Due in 20 Days -- 2024 Federal Budget Priorities
Budget Area Priorities
As of April 11, 2023
2:01 pm CST
-
Functional process: Obtain information on suppliers of material for infrastructure (refer to composition of strategy and revise from June 2016 as well as later follow-ups)
-
Transportation
-
Zones of need with timelines
-
Accessibility/availability of certified/qualified personnel as well as eligible personnel for training/supervision/certification
-
6 months
-
1 year
-
18 months
-
-
Temporary habitation/location identification - see models for North Dakota and attendant concerns circa 2015, etc.
-
-
Functional process: Obtain information on residential housing vacancies by city
-
Identify major metropolitan areas (up to 300)
-
Prior tenant/owner information re: financial situation/status
-
Inspection report status
-
“Map out” by location in respective municipality
-
Financial planning
-
-
Functional process: (circa April 2020 as follow-up to earlier) audit
-
Billings to private and public health insurance
-
Injuries needing prescription medical device
-
Surgeries scheduled or performed requiring joint replacement
-
-
Comparison of results from October 2020 (six month timeline set in April 2020)
-
Comparison of results up to April 1, 2023
-
Review of medical personnel involved*
-
___________________________________________________________________
The above areas are to be priorities for domestic planning. These premises go back to at the least the end of 2015, with specific plans for specific time frames since then. Of concern at the current time are the following:
-
Identification of exceptions to capacity to fulfill long-term obligations involved with issuances of municipal bonds since the beginning of the announcement regarding COVID-19 versus bonds that were committed prior to COVID-19 – within 5 and 10 year period.
-
Information as regards content from morning briefing specific to matters “characterized” as “health care” versus other concerns.*
-
Strategy revised last evening based upon proposal from February of 2018 followed-up on in September of 2018 and then attempted for implementation starting in December of 2018 with efforts to contact Attorneys General for all states in the United States via the National Association of Attorneys General.
-
Follow-up to information regarding Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac beginning with announcements of:
-
Intent to leave conservatorship beginning in Autumn of 2019
-
Information presented in Semi-Annual Risk Perspectives issued by the Office of Comptroller of Currency going back to 2017 until now
-
Confirmation on legal justification for appearance of recharacterization of “nonperforming” to “underperforming” loans associated with the Federal Housing Agency apparent since mid-2019 until August of 2021 with announcement of period for “recharacterization” of mortgages available through the FHA by end of August of 2021
-
Follow-up to $5 billion HUD settlement with Houston for July of 2018
-
-
See “Articles” from February of 2022 and February of 2023
-
See Announcements regarding:
-
See revision to legislative proposals from Oct. 14, 2022 with follow-up and specific proposal by Oct. 19, 2022.
Compare with pronouncement in late August and early September of 2021 that the assessment of the “value” of the work I performed as “Attorney General of Texas” – inclusive of what was evidenced via an accounting of the videos I had put on youtube understanding the “value” would not be available for one year – was equivalent to approximately $900,000,000 per quarter (every three months). I had assessed at the time, based upon a review of Texas law, that as such that meant that 1 percent equated to an availability of $9,000,000 to “spend” in pursuit of charges and other matters pertaining to following through on the charges as submitted, including what would be necessary for evidence collection and attendant costs associated with the state. This “1 percent” would equate to my “fee” and would be put to use in the name of the State to prosecute.
Then there was the consideration of the question regarding “public” versus “private” action relative to other associated needs, including the “work” of Space Hawk, LLC, as well as the emergency preparedness strategy identified formally in July and August of 2021 – starting with the announcement of the frack water in West Texas, matters pertaining to concerns regarding Refinery Row in Corpus Christi, as well as in regards to an announced oil spill off the coast of Syria that I contend was at least in part the responsibility of Texas to address – to be evaluated relative to the responsibility of the State to take on relative to the efforts of “private citizens” ( as well as “private persons” as corporate) to address in determinations of “pay” for “work” that had been permitted to be expropriated by the State.
