One of the 18 inventories is a inventory of a) health and wellness items that were supposed to be purchased on a monthly basis that would have supported one adult woman and another adult woman, including one in pregnancy or addressing early post-maternity health and wellness needs, and b) books, supplies, and registration for classes associated with recertification in Nondestructive Testing within a 5-year timeframe that correlates with the specific standards regarding my certification. I understand these standards were not only the actual level of security underwriting my formal certification process as I was testing in 2017 but also were what I had requested for consideration via an Executive Order issued by Pres. George Bush. This included the ability to not only support my living expenses at the amount of up to $300 a month but also to save enough money to purchase a $1,000 U.S. savings bond to secure my certifications upon the recertification that was supposed to be completed by the end of January of 2022. This also included three new certifications in another certification necessary to safely address the matters pertaining the the other four. 

 

This was a budget based upon projected income connected to a part-time job I acquired in early February of 2021 that I had been told would guarantee me a minimum of a certain number of hours and was meant to be permanent pending a period of review and orientation. I was required to participate in an online orientation process that, among other things, put me through a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission certification program for which I was issued a TABC certificate via the specific organization as well as a hazardous materials handling and disposal orientation that was very specific and very explicit in what I was to understand were the standards associated with that organization. 

 

I did not know at the time I received the job that the organization was involved in a very high-level civil suit. I DID know that the day I was to begin the orientation was after an anniversary of a filing in a case I was working on AND that the Magistrate Judge in that case had issued a verdict in another case; I found that out after the first day of orientation. I also found that after I started the orientation I could not stay onsite based upon what was done DURING the orientation. In fact, on the first day of orientation, while we were taking a tour of the location, there was an act that involved exposing staff to an unsafe handling of a chemical that was supposedly being used to sanitize items associated with use of the facility; when I questioned what it meant, I was then subjected to what I understood was an effort to racially code the unsafe handling of the chemical based upon what was perceived to be the exception for the person that it implicated; that person was not identified as being from the United States. 

 

I attempted several times to bring this up with staff, as well as the headquarters. I was refused any contact with their attorney. In the meantime I learned about this:

 

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oil-spill-Richmond-Chevron-San-Francisco-Bay-15938107.php

 

This was not a coincidence. In fact, based upon what the specific location of concern did and what I understood was being contrived by a competitor, I contend that my effort to sign up for pension benefits as part of the hiring process (only to be told AFTER I signed up and opened an account with the specific entity providing the pension benefits that I was NOT eligible) was used in an effort to commit a terrorist attack and misrepresent it as an “accident” that was later used as leverage for this:

 

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/environment/2021/10/09/fishing-and-seafood-companies-sue-over-oil-spill

 

When I attempted to get redress for what I was exposed to in attempting to acquire and maintain the job for which I applied, it was repeatedly attempted for some sort of diversion regarding a “workers’ compensation” claim. I was never permitted to speak with an attorney for the organization. This is not unique. In fact, efforts to acquire four different part-time jobs in Dallas have exposed me to the same set up: people are informed there are policies at work regarding safety either explicitly or implicitly (including through posting of signage regarding legally mandated reporting requirements) and then the alleged “supervisors” aid and abet staff engaging in what would attempt to be legally identified as “negligence” that was allowed to occur based on other staff or the supervisor making a dismissal of the implications of the policy violation while a LITERAL terrorist attack occurs elsewhere based on the specific elements of the set up. In the case referenced herein, the actual work location was in Dallas, TX; one of the other instances involved downtown Dallas while the other two were in suburbs of Dallas accessible via the DART train line.

 

Each of these places also had “private security” that was itself engaged in questionable activities and included both the security and staff in coordination with security engaging in private cell phone use in manners that either were against explicitly-stated policy, would impact what they were otherwise supposed to be doing on the job, or both. There does not seem to be ANY consideration of the racially coded manner in which staff hires, including the "private security” engaged in these actions, are meant to appear as if negligence or willful violation of safety policies are not only tolerated, but encouraged. In fact, one is ridiculed openly for merely mentioning the policy. 

 

Additionally, in EVERY instance, there is a need for me to set up a second official employee account because every time the first account intentionally misspells my last name. This has been occurring for several years, including when I was attempting to get assistance through programs associated with the health and human services system, including services that used private security and allege they receive no federal appropriations but refer people to locations and agencies that do. Once the official second account with the correct spelling of my name does get set up, the background on it is incredibly toxic AND I also have to contend with the fact that the “episode” occurs while I am working that second account with my correct name spelling. This lets me know that SOMEONE ELSE is using my actual identity for incredibly illegal purposes, including ones connected to intentionally setting up scenarios attempting to compel me into cooperating with unsafe handling of chemicals or heavy machinery, and then often saying I am “released” or banned when I protest the safety incident. In fact, the organization of concern sent a letter misrepresenting that I had been relieved of the position for not attending the required orientation despite the fact that I said I could not remain onsite because it was materially unsafe. This has happened in every instance of this set up.  

 

The organization involved in this instance was a food store – a food store that is associated with global philanthropic work and provision of organic and fair trade foods. The “competitor” is a chain of stores whose pension funders include a major gas and oil company – Chevron. It is ALSO not a coincidence that the competitor in this case is a store where the person who was the other person with whom I lived received HIS pension from when he worked there. It is also not a coincidence that I was intentionally defrauded out of TWO separate pensions from my former employment either through a third-party contractor of or via an actual civil service position with the San Francisco Department of Public Health and NO ONE from the City and County of San Francisco or the State of California has responded to my efforts to contact them about this in over three years. Is this connected to other actions I have been attempting to report via local, state and federal agencies in two states and over six cities so far since February of 2016?

 

Part 1

 

11:08 am CST 

Dec. 16, 2021

​

Posted at 11:21 am CST

Dec. 16, 2021