In July of 2019 I filed a Bill of Exception in Case No. 19-0433 before the Texas Supreme Court; the clerk was permitted to erroneously identify it as an Amicus Curae. In it, I alleged that the transcript of the disbarment proceeding that was available on the public site that the Petitioner maintained throughout the case has been materially altered to recount the original proceeding in manners substantially different from how it was presented in Autumn of 2016 through Spring of 2017 when I was commissioned to write a public relations piece for  [Attorney Robert S.] Bennett, originally identified as a request for a journalistic piece.

 

In the course of the proceeding I recounted how the original request for relief by the opposing attorney in the disbarment proceeding had been interrupted by a cell phone message received by Bennett in court after all were instructed to turn off their cell phones by Judge Carmen Kelsey. Following the interruption, Kelsey recounted the requested relief without one request, which was affirmed by the opposing attorney [SIC] without reminding her of the original request. That requested relief was for six hours of continuing legal education credit in legal ethics. This would have made Bennett the student in a specialty in which he had hitherto been recognized as an educator.

 

In the course of reviewing an order in the case of Office of Special Counsel v. Favish – (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANCoskrNvHQ) – I noticed a) how the judge presented case references and used wording in manners that implied implications in attempting to appeal not overtly stated and b) that a concern arose in regards to what was stated in the determination in the matter of whether there was an indication that members of the legal community had willfully and intentionally presented false information in their testimonials – including Amicus Curae – because they knew that later proceedings would feature altered records or would recount false statements.

 

I contended, for instance, that a number of the Amicus Curae in Bennett’s case – originally featuring 100-plus Amicus Curae, but later reduced on the public site to significantly fewer “Amici” - as well as the details in my piece did not make sense when evaluated relative to what was recounted in the later transcript. Specifically of concern in my understanding is that Kelsey’s admonishment – as well as absence of the one form of requested relief – was removed but three additional instances of cell phone use were added. This included two instances of the judge appearing to condone cell phone use during the proceeding while in between these instances was another instance of a request for recess involving cell phone use in the court while the judge agreed to “vacate” the courtroom while they recessed. 

 

I personally discussed three different matters with Bennett I had intended to include in the original piece that he refused to provide answers to, saying instead those topics were “irrelevant.” Two involved other allegations of impropriety concerning former colleagues – one a woman he was identified as working with who was a lawyer in a corporate context involving work in another country and another involving a male lawyer who was accused of MediCare-related fraud – and the third involved allegations of improper courtroom behavior concerning a client alleged to have conducted a pyramid scheme using banking and finance facilities outside of Texas, in the Caribbean. This client – last name Stanton – had also been awarded an honor in a Caribbean country. By the time of the appeal [of Bennett’s case] in the Texas Supreme Court, Stanton’s case had been revisited in federal court and [Stanton] was judged guilty, with a sizable penalty determined in the case. My concern was that Bennett intentionally acted in improper manners to leave open later options associated with that case for personal benefit.

 

My concern is that the “pyramid scheme” conducted by Stanton was allowed to be appropriated by the State so as to be played out BY THE STATE using different actors, in this case, allowing for “friends” of Bennett’s to be availed of the associated obligations – including details of the scheme and any accounts or assets that were seized by the State – in manners similar to other cases, including a case in which at least one “legal ethics scholar” who provided an Amicus Curae in Bennett’s case was purported to be an expert on. I had already alleged in another case that my efforts to work with Bennett had been disabused, including in efforts to sabotage an investigation of securities fraud that I first requested Bennett provide a reference to a lawyer for assistance in the beginning of November of 2016. Rather than be referred for legal assistance I experienced what later escalated into physical assault by police as well as instances of verbal threats – including one that had me placed in handcuffs while police officer took a picture of me on his private cell phone – that included banning me from two social services providers, including one alleged to be affiliated with the Co-Diocese of Galveston-Houston that displayed hard core [violent] video pornography in front of minors.

 

Since that time my “identity” has been repeatedly stolen – including my birth certificates, social security cards, Texas IDs and driver’s licenses, as well as original legal filings and evidence, including copies of reports to federal and state agencies – while no police report on stolen property has been issued and no federal law enforcement has taken evidence or confirmed status of attempted reportings.

 

My rights to due process have been willfully and intentionally denied, even while I submitted numerous reports and legal filings to state and federal courts – up to the Supreme Court of the United States – pro se and also in an official, if novel and unprecedented, capacity. Bennett’s appeal was in the context of a disbarment proceeding concerning professional misconduct with a client over the fee agreement. In this manner, attempts by the judge to discuss the implications of this “contract” between Bennett and the client – G. O. Land – were ridiculed and repudiated by Bennett and his “friends.” But, no defense of or by Kelsey has been made available during Bennett’s appeal. Kelsey was an elected judge; Bennett was not “elected.” Likewise, the context of the Constitution of Texas, as well as the Constitution of the United States, as a “contract” between the People and the Government via delegation of the power and authority of the People through the legislature had been repudiated by the actions of alleged members of the judicial branch of government in efforts to seek due process. This includes members of the judicial branch who later became legislators, either in the state or the federal government. Where is Judge Carmen Kelsey?

 

The “person” depicted as “Judge Carmen Kelsey” in July of 2019 was not the same “Judge Carmen Kelsey” in November of 2016 through February of 2017.