In the meantime, there is the matter pertaining to the request for consideration by the federal court of “diversity jurisdiction” for the case from September of 2021 insofar as I contend it was an unconstitutional action permitted BY THE STATE OF TEXAS as a means by which to engage fraud involving efforts at due process concerning the State of Texas as well as the United States “derivated” through an alleged “possession of property” claim. In the evidence that was stolen was evidence that the proceeding had been allowed to be commenced and undertaken in connection with illegal “mineral interest” claims that masqueraded the justification for denying my due process or compelling ANY legally required consideration of response from individuals alleging themselves to be legally licensed to practice law, up to and including judges and justices of the court. The “claims” of concern go back “legally” to 1976. Evidence of this is backdated information on the “Samuel Arrington Ellsberry Trust” going back to 1976 available only AFTER the September of 2021 proceeding and separate from the alleged “transfer of title” dated for November of 2019 – six months after I moved in.
______________________
I claimed that the actions taken by the court and the other attendant matters required consideration of “diversity jurisdiction” insofar as by September 21, 2021 I understood the effort was being used for “proxies” involving both Belarus and Ukraine. This was established in the manners in which the NDTX engaged libel in the proceeding by claiming my efforts were in “bad faith” and lacked a claim for which relief could be provided while also automating the case with reference to an in rem maritime claim involving a Ukrainian vessel that was owned by a Russian shipping company.
Insofar as that is the matter, then the questions become the following:
-
Was someone using my case in consideration of “military assistance” provided in the course of other “foreign assistance,” including in consideration of precedent already engaged by the the United States via treaty (including with China) that required up to 10% of “foreign assistance” to be made available as “military assistance?”
-
Was my case being used in connection with the Texas or federal budget process, including insofar as the State of Texas says that up to (but no more than) 5% of the state budget can be engaged in derivative financing, as was identified and for which I requested an audit as early as February of 2019?
The timeframes for the filing of the appeal to the Texas Supreme Court as well as the NDTX correspond with matters pertaining to public announcements regarding BOTH “military assistance” for Ukraine as well as “payment” on nationally-issued bonds for Ukraine, per public notice provided in Ukrainian publications PRIOR to the July 2019 phone call between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskii.
Insofar as that is the matter at hand and in consideration of my continuing efforts to pursue the charges as originally alleged – including in consideration of additional evidence and additional crimes in the pattern – then was the “military assistance” provided to the Ukraine since the “Declaration of War” by Russia against the Ukraine on Feb. 23, 2022 included in consideration of the “illegal derivative processes” engaged in connection with defrauding me and my case? Ie., charges of “wire fraud” and “money laundering” connected to “theft” while attempting to “retaliate against whistleblowers,” “traffick people for explosive ordnance or radioactive materials,” or other crimes of racketeering, including as originally alleged in Wr-87,139-01?
In the last 18 months plus I contend that items found are both “evidence” of crimes associated with the appeal filed on Sept. 21, 2021 as well as “recovery” in consideration of application of federal rules regarding the proceeding as it has been allowed to be pursued by the court. This put the deadline for the “appeal period” at one day after the federal budget review by Congress would be due back to the White House in 2023. In that time frame, evidence has been provided for what I contend was the motive of the judge in the case regarding “Crouse v. Texas State Senate” insofar as the presiding judge affirmed the magistrate judge’s unconstitutional ruling in August of 2021 as well as the motive regarding the unconstitutional actions of the magistrate judge. I also contend that the “evidence” substantiates my claims of “libel” by the court as regards allegations of “securities fraud” – including “securities fraud” with significant national security implications – which substantiate charges levied prior regarding acts of Sedition. The considerations of federal versus state jurisdiction are already established and both are applicable. I will revise the formal presentation from last night in writing.
