Part 1 of Response to Comptroller of Currency Audit of the U.S. Department of Energy July 11, 1980

Part I

This report was to start as a review of an audit by the Office of Comptroller of Currency that was requested by Senator John H. Glenn — Chairman of Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of the Committee on Governmental Affairs — for three uranium enrichment facilities overseen by the U.S. Department of Energy. Report number EMD-80-78 was dated for July 11, 1980 and sent to Senator Glenn by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General of the United States. Upon first reviewing this report, I noticed several matters that I believed compelled a reconsideration of recent events that I contend were an accrual of refusal of the U.S. Department of Energy to respond appropriately to the Comptroller’s report at the time:

a) A refusal to address worker safety issues concerning reports of potential health hazards by employees using a verifiable process as discussed by the Office of Comptroller of Currency in the report;

b) A refusal to consider coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time concerning certain elements specific to workers safety;

c) A refusal to address issues concerning hierarchization and access by health safety personnel that impacted their prioritization when it came to evaluating risk and what should be addressed as priority concerns by the U.S. Department of Energy in regards to its uranium enrichment facilities.

As I was reading this report originally I understood that there were at least two areas in the report that had been embedded with what I call “aetheric sabotage.” In two areas where there were reports on potential health hazards (that are coded to “sound” like they are coming from a low-volume and low-frequency female voice) there is an “oversound” of a deeper masculine voice denying that there is a problem even though there is no rational or reasonable basis for alleging that there is NOT a problem.

(review of documents by 10:39 pm CST)

An attempt to review what are alleged to be the current electronic records reveals a misrepresentation of information as it was originally discovered and analyzed. It has already been reported that the desktop atop which this information has been stored is connected to operating software that does not currently have the official license in the possession of the owner of the computer; someone else has stolen the license for the operating software. Additionally, despite efforts to report and secure the system through available and legal means, back end access has proven that unauthorized persons have accessed the computer and altered electronic records frequently during the timeframe in which this report was being investigated and compiled. Years of experiencing tracking the long-term implications of this sort of digital sabotage and access to written records has assured me of the confidence in my own capacities, as well as understanding that these matters are connected to quantum considerations with explanations that while logical, also entail an understanding of non-linear events impacting the accrual process which can alter perception if allowed to be subjectively influenced.

It is FOR this reason that the resonance of the original reading, that was also impacted by the date on the document as it was observed at the time, reaffirms the cause of concern regarding the fact that now the documents appear to reflect a sort of “swap” or “substitution” of similar reports, but reports that come with different sources of authorization and now reflect findings outside of the original sequence of reportings. Currently the report that is alleged to have been commissioned by Senator John Glenn reflects different information associated with the response from the Comptroller of Currency via the cover page dated for July 11, 1980 and instead appears under an acknowledgement of a report requested by Representative Patricia Shroeder. This gives a different authority to the report, but, does also appear to exhibit a more current example of tactics employed via another department that is operating under a similar praxis as what was alleged as the operational policy of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1980 and was evidenced not only in the U.S. Department of Energy’s response at the time, but in the manners in which other areas of research concerning matters associated with domestic uranium enrichment processes as well as their connection with other hazardous materials has been allowed to accrue.

The “swap” out would appear to give a prioritization to motivations that what had occurred was specifically to target a woman who was in elected office at the time of the request, rather than mischaracterizing feminized projections of uranium enrichment processes that were “coded” to be sabotaged into lacking confidence in their own judgment, including when it came to analyzing compliance standards in regards to workplace safety, which ostensibly, is a requirement concerning the eligibility of the particular worker to be employed. This is additionally concerning regarding the discovery a short time after the original report — but BEFORE finding the Aug. 4, 1981 report — of a U.S. Department of Energy “Office of Human Capital Management” manual concerning “Employee Performance Management and Recognition Program” that is dated for Oct. 15, 2010. The date of this report is concerning enough and will be described later, but in the context of this timeline consideration of the fact that the SAFETY COMPLIANCE issues are subordinated to other factors, which reinforces my original hypothesis that the “culture” element being discussed by the representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1980 were due more to the FINANCIAL considerations of the U.S. Department of Energy’s policy regarding use of derivatives in connection specifically with schemes to leverage risk in the gas and oil sector more than workers or environmental safety matters connected to the uranium enrichment sector specifically.

