Response to Federal Reserve Public Comment for R-1673 of Sept. 25, 2019
- Charity Colleen Crouse
- Jun 25, 2020
- 6 min read
Response to Federal Reserve Public Comment regarding “Risk-Based Capital Requirements for Depository Institution Holding Companies Significantly Engaged in Insurance Activities,” dated Sept. 25, 2019
As a follow-up to the original public comment and in consideration of the priorities of the moment, it is important to revisit the concerns expressed regarding the Texas Gubernatorial Commission on Biomedicine, Bioengineering, Biotechnology and Nanotechnology. This Commission was put under the direct authority of the Governor of Texas and was designated to replace certain aspects of the Small Business Code as of 2005. Since 2005, there have been modifications to the commission yet until Fall of 2019 it was still under the purview of the Governor of Texas. In this time, several people who were in the Texas government have been elevated to the federal government:
The former Solicitor General of Texas is now a United States Senator;
The former Attorney General of Texas is now a United States Senator;
The former Governor of Texas is now the former United States Secretary of Energy; and
Another later Attorney General of Texas is now the Governor of Texas.
These individuals alone and in concert with others have obscured processes by which the identity of individuals who were their own constituents was stolen while also presiding over a situation wherein other people were trafficked from outside of the State of Texas TO the State of Texas to be divested of their identity and their property. During this time, the State of Texas has engaged in numerous unconstitutional alterations to its own State constitution while also permitting for unsafe and illegal processes of human test subject experimentation to proliferate.
Texas is not alone. If anything, Texas already had in place a systemotology for capitalizing on the competitive marketplace aspects of the Affordable Care Act in a manner unique to, but not exclusive to, Texas. Now, however, we have to confront that just as the situation surrounding “COVID-19” is not expressly about a “health pandemic” resulting from an unforeseen virus outbreak, neither was the Affordable Care Act or policies that were concurrent to its roll out about “heath care” or responding to needed health-related matters.
The federal government has concentrated the primary considerations concerning its “COVID-19” response into “assistance” to “small businesses.” In fact, the “first response” was around securing and establishing the primacy for who would be wielding the controls over the “business logic” of the United States small business sector. There was NOT ONLY the Texas commission on biotechnology, bioengineering, biomedicine and nanotechnology that was doing this under the auspices of reporting to the Governor of Texas for over 15 years by this time, but ANOTHER operation centered in Texas that was using an alleged military command operation with three offices in Texas to “command” the small business operations in Texas ostensibly under the guise of providing assistance to the U.S. military. In both cases, what occurred with the public reporting on the results of those commissions? Well, the Army Futures Command TOLD the United States Senate Committee on Small Businesses it had no process for evaluating the success of its efforts to work with small businesses. Could this potentially be in actuality because it did NOT acquire the consent from any of the businesses with which it was “working” and was instead abusing the power of the “homeland security” apparatus to illegally steal from or appropriate the work products and proprietary techniques of businesses it had selected to be of interest?
It would not be as if there were no precedent. JUST when Texas most needed greater disclosure about potential public health harms and the viability and integrity of municipalities and governmental entities to respond to what later was declared to be a public health emergency labelled as “COVID-19” the Texas Legislature passed and the Governor and Judiciary allowed to be implemented even more restrictive laws regarding “confidentiality” that focused primarily on business contract bidding and litigious settlements with political subdivisions. This was without addressing laws on capture of biometric data from people who were using public entities, or people who were required to engage with or through the public sector, including in and during an “emergency” wherein refusal to do so would be imprudent, if not illegal. With all of the discussion now about the need for a “vaccine” while “testing” for the presence of the coronavirus alleged to be “COVID-19” there has been no discussion about WHAT is composing these vaccines, up to and including the R&D that will be used in the development of whatever will be acknowledged as the vaccine and/or if it will include any sort of nanotechnology specifically engineered to alter genetic data.
Numerous new municipal bond issues have been declared and issued during this time frame by direct reference to the manners in which “COVID-19” is anticipated to impact the community for which the bond to be issued. This is an unprecedented paradigm in the modern context of determining up to twenty or even thirty years’ worth of obligation for communities based on a “public health” concern that is not being honestly addressed or exposed. I contended in 2017 that the Harris County and City of Houston response to Hurricane Harvey was contrived and in addition to other matters covered up for fraud against and involving an already declared and issued municipal housing bond; no attention was paid to this and since then there has been a completely different characterization of Houston and the PEOPLE of Houston due to misinformation regarding Hurricane Harvey. What occurred during the alleged “response” was criminal but has not been exposed as such until this day. What it HAS exposed is that the roll out of the 5G network project is directly connected to the proliferation of “COVID-19” and the past efforts to cover up for fraud involving “emergency responses” has aided and abetted the proliferation of crimes connected to “COVID-19.” These crimes are substantial and not circumstantial.
There has now been at least two major efforts of members of communities in Texas to respond to changes in their environments in an effort to get redress for fraud by government officials and corporate interests that refuse to adhere to basic standards of legality when it comes to due diligence and public disclosure requirements. I understand that in 2015 there was an effort of the people of Texas to respond to the roll out of the Smart Meter program via an effort at redress through the Texas Public Utilities Commission. However, concurrent to the efforts of the people of Texas to go through the legal process associated with the Texas Public Utilities Commission was a “law suit” filed by insurance companies for hundreds of individual claims concurrent to the Texas Public Utilities Commission petition that I contend was deliberately used to target those who were attempting to seek redress through the Texas Public Utilities Commission process as well as set up options for acts of “insurance fraud” connected to claims regarding the need for federal assistance during Hurricane Harvey five years later. This fits a pattern of abuse of the Texas judicial system, including in manners regarding the manipulation of the electronic filing system DURING Hurricane Harvey in August of 2017.
There is ALSO NOW in North Texas an effort to address rates regarding water usage and access that has been ongoing for several years. It was announced in February of 2020 that THIS YEAR was supposed to be a year of the community working to re-evaluate and assess “rates” in the Northern Texas Municipal Water District. During this time frame a major municipal bond for one of the affected municipalities was issued FOR water infrastructure, but since then there has been a lockdown while Dallas in the past month engaged two infrastructure bonds that have recharacterized water access issues under the purview of “COVID-19.” This also fits a pattern. The people of North Texas have been prevented from engaging their own democratic process of redress and decision-making while an alleged “emergency” allows for another locality to characterize the resource needs under contexts that would place recourse under the purview of a centralized emergency response effort. Why was it NOT an “emergency” before?
Is it because of the concurrent centralization of “medical facilities” in the Dallas area also would ascribe different priorities and accountability structures for water access, usage and recovery efforts in the event that the “bond” for its access was done under a “public health emergency?” Insofar as this is the case, then the veracity of the city’s implementation of appropriate standards regarding health safety during the “COVID-19” outbreak and recovery are of paramount importance not just for Dallas but for all of North Texas and the rest of Texas. Refusal to respond to fraud and other crimes that are being leveraged to unduly advantage certain Dallas interests, including interests that benefit from access to or use of the public retirement system or any other public benefit, need to be scrutinized even more diligently. They also need to be PROSECUTED. These are NOT civil matters.
3:42 pm CST
June 25, 2020 first draft
It is important to acknowledge that numerous times the electronic filing site of the Supreme Court of Texas has been altered to reflect information differently at one point than another point and now some information available in 2017 and 2018 is not even available online. There have also been alleged to have occurred numerous "hacks" since the new laws went into effect in September of 2019. I believe these "hacks were preventable at the least.
Posted 4:01 pm CST
June 25, 2020
Corrected by 4:05 pm CST
June 25, 2020
Comentarios