Greetings Secretaries Simonetti, Thompson and Jefcoat:

​

Upon review of a more recent policy decision regarding the Community Reinvestment Act, there is a matter pertaining to a certain concern about which I will provide primary focus.

 

I have noticed over the last nearly two years an alarming pattern in Dallas, TX that I understand through circumstantial evidence is not finite to Dallas, TX. For several years, there has a been a racialized “patterning” of occurrences that have concurred with what is supposed to be an initial “meeting” of individuals who meet a certain archetype relative to each other. This patterning, however, has been modified somewhat since at least October of 2021 that I have witnessed personally. It involves the “convocation” of the specific pattern with what can only be described as “deployment” of women of a specific demographic (middle-aged white woman) and two to four subsequent stages. The “white woman” phenomena relative to other women is specific in Dallas to a proposed HUD budget from 2019. In 2019, the Dallas City Council released its budget for housing, including during a series of public hearings regarding “housing for people who were HIV positive.” The budget was on display at the public library. At this time, there were specific metrics indicating the number of units of housing provided per demographic. The metric identified for Latina women was 23; the metric identified for “white” women was 24. I had been following how “23” was the sort of “bank” in a scheme wherein “24” was the “nuke.” It usually meant that whoever was “last” in the sequences of 24 was “dumped off” and not able to get what they needed, hence, they were “returned” to the scheme. There was also an alteration of this that involved 13/14 and/or 15/16 depending upon the references. I tracked the 13/14 (which is actually 12 swapped with 13 and then 14 cut off) to what I believe is a system based on Imperial Japan and the onset of the U.S. occupation of Japan and the 15/16 to the fact that in the State of Texas, 1/16th percent of a mineral interest royalty for certain minerals is to be turned over to the state. I believe the 23/24 is connected via an “index” in the form of a book that was published following WWII by one of the commanding officers of the British Army. I used to own this book myself; it was supposed to be bonded but has since been stolen in connection with my own personal experiences in the above-mentioned scheme.

 

I tracked how the time frames for the “appearances” of the women concurred with a specific Treasury issue with which quarterly payments were associated. While the short-term Treasury that was underwriting the scheme at first ended up maturing in October of 2022, it was re-upped so to speak by another subsequent issue that slightly altered the pattern but not too much to be nondiscernible. I just at the middle of last month saw another round of this phenomena. I understand it is still in effect. In January through March of 2020, something occurred that I contend changed the metric reference for the “white woman” from “24” to “26.” I have not found the primary source for the reference to the “26” but do understand it continues to be prevalent and is consistent, at least until this time. I was aware of the “metric change” as recently as the end of January of 2020, but unaware of why it was “26.” The first thing I discerned that may be an indication was in connection with a G20 conference in the summer of 2020 wherein – at least originally and at the time – Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in a press conference that there had been 26 incidences of reported “hacking” of Russian medical facilities in the time frame wherein the United States had discussed “Russian hacking” in the U.S. I read the transcript in translation while I listened to the speech; I do not know Russian anything close to competently enough to confirm that is what he said and how he said it. For at least two months after the press conference, the information was consistent. Now, however, efforts to review the speech and the transcript have altered the alleged press conference report to eliminate the “26” reference. 

 

These matters are significant for a number of reasons. One, the metrics reported by the Kremlin and the Ukrainian government in the current “war” are markedly different. Often, it appears as if the Ukrainians are giving a “spread;” the Russians do no such thing. In fact, every time metrics on death and casualties are reported by the Kremlin that I have tracked there is a PRECISE correlation with AMERICAN benchmarks, including at the level of nuclear security, and there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE that anyone in the U.S. is following the trends. It is as if the Russians already know that there was a strategic default, and their reporting directly correlates with the references. I do not “hunt metrics” put out by the Kremlin often, but EVERY TIME I have it has been that precise.

 

Secondly, the correlation with “housing for people living with HIV” is part and parcel with other “scenarios” that play out on the street – but also in workplaces – involving unsafe handling of chemicals that can be component materials of chemical weapons. In fact, I contend that the reason many of these women – as well as women of color who have a concurrent but different specific patterning – are “on the streets” is because someone else is “bidding” on their housing access as part of weapons deals that also includes “chemical weapons” as “prescription medications.” Some people have to address literal perils regarding hazardous chemicals while other people are allegedly getting “their medicine.” Most problematic is the concurrence of illicit narcotics usage. Please understand that despite the alleged legalization of CBD oil and “hemp” I understand that “marijuana” is still scheduled as a “narcotic” and is, at the very least, eligible for consideration as a “dangerous drug” on par with what I contended in my efforts before the courts beginning in 2017 should be considered in regards to prescription medication (not so ironically the cases that support the argument are cases that said as much about marijuana before it was decriminalized). 

