​

As I stated yesterday morning prior to 1 pm CST, there are concerns that are not appropriate specifically to DOL and HHS that need to be considered and moved on immediately. Among them are review and action on information that has become available for context via review of National Defense Appropriations Acts, including since and for 2020. I would like, however, to begin this by reminding everyone of what happened in February and March of 2018. On Feb. 14, 2018, there was a school shooting in Florida. The young man who committed it used a firearm that he acquired…how? It was revealed that he had been engaged in legal proceedings and that at that time he had a brother who was also a minor and was incarcerated. Please note that less than three years later, a Saudi national training at an American military facility also opened fire and killed several people we are to understand he would otherwise have considered colleagues. Both of these events occurred following a shooting in an Orlando nightclub by a man who worked for G4s and was also from Afghanistan. 

 

After the shooting there was a mobilization of youth leadership that chose a national march on Washington, DC as their preferred method of political expression. The media reports at the time said that more than 200,000 people –mostly youth – had assembled in Washington, DC. I was watching the news report on a Sunday morning in a McDonald’s lobby right before a news segment where a U.S. Senator was to give her perspective on the National Defense Appropriations Act. That year the National Defense Appropriations Act was named after Sen. John McCain. This event was PRIOR to his death. Before the Senator who was slated to speak – who was not John McCain – there was a brief feature that involved a broadcast of President Donald Trump standing next to an approximately three-foot high stack of documents that was the printed version of the Appropriations Act. He stated, “This is the last time I will do this.” The understanding I had was that he was intentionally – and knowingly – responding to Congressional action to authorize the National Defense Appropriations Act WHILE 200,000 youth leaders and their supporters were outside in Washington, DC protesting gun violence.

 

This is a very profound matter for me relative to my relationship with the State of Texas and the fact that I was in Texas when I was witness to this. I say it that way – I was witness to that event, that specific event, in the course of numerous other proliferating events that could have forestalled proliferation to an even greater level but did not – including not up until that time. In later 2019 I found a report from the Texas State Senate that detailed legislative changes that had taken place in Texas that went into effect in 2017. The report itself was from 2018. Inclusive in this report was what I understood to be an authorization for the State of Texas to devalue the children of members of active-duty members of the United States military who were attending public school by 25% in order to offset costs associated with “facilities maintenance.” This was authorized less than a year and half after I left the State of Texas following employment at a capital defense law firm – in addition to other contributions I made to the Texas economy and polity in the year I lived in Texas initially – and less than ten years before I filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Texas after witnessing alleged providers of “social services” in the form of assistance to women who had been threatened with or subject to intimate partner abuse or “domestic violence” (DV) be compelled to engage in activities that they did not agree to or be threatened in getting their needs met. Some of these women identified as military veterans and/or women with children in the military. I was more than a witness. 

 

Prior to my arrival in Texas on Nov. 1, 2016, I read the Texas Constitution. It was impressed upon me the specific manner in which the State of Texas addressed considerations of restitution to victims of domestic violence. I was NOT aware that the protections that the State of Texas provided to victims of domestic violence was being abused to justify practices that are blatantly unconstitutional, and not just as regards the federal Constitution, but also as regards the Texas Constitution itself. I say “impressed upon me” because what I understood in reading the Constitution myself was NOT what I have “witnessed” from those who claim they are authorized to represent others in the State of Texas when it comes to the practice of law. One must be a member of the State Bar of Texas in order to “practice” law, but what has been occurring is not about “practicing” violating the Constitution.

 

Within ten years I was onsite in Texas and saw what was occurring in the situation acknowledged above. But more than that, the situations involving women who were in the military and women with children in the military occurred in the context of being with and among other women who themselves were not in the military or who had children in the military. Many of the women of concern were immigrant women who were in some stage of attempting to provide for their own needs. At no point in my legal efforts – including after first contacting the Texas Veterans Commission in June of 2017 – did anyone refer me to cases involving Governor Greg Abbott’s efforts to address what as Attorney General of Texas he called trafficking involving the process of bringing minors to the country and using the human and social services system to traffick them within the borders of the United States. I contend it was not only prudent to do so but mandatory to provide that context in light of the severity of the allegations and the implications for ignoring them – at least officially ignoring them – until this time. I am not uncertain that the administrators and employees in the facilities involved knew about this case and the determination and believed that they were somehow justified in acting the way they did as some sort of political protest that actually impacted the manner in which they performed their job IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS they are required to follow in order to say they are eligible to be PAID to do their job. 

[DELETED as of 12:45 pm CST on Oct. 8, 2023.]

