4:00 pm CST. I am also editing out information at the end of each post that was previously associated with organizations that provided information on different types of hawks. There were 14 -- for a reason. I am not attempting to "launder" information currency via a "charity" and I do not approve of the misappropriation of activities and resources via the Bureau of Land Management that has been demonstrated since I had that original blog called the "Tempered Wordsmith."
4:57 pm CST
Sept. 28, 2020
3 “She wasn’t really…
...a Republican.”
“She wasn’t really a socialist.”
“She wasn’t really a jew.”
“She had a history of mental illness in the family.”
“She was in training to be the Russian Hacker.”
Whatever it WAS was NOT disclosed to Charity Crouse upon entering college at the University of Chicago in October of 1995 to study “Russian History.”
No one disclosed that her early acceptance to attend the University of Chicago that was confirmed by the end of calendar year 1994 qualified her for certain positioning within the higher education financing changes implemented via the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
By the end of 1995, Crouse had to take a leave of absence from college and in order to return the next autumn had to re-apply for federal aid to finance school. Hence, rather than having one continuous loan arrangement, Crouse had two specific and separate application packages in different years. What the specific terms, amounts, and repayment schedules were on these loans is likewise not disclosed at this time. Despite default years ago, the last record of these loans accessible to Crouse in 2015 said they HAD been paid off around 2010 without anyone ever discussing this with her, but now there is NO record at all of her old defaulted student loan debt on Crouse’s credit reports.
No debt...why be concerned?
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Public law 103-66:
SEC. 3002. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUSES.
Sec. 3002 (3) and Sec. 3002 (3) (1)
``(3) Payment to treasury.--During fiscal years 1997 and 1998,
any amount in the surplus fund of any Federal reserve bank in excess
of the amount equal to 3 percent of the total paid-in capital and
surplus of the member banks of such bank shall be transferred to the
Board for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in
the general fund of the Treasury.''.
(b) Additional Transfers for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the amounts required to be
transferred from the surplus funds of the Federal reserve banks
pursuant to section 7(a)(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal
reserve banks shall transfer from such surplus funds to the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer to the
Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of the
Treasury, a total amount of $106,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and a
total amount of $107,000,000 in fiscal year 1998.
This is important to consider regarding changes to the Federal reserve surpluses in consideration of what has already been discussed concerning “amortization” as well as the fact that on April 4, 2018 — the one-year anniversary of my maternal grandfather’s death — I was issued a Social Security card in conjunction with a Social Security statement that fraudulently listed my income for 2017 as “$1.06.” My grandfather was both a Korean War Veteran who was in the United States Marine Corps and was also involved with law enforcement in Washington, DC. I did not know until months after receiving that Social Security card and tracking it to different accounts in Africa that my grandfather had “died” the day after I was released from my ten-day kidnapping, which was also the day I was prevented from appearing in court to challenge the illegal detention order that was used to justify kidnapping me for 10 days. Not so ironically, 1997 is when I would have had to start paying back on the first student loan I had attempted to take out in 1995. At that time I was already working full-time as a journalist.
Title IV: Sec. 455
``(b) Interest Rate.--
``(1) Rates for FDSL and FDUSL.--For Federal Direct Stafford
Loans and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans for which the
first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 1994, the applicable
rate of interest shall, during any 12-month period beginning on July
1 and ending on June 30, be determined on the preceding June 1 and
be equal to--
``(A) the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills
auctioned at the final auction held prior to such June 1; plus
``(B) 3.1 percent,
except that such rate shall not exceed 8.25 percent.