​

On the other hand, the actions in Bennett’s case provide another means of substantiating my charges in my efforts to expose and prosecute a “pattern of racketeering activity” that includes a kickback scheme identifiable through its operationalization through official legal texts and authorities issued and condoned by the State of Texas. Since 2019, Texas has passed a number of laws that violate the Texas Bill of Rights concerning “exceptions” to public information such that at this time in Dallas, there are no places the People can access legal materials for pursuit of their own rights to due process. Additionally, actions taken by the Northern District of Texas US District Court – including after a request for a new trial based on abuse by the Southern District of Texas US District Court evidenced in the Bennett appeal – demonstrate this crime is not isolated to the state court officers or officials.

 

“Mental impressions” are protected in the course of mounting a case for prosecution, or for providing a defense. However, insofar as I have been denied ANY professional consideration or due process and have had to represent myself pro se, MY “mental impressions” and other case work and materials have been permitted to be stolen and claimed by and for someone else. In the course of this, the “rewards” for this theft have been substantial in a number of ways that do not respond to the charges at hand – or the culprits – but rather have advantaged the culprits.

 

“Intellectual property” and “human capital” are products of a “person.” Claiming another “person” as your property – including without compensation, through forced labor or sexual exploitation, or through acts of identity theft – is a violation of the 13th Amendment. Forcing someone to “produce” in order to fulfill “obligations” that the government is not Constitutionally authorized to incur is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Retaliating against someone for mere exercise of their Constitutional rights to due process – including in manners that steal their property and force them into homelessness, and steal their identity, including to be assumed by someone else or credited to someone else – is a violation of Constitutional protections regarding the right to be “safe in person and property” provided by the 4th Amendment.

 

In the course of these violations of my [rights to] due process, the obstruction of other efforts has exposed a scheme that includes acts of pension fraud connected to frauds involving large-scale securities, especially to certain municipal bond issues not only issued under fraudulent – and in some cases blatantly unconstitutional – terms. A concern [regarding] misrepresentations of “insurance” involving the intentional mischaracterizations of evidence of a crime is a central matter. In addition to charges presented in my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petition for Leave of Information in Nature of Quo Warranto, and Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto that have been proven – including as recently as Feb. 3, 2022– are considerations of alleged “pension fraud” connected to bond issues by the New York Transitional Finance Authority in 2006 that I contend demonstrate a specific intent to, as they say, “Take a short-term hit for a long-term gain.” This event, in addition and in context to others, reveals an abuse in prosecution of an alleged “crime” – including a complex scheme to defraud – that later appears as an operational scheme that defies prosecution. Over time – and at strategic intervals – the earlier crime becomes another entity’s game plan – only in this case, a “game plan” played out by those engaging the same crimes with the cover of governmental immunity.  

 

The Constitution does not provide protections of immunity to individuals – acting alone or in concert – who intend and do violate the Constitution. The context even for discussions of legislative activities as protected by immunity need to be evaluated relative to the means by which such Constitutional violations are operationalized. The specific context of the correlations of the June of 2017 allegation of “pension fraud” [in Houston, TX]; the follow-up (from another city) with the Internal Affairs Division report in October of 2018; and the intervening issues of bonds that demonstrated the same crime need evaluations in consideration of the charges of violations of the 13th, 14th and 4th Amendments. Specific to the 13th Amendment violations are demonstrated acts of large-scale trafficking of people from outside of the United States to the United States, as well as in the context of refusal to prosecute comparable crimes committed against a U.S. citizen. Even though recent Supreme Court cases – including New York v. Trump of 2020 – have said immigrants are not provided the protections of the Constitution, I contend this is NOT true as the 13th Amendment specifically addresses both the manners in which people from other countries come to the U.S. as well as what happens to them (and their posterity) once they get here. 

 

In reference to these specifics, challenges to the motivations and context for slavery as [anathema] can be found in official proclamations even predating the Constitution. In Thomas Jefferson’s “A Summary View of the Rights of British America”  (https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/a-summary-view-of-the-rights-of-british-america-by-thomas-jefferson-1774/) Jefferson condemns slavery as at the behest of a foreign country that is also aimed to serve those who traffic in slavery over the interests of those who seek freedom and equality under the then-emerging constitutional government of the United States. The fact that the 13th Amendment was passed after a civil war, but passed at all, should be examined accordingly, including insofar as it may challenge as-of-yet un-adjudicated considerations of contracts predating the Constitution of the United States, including in regards to the Articles of Confederation, if such is needed. I contend it is needed.

 

The judicial branch of government does have the Constitutional authority to address matters regarding the interpretation of state constitutions and laws by the legislature; the federal courts have the Constitutional authority to evaluate such insofar as abuses of the state legislature abuse the federal Constitution. As regards states and efforts to interfere with, or to promulgate, actions that violate the Constitutional authority for treaty arrangements or as applied to “ministers” or “consuls” from other countries, the court has the authority to intervene to establish the role of the Constitution in upholding the rights of the People. 

 

If the Court is incapable of such intervention, then it falls on the People to take action in addressing the breach of the Constitution by those to whom the People delegated their authority.  If the Congress, or even the President, should put the desires of a foreign state and its policies or preferences above its duty to uphold the Constitutional – including in manners that constitute slavery of its own or other People – then they have irreparably breached their contract with the People, they have repudiated the Constitution, and they lack any immunity from prosecution by the People, in accordance with our rights under the Constitution. That includes all rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including those that by virtue of expediency and practicality must be delegated.

 

Per verbal presentation with notes on 23 February 2022 before noon  

Handwritten on 27 February 2022 one hour before sundown

 

11:15 am CST

Feb. 28, 2022

First Version - DRAFT

 

Charity Colleen Crouse

 

11:30 am CST

FINAL DRAFT

​

​

Published 11:37 am CST

Feb. 28, 2022