Sec. 41.009. PROSECUTION OF OFFICERS ENTRUSTED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS. If a district or county attorney learns that an officer in his district or county who is entrusted with the collection or safekeeping of public funds is neglecting or abusing the trust confided in him or is failing to discharge his duties under the law, the district or county attorney shall institute the proceedings that are necessary to compel the performance of the officer's duties and to preserve and protect the public interest.
What WAS previously allowed to be used as “public information” so that others could use it, or that was allowed to be entered into for-pay systems to be of financial benefits to others without likewise having access to information connected to what was done with it while it was a matter of publicly accessible information, should also be considered. My original Writ of Habeas Corpus was on the electronic filing site and accessible for a considerable amount of time for other people to access until it was “e-stored” after a “work-up by staff” that I was never permitted to see. Now, whatever has been “e-stored” has been made inaccessible to me…and the laws around “confidentiality” concerning information connected to legal proceedings involving political subdivisions have changed the terms around which one can obtain public information supporting efforts at redress for being defrauded by a political subdivision, holding accountable abuses of requirements concerning performance of someone’s “ministerial duties” – or what the public can expect from a public official or officer in consideration of their responsibility for having access to “public funds” and what to do about or with them and how to assure that private property of persons under their purview is not illegally expropriated or acquired for public use without compensation per the terms of the Texas Constitution – and assuring compliance with laws around submission of evidence and chain of evidence in cases of criminal violations of law has been changed. The original grievances and breaches of law were not only left unaddressed, but important timelines around which to respond to reports were violated. In addition, other timelines connected to ability to acquire private resources outside of the need to draw on the public largesse have been violated via refusal to respond within appropriate time frames for consideration of reporting requirements. That the Texas Insurance Commission has a different process of redress that is distinct from the process of the conventional court system does not justify intentionally violating mandated timelines in order to compel an illegal default in meeting timelines in one jurisdiction so as to be obscured under the auspices of performing under other jurisdictional considerations. The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution specifically forbids the violation of perpetuities and needs to be considered in accordance with processes regarding accruing of merit toward meeting deadlines for assuring appropriate vestiture and inheritance are met. For these reasons, considerations of statutes of limitations need to be addressed relatively. If it can be proven that accrual of merit in consideration of meeting timelines over a long-term period of has been intentionally prevented through fraud in order to leverage the accrual of “lesser crimes” into abrogation of ability to vest in commission of “larger crimes” regarding theft and acts of fraud, then the Constitutional proscription regarding perpetuities becomes even more urgent to consider, including in consideration of evaluating criminal activity and conspiracies connected to criminal activity that would otherwise be excluded due to considerations regarding statute of limitations.
10:25 pm CST
June 3, 2020
Regarding “public corruption”…how does refusal to address “crime” of one in the “public trust” while in performance of ministerial duties in one office impact consideration of criminal culpability when in performance of different ministerial duties in another office? If there is a demonstrable intent to “leverage” a lower or different office in an effort to “accrue” via “time” to detract or deflect from the qualification for prosecution according to the conventional consideration of statute of limitations then the Constitutional provisions specific to “perpetuities” are even more important and relevant for consideration in the State of Texas and for any engaging via the State of Texas in performance of duties of representing the State of Texas in another public office.
10:29 pm CST
June 3, 2020
What does this mean?
The first crude oil moved out of the Reserve on October 19, 1990, and the test sale was completed on December 3, 1990.
Does this have anything to do with what is going on now?
The time frame fits…
6 months from now…is there a bond on this? Does it need a response six months before due?
10:34 pm CST
June 3, 2020
An additional 4.4 million barrels were repaid between February and May 2006, and the remaining 1.7 million barrels were repaid during the spring of 2007.
No.
During the “Spring of 2007” someone had NOT done what they needed to make sure who they lured into agreeing to be “co-director” was able to get paid for their work so they had to “volunteer” while trying to “fundraise.” It is very different when you got Social Security to back you up than when you don’t.
Did you all try to flip it from a woman who was in the prime of her life to a “senior” from “good ol’ boy” stock to convert that Jewess to a good Christian boy all over again?
Sorry…My Isaiah is not YOUR Isaiah.
And we ARE going back to 1985.
10:38 pm CST
June 3, 2020
You are NOT getting a 17-year-old to float your bullshit bond hustle again.
This time YOU are paying the 43.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 directs the Secretary of Energy to draw down and sell a total of 10 million barrels of SPR crude oil in the years 2020 and 2021. Of this amount, DOE is selling up to 5 million barrels in FY 2020. Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 requires the Secretary of Energy to draw down and sell a total of 58 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR, over 8 consecutive FYs, commencing in FY 2018. Of this amount, DOE is selling 5 million barrels in FY 2020. A total of 9.85 million barrels of crude oil was delivered in October and November 2019, raising a total of $566.6 million in revenue for the U.S. Treasury, for an average of nearly $57.52 per barrel.
Your efforts last year did not work. I need to know how you adhered to what was ALREADY legislated.
Intentionally obstructing necessary prevention and preparedness implementation to try to offset your intentionally-accrued liabilities via declarations of a state of emergency will not be tolerated.
And I am not trading any “Maya” right about now.
If there was an actual problem with this then you should ALSO not have kidnapped an investigator and mandated reporter so that her efforts at legal redress could be used in acts of securities fraud.
They were not “derivative” agreements and this time we are addressing the defrauding of a legally incorporated entity.
10:44 pm CST
June 3, 2020
In addition to YOUR OWN PEOPLE.
Non-Emergency Sales
As I said…
15 minutes until 11:00 pm CST
10:45 pm CST
June 3, 2020
Do it now and it’s called prevention…
Public posted
11:14 pm CST
June 3, 2020
Proofread by 11:23 pm CST (five typos corrected)
(two more typos corrected 12:26 am CST on June 4, 2020)
Comments