``(2) In school and grace period rules.--(A) Notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph (1), but subject to paragraph (3), with
respect to any Federal Direct Stafford Loan or Federal Direct
Unsubsidized Stafford Loan for which the first disbursement is made
on or after July 1, 1995, the applicable rate of interest for
interest which accrues--
``(i) prior to the beginning of the repayment period of the
loan; or
``(ii) during the period in which principal need not be paid
(whether or not such principal is in fact paid) by reason of a
provision described in section 428(b)(1)(M) or 427(a)(2)(C),
shall not exceed the rate determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the rate determined
under this subparagraph shall, during any 12-month period beginning
on July 1 and ending on June 30, be determined on the preceding June
1 and be equal to--
``(i) the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills
auctioned at the final auction prior to such June 1; plus
``(ii) 2.5 percent,
except that such rate shall not exceed 8.25 percent.
It would appear that the interest rates on the loans are pegged to 91-day Treasury Notes for the equivalent time period plus 3.1 percent or 2.5 percent.
I was accepted as part of the early applicant pool, meaning before the end of calendar year 1994. No one disclosed whether the terms to which I was obligated were under 1994 when I was accepted or under 1995 when the LOAN application was accepted; no one disclosed how this impacted my application package the subsequent year. So, I had two different loan application packages that were granted. The amounts of the loans themselves may not be substantial, but the interest accrues at two different rates over time. Additionally, if they are pegged to Treasury Notes with different “bond equivalent rates” then that means there are two very different financial obligation paradigms occurring concurrently. What happens if on the the 23rd year of the repayment period you get a “mental health” diagnosis as “bipolar?” Because in 2010 — the 16th year — I was diagnosed as “schizophrenic.” That’s a completely different...modality.
``(C) a graduated repayment plan, with annual repayment
amounts established at 2 or more graduated levels and paid over
a fixed or extended period of time, except that the borrower's
scheduled payments shall not be less than 50 percent, nor more
than 150 percent, of what the amortized payment on the amount
owed would be if the loan were repaid under the standard
repayment plan;
Please recall yesterday’s blog about derivatives and amortization. By the way did anyone notice that my name is “Charity?” My name was Charity when I applied to college, graduated high school, and obtained my Virginia Driver’s License in 10th Grade as well.
``(D) an income contingent repayment plan, with varying
annual repayment amounts based on the income of the borrower,
paid over an extended period of time prescribed by the
Secretary, not to exceed 25 years, except that the plan
described in this subparagraph shall not be available to the
borrower of a Federal Direct PLUS loan.
I did not receive a federal Direct PLUS loan. That might say something about how at this point in the “repayment schedule” I can not get one direct conversation or answer regardless of my situation. But what is more concerning is the 25-YEAR terms. See, the Texas Constitution makes violations of someone’s perpetuities Unconstitutional. If I was obligated to ANY debt that was connected to any financial arrangements that occurred in conjunction with my applications for federal student loan aid and I am still somehow obligated to debt terms that are associated with those obligations then, regardless of the serious lack of good faith in engaging a teenager in that contract, these terms are in violation of the Constitution of Texas. For the State of Texas to attempt in any way to avail itself of the benefits of any financial arrangement based on debt obligations that have accrued in conjunction with this default is Unconstitutional. It was ALWAYS Unconstitutional, but now, what, 25 years in…
Was I supposed to be financing the "general Treasury" for the next five years so as to be prevented from acquiring verifiable income in order to establish different "amortization" rates on the repayment of my student loans, which thusfar as registered on my credit report as "paid" but apparently are...not?
``(4) Repayment schedules.--Income contingent repayment
schedules shall be established by regulations promulgated by the
Secretary and shall require payments that vary in relation to the
appropriate portion of the annual income of the borrower (and the
borrower's spouse, if applicable) as determined by the Secretary.
I am concerned that what ACTUALLY happened when I was intentionally misdiagnosed as “mentally ill” when I actually attempted to report that I was being targeted for retaliation was that someone decided to use the billings to MediCare and Social Security that I incurred for treatment as some sort of “income contingent repayment schedule.” Part of that “repayment schedule” also included billing codes connected to “patient notes” that accrue annually. After all, medical benefits are a form of “income,” especially if you are getting any other sort of public assistance, like food stamps or subsidies for transportation. And there ARE billing records to MediCaid and MediCare and various Social Security programs if one received medical treatment funded by those agencies. Just how does THAT debt get repaid? I do hope that someone didn’t waive off their debt onto my repayment schedule and have “grandfathered” in a serious obligation they did not want to pay themselves.