​

My biggest concern was that if women who were military veterans could be compelled to lawbreaking and crime under threat from civilians who at least CLAIM to be Americans in their own country, then what sort of protection is there for other women? Not only other women – what sort of protection is there for the American people if members of the military can be threatened to violate the laws of their own country? This speaks not just of what occurs in the U.S. Members of the military are held to a higher standard domestically BECAUSE of the service provided by virtue of their roles and relationships in other countries. If American citizens within the U.S. can violate the law and threaten veterans – or people with active duty children – into violating the law, then what does this say about what would be tolerated when CIVILIAN leadership of the U.S military engages itself in making decisions about the military abroad? As I said in August of 2017, we are in a serious situation of blurring the lines between military and civilian persons and that assures that civilians will not be treated as “civilians” by our enemies in the event that there is a threat posed to the country. This is not just about a “moral” image problem – it is a functional problem. It is a Constitutional problem. And it was at that level BEFORE COVID-19 exacerbated it. 

 

What was revealed in the National Defense Appropriations Acts of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 is not only unconscionable but makes NO FUNCTIONAL SENSE. It is tactically and strategically misguided. That it may be in the course of a strategic aim set decades ago necessarily compels a reconsideration of WHO permitted to guide that strategy during the interim. How many adult children of members of the military who served 20 years or more have gone more than 10 years without having their own name on a lease? We are three years away from the completion of a 40-year outlay on the military pension system put into effect before the allegations regarding Iran Contra were made public and at the same time that Congress and the Senate was passing legislation about intervention in Central America. For people from other countries – including and especially from Central America, but not exclusively Central America – seeking asylum for crimes occurring in their own country required for us to consider the causal factors domestically that may be involved. I am not talking about COINTELPRO state incursions into people's privacy or political activities. I AM talking about systems that provide the incentivization for “Coming to America” and making sure that they are serving America. Immigration laws and laws regarding political and other forms of asylum as well as residency and study for foreign person are vital to our domestic prosperity and security. They are also followed – or not followed – in accordance with laws that apply to and for American citizens, and not just ones with a “government job” or ones that get paid with money that has been federally appropriated.

 

The women in those shelters were “workers” as well. Some were small business owners and some were not. To address matters pertaining to the role of a small business owner and “working class” history is vital, but it is not to be subsumed in prioritizing one group of workers over another. Matters pertaining to the role of “police” and “military” – as well as prison officials as opposed to say, “health care practitioners” that work at inpatient psychiatric facilities – are topics of concerns not only in terms of workers’ rights but also consideration of “class” and “community” when it comes to political organizing. So too, however, is the role of people who provide social services when it comes to those who they “serve.”

 

I have addressed the details of the appropriations bills before. For the record let me state specifically the concerns include the following:

 

National Defense Appropriations Act of 2020: 

Re: “XXX - Privatization of Military Housing”

 

National Defense Appropriations Acts of 2021, 2022, 2023

Re : Absence of “XXX - Privatization of Military Housing”

 

National Defense Appropriations Act of 2024 as proposed…

 

See 2021, 2022, and 2023 regarding “nuclear facilities”…as opposed to earlier versions of the National Defense Appropriations Act.

 

These concerns specifically correlate with Nuclear Regulatory Agency announcements of 2019. The announcements were made before the U.S. was informed of the Dec. 12, 2019 date of the “coronavirus” outbreak in China but are dated for 7 days later. One of the announcements regards “small modular nuclear reactors.” This is also in connection with Dece. 12, 2019 being the fifth anniversary of a major report on Congressional legislative efforts regarding cybersecurity. That the “outbreak” happened on the fifth anniversary is no more a “coincidence” than the metrics on the XXX. I am not going to “sanitize” this. The XXX Corps was a major source of victory against the Nazis for not just the United States, but for the world. But this – they were not allowed to do this.

 

And they are not allowed to get away with it.

 

Who is the “they” and who is the “us” here has pretty much been determined. I have held out hope for a “coming to Jesus” moment for those that purport themselves to be people that believe in such thing. But this was never a “war game.” And we were not allowed to gamble on other people’s understanding of “offense” while we were denying them the means by which to defend themselves and their families, including in their own homes. If they should need assistance outside their own homes, including because of something that happened within it, then we should attend to that legally and honorably. 

 

I believe you understand. There is no miscommunication here.  

 

The charges are pressed.

 

9:57 am CST

Aug. 9, 2023

President Charity Colleen Crouse

 

Copy-editing completed by 2:08 pm CST on Aug. 9, 2023.

CCC

​

[Deletion is the lien of $2.8 billion.

They were not "refugees."

12:46 pm CST on Oct. 8, 2023]

​