 

The use of food access, as well as hygiene supplies, are part of an economy that many people use on the streets that does not have to involve anything illegal, however, it is often risk leveraged with illegal activities. In this regard I have noticed something very specific to the “housing market” in Dallas that I contend may very well be at work in other cities. In 2022, there were three evictions that happened – two of them in downtown Dallas – that all had similar circumstances with which I to that time had not been familiar. They involved people who were given 11-month leases but ended up getting evicted after month 10.

 

Upon evaluation of the CRA policy update, I contend the following is ongoing:

1. People are being given an 11-month lease, with a demand/request that they provide one month’s worth of rent as a “security deposit” (including potentially in addition to other fees, as the available housing information I have seen would indicate) and then being adjudged as to whether they “qualified” for another lease by the end of month nine. The understanding at the onset is that if they need to “leave” by month 11, they can just let the “security deposit” be their “last month’s rent.” 

2. Without them knowing, someone else is “bidding” their lease on some other real estate deal. The understanding is that the “risk”/bet is that they MAY qualify after one year (at the 11-month term) for another year, and insofar as that is the case, then they can re-up, BUT if they are assessed to not qualify – or relative to a certain percentage of eligible renters already being predetermined to be “evicted” to run the next stage of the scheme – then they are “evicted.” One way or another, they will then be put through a court proceeding, which in my experience is COMPLETELY illegal and goes through a court that uses the Constable as the jurisdiction so that whomever is to be availed of the advantages then gets to use the Constable to deliver on a “writ” for property seizure. Under Texas law, at least, such a writ can take up to 90 days to execute. The concern is not just the actual eviction, but what “property” the evictor believes they are entitled to “claim” AFTER the eviction effort and in what time frame. That speaks to the eviction at 10 months as opposed to 11 months in consideration of:

3. The fact that the 11-month lease is pegged to a 13-month line of finance for the city. Rather, the city offers the possibility through its municipal finance scheme for one to take out 13-month lines of financing for projects (like say, a construction loan) and use that person’s lease, including delivery on the “property seizure,” as their “loan.” 

4. What happens after that is important, including in the event that they also use that 13-month line of financing in connection with “refinancing” a mortgage that is allowed to lapse for 60 days before collection proceedings commence, which means that:

5. That person on the street is not going to have merely one year on the two-year term, but two years. If they “refinance” the mortgage as part of the eviction, then it could be up to two years while the person is on the “primary market” before the mortgage gets to the “secondary market.”

 

Now, I understand that “presumably” such “homesteading” abuse means that by their OWN TERMS that he or she is supposed to get “paid” for being “loaned” after two years, however, there is such fraud involved and such scheming that inevitably, someone is coerced or compelled to either commit an action that can be said to be a “payment” for their loan that is not at all equivalent OR they get their documentation or other important items stolen (including via another “eviction”) and then they have to start all over again. There is much psychomanipulation involved and there is almost constant exposure to “high-risk” activities, such as unprotected sex, sex while intoxicated (regardless of whether or not money exchanges hands) and drug usage and because the persons of concern are legally and literally “homeless” there is a higher risk of surveillance of sexual and drug activity. The likelihood of a police encounter – including on a deadline or anniversary – connected to your position in the scheme is incredibly high, and the actions you undertake are equivocated to refuse to acknowledge that you “paid” the “loan” or that you were a victim of crime yourself. These factors serve to “return you” to the scheme…or do they send you to a different city altogether?

 

I am now at a stage wherein I am witnessing women who I met when I was first “put on the streets” on Sept. 21, 2021 who have already passed their two years, including by more than six months. The dynamics are all the same. Even if they do not have “prostitute” or “drug use” evident, there is SOME JUSTIFICATION for criminalizing and/or stealing from them to thwart them. My understanding is that the primary matter of concern is not about “competition” in a “tight housing market.” It is more about using people with skills to try to derivate into running processes concurrent to HIGHLY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES that are supposed to be obscured with reportage on “street crime” or intercession with medial or social service providers, including and especially around “drug use.” That the majority of “resources” are “faith-based” also underpins the religious inclinations at work that have their own consequences.