If you are attempting to use “patient data” that has been anonymized and sold as part of some sort of crypto feed or other digital currency connected to pooled data, then this means that a person who has been identified as a specific “investor’s” vehicle can be pre-programmed to have specific economic events occur concurrent to their attempts to access social services and “public assistance” that can then be coded to portfolios for the investors who have access to their data.
``(B) The Secretary may direct a guaranty agency to suspend or
cease activities under any contract entered into by or on behalf of
such agency after January 1, 1993, if the Secretary determines that
the misuse or improper expenditure of such guaranty agency's funds
or assets or such contract provides unnecessary or improper benefits
to such agency's officers or directors.
How many people that were entered into the Affordable Care Act marketplace as “mental health service recipients” were actually obligated to defaulted student loan debt? There have been programs and timeframes when ostensibly an individual’s student loan debt can be “forgiven” if they are determined to be disabled, but there is an entire “off the books” market on defaulted and hidden debt that various levels of investors have access to that a regular person who has that off-the-books debt can not track for themselves...unless they develop their own means by which to do so. Is that sort of what the “10,000 percent increase in black market” commerce connected to Venezuela is ACTUALLY about?
``(ii) If the Secretary is seeking to terminate the guaranty
agency's agreement under subparagraph (E), or assuming the guaranty
agency's functions under subparagraph (F), a management plan
described in subparagraph (C) shall include the means by which the
Secretary and the guaranty agency shall work together to ensure the
orderly termination of the operations, and liquidation of the
assets, of the guaranty agency.'';
"Liquidation of assets?" My father was in the Marine Corps for 21 years. My grandfather was a Korean War Vet and a former DC Policeman. We’ll discuss “termination of operations” and “liquidation of assets” later.
(b) Conforming Amendments to ERISA To Ensure Compliance With
Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank Requirements.--
``(i) in the case of a request by an employer described
in subparagraph (B) and a plan that is not a multiemployer
plan or a component of an arrangement described in
subparagraph (C), to the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data
Bank;
``(2) Information not required to be provided.--Any plan
sponsor, plan administrator, insurer, third-party administrator, or
other person described in paragraph (1)(A) (other than the employer)
that maintains the information under the plan shall not provide to
an employer in order to satisfy the requirements of section 1144 of
the Social Security Act, and shall not provide to the Data Bank
under such section, information that pertains in any way to--
``(A) the health status of a participant, or of the
participant's spouse, dependent child, or other beneficiary,
``(B) the cost of coverage provided to any participant or
beneficiary, or
``(C) any limitations on such coverage specific to any
participant or beneficiary.
``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary may, in consultation with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, prescribe such regulations
as are necessary to carry out this subsection.''.
It is important to define the difference between “employer” and “contractor” especially as defined via the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This might also go a long way to addressing concerns regarding things driver’s licenses, all of which contain a “contract” number. When I created a PowerPoint presentation on the Health Information Portability and Protection Act for my Supervisor at the San Francisco Department of Public Health's Compliance Unit in 2013 I recall the provisions about securing patient data. Somehow since then there has been a focus on a Section (E) provision about using statistical data for "overhead" and other costs to the facility and a lot of social service providers put provisions regarding "sharing" patient data after ostensibly it has been "anonymized" in the contract and resource agreements. Each person, however, is given a unique account with unique indicators at the provider, so even if the "personal information" is not redistributed then the other metrics connected to the depersonalized account can be.
I contend that what the World Bank is attempting to do with refugee and displaced person data is akin to what has been and apparently continues to be done via processes such as these. In other words, that “Data Bank” is specifically to use people’s individual data after anonymization for access by financial and other investors to reconfigure and redistribute at their will. If combined with mental health policies that may dispossess people of control over their own intangible assets that may be accessible and able to be redistributed via amortization, then the systemotology that was cultivated in the United States starting with obligating people going to college to debt repayment terms that were never previously disclosed or negotiated in good faith is being replicated on a global scale.