So, then the consideration becomes thus as regards Belarus and Ukraine:
-
Insofar as Belarus is officially sanctioned by the United States in the manner that it is, would an effort to willingly cooperate with efforts to “launder money” and “aid and abet the enemies of the United States” by cooperating with actions intended to benefit the Belarus then implicate me in said crimes? Was this intentionally done in order to attempt to frame me and to also retaliate against others who may be U.S. citizens or in the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship legally for other reasons who refused to cooperate with crimes domestically?
-
Insofar as Ukraine is NOT identified as an “enemy of the United States” and insofar as we have existing treaties with Ukraine – including in consideration of “loan arrangements” and arrangements regarding “military assistance” – then is there evidence to substantiate my claims that people in the U.S. are being “trafficked through the health and human services system” in order to, among other things, “traffick armaments” – including “carriers of explosive ordnance” and “radioactive materials?”
-
As I have said earlier, the “evidence” that I print out has one implication and the “evidence” that I download has another. The theft of the “evidence” I download has a specific implication and the reconciliation of the “evidence” that I print has another. I understand that my “cache records” while I am online can be remotely viewed – even though I did not consent – and that the records of what I print out can be accessed remotely and can even be reprinted by others.
-
At this time I have NO LEGAL identification documentation. In addition, because of crimes that were permitted to occur in this timeframe, what would have been the timeframe in which I would have qualified my certifications in NDT through recertification and fortification via finalizing radiological safety courses to be taken both online and in-person within a one-year period beginning February of 2021, that I not only do NOT have verification on my original NDT certifications or their renewals, but last year two aerospace conferences for which I would otherwise have been eligible for attendance or participation occurred – one before the announcement of the Declaration of War in Ukraine and one after – and as a result I tracked how my stolen certifications were connected to those events.
-
I also have had all of the original documents from my petitions to the Supreme Court of the United States stolen and contend they have been misused by others. I contend others know they have been using stolen arguments and that the theft was retaliatory, as was the intent of for what they were used.
-
This then puts into consideration the announcement on the Department of State website dated for April 4, 2023 – the date on which I witnessed what was announced to be a murder in Dallas, Texas that was an anti-semitic hate crime that targeted someone identified in the media as Christian. This fits the specific pattern that has been apparent in some form since September of 2019 but escalated in mid-October of 2021 with a identifiably anti-semtic effort connected to crimes that occurred in July of 2021 that specifically referenced historical events that occurred in both the United States during the American Civil War as well as Ukraine during World War II. I contend a specific transactional event occurred on June 17, 2022 and was premeditated as early as July of 2021, if not as early as September of 2019.
-
Would then that mean that the “$3.8 billion” offered to Ukraine by April 4, 2023 (recall that my stolen birth certificate ends in document number “38”) is a ten percent of “military aid” in the form of “foreign assistance,” or is it a “one percent” fee for private assistance on par with what I understand is the intended extortion of the criminal culprits involved? The one percent is ten percent of ten percent.
-
-
In these matters, then, the “recovery” is supposed to be accorded to whom?
Is there to be the “5%” relative to financing for the Ukraine that is to be leveraged for “state” budgets of other states, including the “State of Texas?”
Today is April 15, 2023. I am of the opinion that these matters specifically targeting me tare to 20 years before April 24, 2022. That means this year is the 21st year. It involved, however, events that pre-date April 24, 2002 and have been the subject of dispute regarding “property interests” that are being attempted for illegal acquisition via acts of extortion, including attempted sexual extortion. There is no Constitutional justification for this. Numerous other timelines have been expired and allowed to intentionally engage defaults. I understand that April 19, 2023 is six months after a constitutional void was engaged by the State of Texas due to default. I also understand that the attempted “mineral interest” claim involves a lease agreement for residential housing that was signed in July and/or August of 2005 by first me and then a Palestinian citizen who was granted a visa to study at a private university in Texas while I was legally employed at a nonprofit capital defense firm in the State of Texas. I never consented. I have no knowledge that he ever consented.
