Budget Priorities for 2023
- charitycolleencrouse
- Apr 17, 2023
- 10 min read
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* (See Nov. 1, 2022 notice and June 21, 2022 follow-up.)
___________________________________________________________________
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.* (See April 19, 2021 notice.)
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
Signed at 3:52 pm CST on April 15, 2023.
Review finished at 7:33 pm CST on April 15, 2023.
9:50 am CST
April 17, 2023
President Charity Colleen Crouse
[Published at 10:02 am CST on April 17, 2023]
コメント