(1) Civil actions.--Section 502(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
1132(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(7) by a State to enforce compliance with a qualified medical
child support order (as defined in section 609(a)(2)(A)); or
``(8) by the Secretary, or by an employer or other person
referred to in section 101(f)(1), (A) to enjoin any act or practice
which violates subsection (f) of section 101, or (B) to obtain
appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violation or (ii)
to enforce such subsection.''.
(2) Civil penalty.--Section 502(c) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
1132(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000 for each violation by any person of section 101(f)(1). For
purposes of this paragraph, each violation described in subparagraph (A)
with respect to any single participant, and each violation described in
subparagraph (B) with respect to any single participant or beneficiary,
shall be treated as a separate violation. The Secretary and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain such ongoing
consultation as may be necessary and appropriate to coordinate
enforcement under this subsection with enforcement under section
1144(c)(8) of the Social Security Act.''.
I contend that the “repayment schedules” on student loans that were defaulted were intentionally coordinated with compelled billings via Medicare and/or Social Security Disability Insurance so as to obligate one to services with or without their consent that violate the law. It was also used as a method of political retaliation against various people who objected to this and other financial modalities that included extorting people into culpability with various criminal activities in order to be “relieved” of certain forms of “obligation” — up to and including “termination of operations” and “liquidation of assets.” I am NOT programming this — but even I could figure out easily how to coordinate billing records for MediCare and/or Social Security Disability Insurance with repayment schedules for student loans which are additionally correlated with Treasury Notes that have been applied in or purchased by jurisdictions beyond the purview of the United States. This is even easier if there is another market through which you can access things like people’s professional certificates, personal identification documents, report numbers on their efforts to investigate fraud, or legal filings.
There are other parts of the Omnibus Act that when evaluated in conjunction with later Omnibus Acts and specific pieces of legislation approved and implemented in 2008 provide a specific methodology for moving forward on the larger-scale operationalization of the financial paradigm. It does, however, involve substantial human test subject experimentation in order to refine it and to accrue statistical and other research data for developing investment portfolios. We’ll hop on that bandwidth-wagon in the next blog.
See, Crouse “knew things” at the time she entered college that were not verifiable in the conventional sense — at the time. Part of that inability to verify was because the terms of financing her education had never been disclosed to her or her family. So she spent...what now...24 years hunting the terrorists down — except when she was on drugs paid for by MediCare prescription coverage plans.
[REMOVED]
2/7/19
6 Appropriate by Appropriation
In May of 2017 I attempted to articulate an argument for how I understood that the 2008 banking bailout was not so much an actual effort to “bail out” financial institutions because they were “too big to fail” but rather that the way was being paved for the offloading of public services to privatization after a comprehensive reassignment under the auspices of a “bail out.” Basically, I believed that the bail out was giving the banking sector access to public resources while the digital economy was being beta tested and that later there would be a “privatization” of various government services that had already been “paperclipped” so to speak by the requisite financial institutions and their account holders. At the time I wrote a report entitled “Additional Report on Role of Banking Bailout in Enterprise Corruption” and submitted it to a staff member at a Senator’s office hoping that they would be better positioned to attempt to bring a formal inquiry into the matter. Here is an excerpt from the report:
“While precedent for the accrual for this “unlawful debt” began decades ago, in the last ten years it emerged and expanded through the implementation of several pieces of legislation that ostensibly aimed to assist with “recovery” after the 2008 Financial Crisis. The primary pieces of legislation to be considered are:
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Mental Health Parity Act of 2008
Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2008
“One of the most notable pieces of evidence in the concurrent approval of these bills relates to how the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 assists in redefining the concept of “Conflict of Interest.” It was the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that removed the prohibition on an individual serving on multiple Boards of Directors because it was a “Conflict of Interest” that had existed since 1933. This correlates with legal definitions of “person” being about more than a biological, human individual but also entailing a corporation in consideration of “person.” It helps lay the foundation for one “person” to claim the human capital assets from many other “persons” that are linked into the network. Various aspects of the bill detail a process by which “human capital” linked to financial debt of individual “persons” is acquired so as to be apportioned to various creditors, or “persons”. It paves the way for the infrastructure of making a “person” a “mobile bank” with accounts for various other “persons.”