The matters herein are in performance of what I understand I have a duty toward, but also in an understanding of what my rights are under the Constitution. For the record, I supported Congressman Omar Lopez during what I now understand was his successful election for Congressman of the Fourth District of Illinois in 2008. I announced my intention to run for Congress out of what is currently identified as the Eleventh District of California in October of 2015. I first announced my intention to run for President of the United States in February of 2019. I also contacted the Republican Party of Illinois in July or August of 2016 about the Illinois Senate election of 2016.
3:30 pm CST
April 15, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
Proofread by 3:42 pm CST
April 15, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
Review finished at 7:33 pm CST on April 15, 2023.
9:50 am CST
April 17, 2023
President Charity Colleen Crouse
See Budget Area Priorities Update for July 11, 2023.
Budget Area Priorities Update
As of July 11, 2023
9:06 am CST
It has become apparent that the concerns that were first present in April of 2020 have come to bear. In April of 2020, the U.S. Congress was discussing terms for what they had identified as “COVID-19 Relief.” After several proposals that were not passed, Congress did pass a COVID 19 Relief package that was set to go into effect on April 15, 2020. April 15 is the date annually that the White House sends its budget priorities for the upcoming year to Congress. Congress then has until July 15 to review and respond to the White House and the White House then has until August 15 to get its final revisions in time for the resolution of the appropriations process.
On April 16, 2020 there was a controversy that was presented to the media in regards to a letter that President Donald Trump distributed with the COVID-19 relief “checks.” Some people, such as myself, did not get a “check” in the mail but rather did receive an electronic deposit connected to the account that was on file with the IRS to pay taxes. This is important – the electronic accounts to which the COVID-19 Relief deposited were to accounts on file with the IRS for tax filing and tax returns. But I DID receive an envelope with a copy of the letter within a short few days of the announcement. It was dated for April 15, 2020.
By July of 2020, I contend that there was evidence that Congress had subverted the formal appropriations process by imposing their budget priorities in the form of “COVID-19 relief” and by July of 2020 Congress had instead engaged in actions that violated their responsibilities under the Constitution to the appropriations process, and may well have violated the Constitution in other manners. Among the Constitutional violations at the time were the “tabling” of a bill through June that was supposed to be connected to “student loan forgiveness” that made an appearance in September of 2020 in the form of a “blue sheet” backing the electronic version of the bill on Congress.gov for several days. This timeframe corresponded with announcements of foreign national banking and economic activity that should justifiably raised alarms – public alarms – about what Congress’ intentions were in allowing for such to have occurred with that specific bill. In addition, in July of 2020 official electronic records of various federal agencies – including the Office of Comptroller of Currency and the Congressional Research Service – began to present information as if it were valid that was not the same as it had previously been published. The information that was being presented – specific to economic activity in the U.S., including a major focus on the mortgage and gas and oil sectors – was substantially different, in fact even inverse to, what had been earlier reported, including in and via the same reports allegedly available electronically at the time. Most notable was how “assets” that were previously characterized in a certain manner had been “distressed” or recharacterized to be in some form of “debt” that had not been what had been reported in the same courses – and even in the same reports – prior to July of 2020.
At the end of August of 2020, an announcement was made by members of the U.S. Senate that President Donald Trump had declassified information that had been classified as part of the “Russia Probe.” No actual specific information of such a sort was reported, and I contend that if what was meant was that the “backdating” was supposed to be what had been “classified” then what both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate allowed to occur are crimes that are not covered by the privileges and immunities of the Constitution. Counterfeiting or creating forgeries of official government records is not authorized under the Constitution. As of the passage of the Electronic Records Act, such electronic records – including information presented on or through Congress.gov – are the official records of the U.S. government. They are not authorized for use in speculation or short-term hedging. They are not “intelligence.” Tampering with them – including insofar as they are used in acts of money laundering, including money laundering connected to crimes that may include those legally identified as terrorism – is treasonous.