 

I understand that there may otherwise be a certain logic behind these otherwise potentially legitimate concurrent financial processes:

1. An 11-month lease with an option to renew or to use the the security deposit as last-month’s rent

2. A concurrent 13-month line of financing based upon renewal or turnover

3. A refinancing on an existing home mortgage

 

There is a major factor involved here that does not get discussed: What about the “missing” 30-day deal?

 

It is the “too legit to be acknowledged for what it is” sort of deal. 

 

In December of 2022 the Office of Comptroller of Currency announced in its third quarter 2022 report an alarming increase in the number of first liens being put in single-family mortgages through the year. At this time the dates and references on OCC reports appear to be inaccurate, but that is not unprecedented. Information from the OCC has been repeatedly altered at the least since July of 2020, when previous Semi-Annual Risk Perspectives were altered such that the then-available online versions were materially different then the ones for the same period published earlier and as recounted at the time of publication. (For the record, other videos that I have from that actual day have at this time been stolen; I still have the receipts for the items depicted in those videos. I also have a print-out of the report). I contend this is comparable to re-writing of the “underperforming” to “reperforming” loan assessments that were present through the Federal Housing Administration in 2020 and 2021. That actual people are being used as “derivatives” in the housing market is a misnomer. ACTUAL PEOPLE and their ACTUAL HOUSING is being DIRECTLY USED when it comes to speculating on people’s activities on the street as part of the economy that keeps people homeless.

 

Backdating information – including “stock” information – is a crime. There has not been an actual “credit repair” situation in this timeframe and I contend many people have been subjected to crimes by others who themselves may not have been “qualified” for the “credit” they alleged they had that justified them doing what they did to someone else. 

 

This is an urgent problem. All other efforts thus far to address “housing needs” for the poor or homeless have not adequately addressed how CRIME makes people homeless – including institutional crime. That also includes race- and religious-based hate crimes.

 

Not one woman – not one – that I met on the streets since Sept. 21, 2021 has received “housing.” Not one. Regardless of her lifestyle activities on the street, NOT ONE WOMAN HAS RECEIVED HOUSING. I literally move billions of dollars a day and track it and yet I CANNOT GET THE COURT TO RETURN MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND DRIVER’S LICENSE TO ME.

 

How many other people are being told their housing and other resource access is predicated about prevaricating about their ACTUAL experiences with crime and trauma? 

 

If there is hypothecation ongoing and people’s actual lives are permitted to be denied to them because their “stock” is being bid out through multiple people – including one or a number of others whose “stories” on the street suit someone else’ risk leveraging – then this is ALSO a CRIME. As a matter of fact, THIS KIND OF SCHEME GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE CIVIL WAR AND WAS PREDICATED UPON SYSTEMATIC ANTI-SEMITISM. This scheme, I contend, was also later used in connection with crimes that were confronted as part of the corruption at Tammany Hall and has created a systematology that has merely been flipped over and over again. It includes racist and misogynistic reductionisms and fraud that includes TREASON. Just because it has been flipping as long as it has…

 

Right now, it is my understanding that 6,000 people in the local area are supposed to be getting their housing RIGHT NOW. I contend that the media reportage on the “affordable housing” crisis is not accurate. I contend it may well be akin to trying to ensnare more people INSIDE into doing what they are attempting to compel OUTSIDE. 

 

I said in my budget proposal that there needed to be an inventory per city of open, available housing. I do not contend we are talking about “surplus housing.” A “surplus” has a totally different use and practical value, and THEFT is not SURPLUS. I already proved THIS YEAR that what was stolen last year was in fact stolen so that this year something else is due instead of the SAME THING BEING STOLEN THIS YEAR AS WELL.

 

This is not about “sheltering” “nukes.”

 

There will be more on this tomorrow. But for now, I do not feel inclined to say more because I already did everything I needed to. In some manners it is more than a year since I already did all that I needed to. Aug. 12, 2023 will be 31 days after the fraudulent “Eviction Notice” was first delivered, but as of July 12, 2023 I was ALREADY more than two years into THIS specific round of crime. Since 2019, that will be four years. Since 2016, that will be seven years. 

 

1:13 pm CST

Aug. 8, 2023

President Charity Colleen Crouse

1:49 pm CST - 8.8.2023 - CCC

​

_____________________________________________________________________

​

Publicly posted as of 9:14 am CST on Sept. 7, 2023

​