“The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was not a “bailout bill” wherein banks were given loans to offset their debt and pay back with interest to the U.S. Treasury, but rather banks were offered a loan as a “capital outlay” for the digitalized financial system that was literally being developed to “wire” human physiological processes to move capital. Rather than using traditional commodities or services to provide the “capital” various elements of an individual’s “human capital” were assigned to different financial institutions to be apportioned to the requisite account as some form of “security” concurrent to another securitized financial instrument for trade, SWAPing, transfer, etc.“
The above has not been edited since it was originally written and submitted. In the meantime, however, I have continued my own research. Part of this research involves an investigation of Budget Appropriations and other forms of Omnibus Acts, specifically in 1993 — as has been discussed in a prior post — and 2008. The 2008 appropriations were of specific concern for me because in 2008 I was working on a third-party Congressional campaign and found what I understood to be suspect appropriations that portended serious problems for the future of the country, specifically connected to immigration policy and technologies attendant with “border security.” No one responded at the time and I was dissuaded from further research on these topics, however, when I was later exposed to what I understood to be some form of “punishment” I understood it was connected to my nascent research on 2008 appropriations. As result of my subsequent research, I may be inclined to revise aspects of the argument above, but not too much. Let me describe why.
First, let’s go back to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993:
``SEC. 113. IDENTIFICATION OF REALLOCABLE FREQUENCIES.
``(a) Identification Required.--The Secretary shall, within 18
months after the date of the enactment of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, prepare and submit to the President and the
Congress a report identifying and recommending for reallocation bands of
frequencies--
``(1) that are allocated on a primary basis for Federal
Government use;
``(2) that are not required for the present or identifiable
future needs of the Federal Government;
``(3) that can feasibly be made available, as of the date of
submission of the report or at any time during the next 15 years,
for use under the 1934 Act (other than for Federal Government
stations under section 305 of the 1934 Act);
``(4) the transfer of which (from Federal Government use) will
not result in costs to the Federal Government, or losses of services
or benefits to the public, that are excessive in relation to the
benefits to the public that may be provided by non-Federal
licensees; and
``(5) that are most likely to have the greatest potential for
productive uses and public benefits under the 1934 Act if allocated
for non-Federal use.
It was my understanding that around the time that this bill was going into effect that Enron was engaged in what was later revealed to be very disturbing business practices. One of the primary things concerned unallocated fiber optics. What exactly that means is something that should have been scrutinized more.
``PART B--TRANSFER OF AUCTIONABLE FREQUENCIES.
…
``(B) Mixed use eligibility.--The frequencies assigned to
any Federal power agency may only be eligible for mixed use
under subsection (b)(2) in geographically separate areas, but in
those cases where a frequency is to be shared by an affected
Federal power agency and a non-Federal user, such use by the
non-Federal user shall not cause harmful interference to the
affected Federal power agency or adversely affect the
reliability of its power system.
Shortly after this bill went into effect there was a serious move in Chicago to emphasize “mixed-use” space allocations in new housing developments. Is this connected? I do believe so. I also believe it is connected to later efforts around “co-location of telemedication services” which will be discussed in later posts. But, one thing that concerns me is the potential security problem this presents in the event that bandwidths used for national security or other security purposes should be allocated for “mixed use” with civilian operations. When I was growing up on a military base in the 1990s, there was considerable concern about the decommissioning of a number of bases and the requirements that dependents live and attend school in civilian neighborhoods and facilities. I am certain that this says a great deal about those concerns.