I understand that in this timeframe, that my original “budget” and its manner of presentation were “hijacked” and in the interim used for substantial crimes. I contend this was done in an effort to extort me. Any efforts to accord this as some sort of “background check” or “security check” have failed to consider the implications of the Executive Orders regarding “background checks” that were already budgeted to be challenged for their Constitutionality and the manner in which alleged “medical treatment” and its intersection with financial crimes have also been budgeted. Today is four days before the Congress would need to respond to my budget priorities. Insofar as they “hijacked it” then I will respond.
I have not authorized you to land at any airport and you are about to run out of gas.
I will be maintaining my priorities with one addition. At this time the situation regarding what was Identified in earlier administrations as the USMCA have become critical. Concerns over its predecessor – NAFTA – and the correlating CAFTA are outstanding until this time. The protests against the implementation of NAFTA and other concurrent protests regarding larger global organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organization are still outstanding. Crucial in these matters are two major areas that have not been appropriately attended to in the intervening years: 1) the role of “trusts” in managing national resources, including insofar as they may consider themselves eligible as “equity owners” or “equity investors,” and 2) the role of agrarian reform in contradistinction to agricultural reform.
This year is the 37th year after the Iran-Contra hearings in the U.S. – it is also the 38th year of a 40-year outlay regarding the American military pension system. I have already budgeted for and accounted for what is necessary as pertains to the U.S. military pension system, however, we have another major concern – that is both domestic and international – that has provided a challenge to its successful capacity for fulfillment. I contend this has to do with abuse of the Food and Drug Administration when it comes to its roles regarding not only addressing matters pertaining to food quality and food provision, but also pharmaceuticals. These matters are significant in their scope and will need to be addressed on many fronts. I contend they are national security matters, but not such that they should permit for a denial of or violation of the constitution, as, I contend, their abuses thus far have committed. The passage of the 2018 Farm Bill – while the USMCA was being considered and following what was supposed to be an open public comment period regarding proposed changes to NAFTA that was to have occurred in the summer of 2017 – has been a serious policy and Constitutional concern. Investments in sectors that were disproportionately buttressed by its implementation have put an inordinate strain on resources necessary for other sectors, including sectors that for decades have been neglected or have been involved with evasion of implementation of regulatory or legal requirements impacting the environment, health, economy, and justice for people both urban and rural. This is not only in the United States, as the nature of the impacts on the requisite sectors involve international or transnational agreements that effect both considerations of access as well as taxation. Considerations of what are legal narcotics or are available as medicine also have to be addressed in connection with the abuse of derivative agreements and other errant financial policies that exploit people’s capacities the same as they exploit the Earth’s. The last few years of implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill has already demonstrated its errant course when it comes to natural resource management and the social costs it bears out are too high. This also needs to be evaluated relative to the manners in which the energy sector intersects with the healthcare sector and how we allow for “biomedicine” or other areas that we have been permitting to be considered “health care matters” to impact economic and security policy.
It is essential to remember that the land we have in the United States was not land that we allowed for our country to define as provided to us by divine right or by virtue of the favor of a King. We had to fight for it. We had to fight people who were already here; we had to fight other people who came here; we had to fight in accordance with understanding we had also brought people here – at times against their wills – and that in order to obtain the people we brought here against their wills, we had to have agreed to make alliances with people who would assist in acquiring them to make them available for us to bring here against their wills. That is not to say that upon our arrival – however we arrived – we did not find people who knew how to love, to grow, to nurture, and to celebrate. But it is disrespectful to forget what and how we came to be. We cannot allow for ourselves to invert the paradigm of racism or ethnic genocide that also defines our histories. We need to remember that we have ALWAYS had resistance to slavery, we have always had resistance to the “liquidation” of indigenous peoples, and we have always had resistance to the sexual subordination of women.
There is no corruption of blood in the United States. We have a right to change our minds. And, we have a duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws that comport with it. We even have the right to change the Constitution if need be.
I may be willing to make a port available for you to land. I can also change my mind.
As I understand it, the deadline will be 10 am on July 15, 2023.
9:43 am CST
July 11, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
3:56 pm CST / July 11, 2023 [Review finished at 3:22 pm CST]