10:55 pm CST

It is important to identify a few factors in the timeline, starting with recognition as recently as April of 2020 that the laws of the State of Texas require there to be a formal process regarding engaging Limited Liability Corporations in any sort of derivative proceedings, that preclude actual engagement of the derivative process until the 91st day (Sec. 101.452 of Texas Business Organizations Code). The question remains as to what would be a justification for engaging individuals in derivative actions, including via access to resources that may be able to be coded as derivatives, or included in inventories that can provide collateral in consideration of the derivatives process, without an explicit act of individual incorporation and the accountability of a “corporate” process to protect the individual from disabuse. If one is an employee of a facility — including a government agency or an agency that necessarily must engage around safety or other standards processes — that engages in use of derivatives, then what protections are there for preventing abuse of those who are able to engage in the economic incentivization and decision-making processes around economic valuation in efforts to prevent the contrived or illegal accrual of liability?

Specifically concerning is an anonymization of individuals and acknowledgement of their capacity to make informed judgments about necessary requirements of and in connection with their jobs, but also in consideration of the agency or entity overall meeting its requirements about exercising their responsibility in consideration of safety matters, including ones that may impact the public health or the environment. What has been revealed instead is that alternative arrangements that prioritize a CERTAIN kind of economic incentivization that ascribe “risk” to important safety matters and then permit it to be leveraged in connection with other considerations that intentionally subordinate workplace safety have allowed for the accrual of unsustainable and unacceptable risks. Not only that, but by refusing to distinguish between necessary boundaries around accessing materials or techniques specific to one sector and EXPLICITLY defined AS within the accountability and security structure of that sector, this leveraging has encouraged a culture of intentional violation of basic safety standards in efforts to “compete” for acknowledgement of higher risk performance indicators that are inappropriate to the sector under consideration. The accrual has effectively rewarded criminal behavior under the guise of “job performance” and attempted to leverage refusal to establish accountability structures at the APPROPRIATE level of responsibility for access to other material or economic incentives, including in the form of kickbacks that have been provided after necessary elements of the sector under the explicit purview of the U.S. Department of Energy have been sabotaged.

In 1980, the Office of Comptroller of Currency’s concerns regarding the “hierarchy” and “priority” concerning workplace safety issues meant one thing; over the intervening nearly 40 years it has come to accrue to something of greater magnitude. Hence, the intentional efforts to undermine the acknowledgement of worker’s safety considerations while workers are on the job has a direct correlation with refusal to acknowledge other forms of environmental safety when it comes to the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy to engage with other aspects of the energy sector. That the major considerations include acknowledging the need to have an occupational safety department within the U.S. Department of Energy that responds directly to concerns about workplace safety, including in manners that factor in exposure to contaminants, workplaces accidents, and days of work missed by workers either because they are sick or because the facility needs to be closed down, end up becoming a matter for outsourcing to another “private entity” in the form of insurance billings connected to treatment or payouts on damage.

The question then must turn to the manners in which the insurance sector intersects with the energy sector in other manners a) in order to expose intentional sabotage of appropriate LEGAL standards regarding workplace safety and b) in order to expose efforts to avail others of financial benefits resulting from intentionally orchestrated accidents, or developments allowed to occur due to WILLFUL negligence.

In this regard, that this specific investigation began with consideration of a 2019 audit of the U.S. Department of State’s compliance with the DATA Act of 2014 is instructive and, I contend, evidentiary of a long-term effort to intentionally leverage worker’s safety and other matters connected to health on speculation concerning orchestrated volatility involving the energy sector.

11:22 pm CST

July 10, 2020

Finished proofreading by 11:38 pm CST

This is Part I of a multi-part report.

Posted 11:47 pm CST

July 10, 2020

That is 13 minutes ...

---

Stop.

You just programmed me to have a heart murmer.

And I know it.

11:49 pm CST

July 10, 2020

I WILL see you tomorrow.

---

"Typos" corrected at 10:44 pm CST on July 11, 2020