``(B) Permitted reallocation.--The Secretary may, as part of
such report, identify and recommend bands of frequencies for
immediate reallocation for a mixed use pursuant to subsection
(b)(2), but such bands of frequencies may not count toward the
minimums required by subparagraph (A).
Now, in this case, I am most concerned with what was mentioned at the time as being a major concern regarding the Enron scandal and which I later learned was actually attendant with aspects of the federal budgeting process concerning “special project entities” and/or “Government-Sponsored Entities.” My concern was that the Affordable Care Act marketplace had permitted the development of “Government-Sponsored Entities” that could expropriate individual assets — including the assets of former or current military or their dependents — to be “reallocated” per the discretion of a “Secretary,” including one that may have been beholden to an Executive Commission that was established via Executive Order. This gets into a number of issues concerning jurisdiction between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, as well as Constitutional issues concerning rights to habeas corpus and due process.
``SEC. 116. AUTHORITY TO RECOVER REASSIGNED FREQUENCIES.
``(a) Authority of President.--Subsequent to the withdrawal of
assignment to Federal Government stations pursuant to section 114, the
President may reclaim reassigned frequencies for reassignment to Federal
Government stations in accordance with this section.
``(b) Procedure for Reclaiming Frequencies.--
``(1) Unallocated frequencies.--If the frequencies to be
reclaimed have not been allocated or assigned by the Commission
pursuant to the 1934 Act, the President shall follow the procedures
for substitution of frequencies established by section 114(b) of
this part.
``(2) Allocated frequencies.--If the frequencies to be reclaimed
have been allocated or assigned by the Commission, the President
shall follow the procedures for substitution of frequencies
established by section 114(b) of this part, except that the
statement required by section 114(b)(1)(B) shall include--
``(A) a timetable to accommodate an orderly transition for
licensees to obtain new frequencies and equipment necessary for
its utilization; and
``(B) an estimate of the cost of displacing spectrum users
licensed by the Commission.
This is a specific case in point. What would be determined as a ”reallocated” ”frequency” that could be “reclaimed” by the President? As for unallocated, I was concerned that this was at the core of the concerns around Enron and selling “options” on unused fiber optics. Now, what could or would be a systemotology for attempting to capitalize on the development of previously unallocated frequencies? That may not be something best explored by the regulatory or other constraints of the federal government. But my contention was that the Enron imbroglio was actually a sort of “test case” for “busting” Enron in order to examine their business and accounting processes — including potentially even the specific sort of accrual accounting techniques that Arthur Anderson had been trying to get the federal government to apply for decades but which they had refused to do — so that it could be “analyzed” and applied by the federal government itself. I believe this pattern has played out in a number of different manners in the last thirty years. It is as if something is “busted” so that it can then be “reallocated” for federal government use, even if they were attempting to report on ongoing problems and make recommendations for correction through legitimate and official channels. In other ways it is in this manner that I believe that the specific pattern(s) of racketeering activity that the federal government is currently employing got “legitimized.”
``(d) Effective Date of Reclaimed Frequencies.--The Commission shall
not withdraw licenses for any reclaimed frequencies until the end of the
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which a statement under section
114(b)(1)(B) pertaining to such frequencies is received by the
Commission.
So, what happens in the event of a “government shutdown” when the President doesn’t sign the budget until it is supposed to be implemented?
``(b) Implementation of New Technologies and Services.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this part--
``(1) the Secretary may, consistent with section 104(e) of this
Act, at any time allow frequencies allocated on a primary basis for
Federal Government use to be used by non-Federal licensees on a
mixed-use basis for the purpose of facilitating the prompt
implementation of new technologies or services and for other
purposes; and
``(2) the Commission shall make any allocation and licensing
decisions with respect to such frequencies in a timely manner and in
no event later than the date required by section 7 of the 1934
Act.''.
“New technologies in development” sounds pretty much exactly like what I was contending as part of the “capital outlay for the digital economy” that I was discussing above. The Secretary of the Treasury was ultimately the one who authorized the “subsidies” for the mortgage companies that were bailed out without having to pay anything back; the Secretary also approved the number and amounts of the different “bail outs” including interest and penalties. What if those amounts had other metric assignments that could be coordinated with long-term budgets connected to long-term securities? What does that say about “licensing” for brokering securities, or using an “unlicensed” vehicle for off-the-books transactions connected to large-scale digital financial transactions ostensibly under the definition of “prompt implementation of new technology?”
``(3) Certification.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Secretary and the NTIA shall certify to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate
that--
``(A) the amendments required by paragraph (1) have been
accomplished; and
``(B) the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of such
paragraph are being enforced.''.
Please see the blog before this concerning the concurrent Department of Energy Budget Meeting and the Congressional hearing with Mark Zuckerburg.
``(E) require such transfer disclosures and antitrafficking
restrictions and payment schedules as may be necessary to
prevent unjust enrichment as a result of the methods employed to
issue licenses and permits.
Um...Where did this go?
``(9) Use of former government spectrum.--The Commission shall,
not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, issue licenses and permits pursuant to this subsection
for the use of bands of frequencies that--
``(A) in the aggregate span not less than 10 megahertz; and
``(B) have been reassigned from Government use pursuant to
part B of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act.
Now, around this time the Federal Communications Commission started doing a lot about “low-powered FM radio stations” in places that previously had been employing low-powered radio stations without licenses. About two years after the five year term on this I was in Honduras assisting a campesino community with setting up a low-powered FM radio station. What’s the jurisdiction here? Well, that would involve a later post concerning the transfer of telecarriers.
``(A) Initial conditions.--The Commission's authority to
issue licenses or permits under this subsection shall not take
effect unless--
``(i) the Secretary of Commerce has submitted to the
Commission the report required by section 113(d)(1) of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act;
``(ii) such report recommends for immediate reallocation
bands of frequencies that, in the aggregate, span not less
than 50 megahertz;
``(iii) such bands of frequencies meet the criteria
required by section 113(a) of such Act; and
``(iv) the Commission has completed the rulemaking
required by section 332(c)(1)(D) of this Act.
Spectrum…
So, that was 1993. What was going on in 2008?
Let us focus on one area specifically and that has to do with coordinates and metrics providing points of connectivity via federal budgeting processes that might not be explicitly connected in a linear examination of the implementation of legislation.
Let’s start with an extended selection from the "2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act":
community oriented policing services
For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322); the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Violence Against
Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-162); subtitle D of title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296), which may include research and development; and
the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-177) (including administrative costs), $587,233,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the funds under this
heading, not to exceed $2,575,000 shall be available for the Office of
Justice Programs for reimbursable services associated with programs
administered by the Community Oriented Policing Services Office:
Provided further, That any balances made available through prior year
obligations shall only be available in accordance with section 505 of
this Act. Of the amount provided (which shall be by transfer, for
programs administered by the Office of Justice Programs)--
(1) $25,850,000 is for the matching grant program for armor
vests for law enforcement officers, as authorized by section
2501 of the 1968 Act: Provided, That $1,880,000 is transferred
directly to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
Office of Law Enforcement Standards from the Community Oriented
Policing Services Office for research, testing, and evaluation
programs;
(2) $61,187,000 is for grants to entities described in
section 1701 of the 1968 Act, to address public safety and
methamphetamine manufacturing, sale, and use in hot spots as
authorized by section 754 of Public Law 109-177 and for other
anti-methaphetamine-related activities;
(3) $205,366,000 is for a law enforcement technologies and
interoperable communications program, and related law
enforcement and public safety equipment;
(4) $11,750,000 is for an offender re-entry program;
(5) $9,400,000 is for grants to upgrade criminal records, as
authorized under the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998
(42 U.S.C. 14601);
(6) $152,272,000 is for DNA related and forensic programs
and activities as follows:
(A) $147,391,000 for a DNA analysis and capacity
enhancement program including the purposes of section 2
of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, as
amended by the Debbie Smith Act of 2004, and further
amended by Public Law 109-162;
(B) $4,881,000 for the purposes described in the
Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program
(Public Law 108-405, section 412): Provided, That
unobligated funds appropriated in fiscal years 2006 and
2007 for grants as authorized under sections 412 and 413
of the foregoing
[[Page 121 STAT. 1911]]
public law are hereby made available, instead, for the
purposes here specified;
(7) $15,040,000 is for improving tribal law enforcement,
including equipment and training;
(8) $20,000,000 is for programs to reduce gun crime and gang
violence;
(9) $3,760,000 is for training and technical assistance;
(10) $18,800,000 is for Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grants under part BB of title I of the 1968 Act;
(11) not to exceed $28,200,000 is for program management and
administration;
(12) $20,000,000 is for grants under section 1701 of title I
of the 1968 Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) for the hiring and rehiring
of additional career law enforcement officers under part Q of
such title notwithstanding subsection (i) of such section; and
(13) $15,608,000 is for a national grant program the purpose
of which is to assist State and local law enforcement to locate,
arrest and prosecute child sexual predators and exploiters, and
to enforce State offender registration laws described in section
1701(b) of the 1968 Act, of which:
(A) $4,162,000 is for sex offender management
assistance as authorized by the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-162),
and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322); and
(B) $850,000 is for the National Sex Offender Public
Registry.
It is important to see how these things provide a sequence, but what is of the greatest concern in this moment is the appropriation of $1,880,000 from No. 1:
(1) $25,850,000 is for the matching grant program for armor
vests for law enforcement officers, as authorized by section
2501 of the 1968 Act: Provided, That $1,880,000 is transferred
directly to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
Office of Law Enforcement Standards from the Community Oriented
Policing Services Office for research, testing, and evaluation
programs;
“Body Armor” is also known commonly as “kevlar.” A later post on “pension fraud” will give give more attention to the National Institute for Standards and Technology. Additionally, the 188 metric concerning the “matching grant program” in this case references later 188 metric references that have a ten percent difference such as:
(B) $18,800,000 shall be for a gang resistance
education and training program; and
public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction
...
For the administration of grants authorized by section 392 of the
Communications Act of 1934, $18,800,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act: Provided, That not to
exceed $2,000,000 shall be available for program administration as
authorized by section 391 of the Act: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding the provisions of section 391 of the Act, the prior year
unobligated balances may be made available for grants for projects for
which applications have been submitted and approved during any fiscal
year.
…
(6) $152,272,000 is for DNA related and forensic programs
and activities as follows:...
(10) $18,800,000 is for Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grants under part BB of title I of the 1968 Act;
…
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
(RESCISSION)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading from prior
year appropriations, $18,800,000 are rescinded.
This is from 2008. This year is 2019. Eleven years is very important in the federal budget cycle. So was the significance of the 88 metric in H. Con. Res. 71. So are reversals on metrics. What is up with this?
(B) $4,881,000 for the purposes described in the
Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program
(Public Law 108-405, section 412): Provided, That
unobligated funds appropriated in fiscal years 2006 and
2007 for grants as authorized under sections 412 and 413
of the foregoing
Maybe something on which Scalia might have written a dissenting opinion? Or maybe something that was supposed to be a 2.12 percent tax that got transferred to the Department of Commerce.
* * * *
5:20 pm CST update:
On Valentine's Day?
How about in 2017?
Because the above link used to have a picture of someone being "hung."
By the way...who was the Prosecutor in the County of San Francisco during the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act?
I believe this is akin to how that meth appropriation above ended up getting revisited with 88 pardons on someone's way out of office.
Is someone trying to get a waiver for proxying ISIS for most of her political career?
They sold me for meth. On Valentine's Day last year.
But this is more than that. It's called a "Blood SWAP."
I would never have supported Harris in this endeavor.
And I reject all 46 Senators who did.
[REMOVED]
2/15/19
Comments