“Now it’s not her case…” That’s what I just heard you say. That is NOT CORRECT. Anyway…I am not making a “put” on what someone else needs so stop this…
Per this morning’s conversation about “Holiday meals” and the role that Food Stamps can play a number of issues/informations was brought up:
That Food Stamps in Texas USED TO NOT allow for what Food Stamps in other states did, including in connection with eligibility to use Food Stamps at convenience stores (for either “hot items” or cold items to be heated up in microwave) v. fast food restaurants;
Food Stamps and online transaction records now available; and
50% off on “produce” at “Farmers Markets” for Food Stamps users.
I recounted my concerns, including by citation of the aforementioned case as follows:
That it allowed unjustified permitting of ALM to keep information “confidential” as “proprietary” when FOIA was requested in connection with what it does when it acquires data via its contracting with certain providers that use Food Stamps, for which I contend there was already precedent set by the Court to refuse; and
That the original version of the case from June/July of 2019 cited specific cases that put the equivalencies (and the justification for permitting them to do this) in one context that was “converted” or revised later with different case citations in what was supposed to present as the original majority opinion within three years of the opinion’s publication date; I contend THIS is what they KNEW ALM was doing and they were condoning it believing WE would never find out and that those who understood this would never tell us insofar as “us” was to involve persons who actually use Food Stamps themselves (ie., “Argus Media Leader” [AML not ALM])
I also contended relative to Food Stamps the following:
That Food Stamps is also connected to the Food Bank, and that while when we go to the store we may consider pricing, including when it comes to sales, that the specifics regarding “consumer” choice for those who are NOT on Food Stamps are assumed to not be regarded similarly to persons who use Food Stamps;
That the use of Food Stamps in the store would be evaluated based on product choice and brand choice and other factors (more in Number 4);
That the Food Bank does not consider “choice” so much as “shelf life” and if we were to acquire items in the store identified as being past their “shelf life” we would have a legal right to take it back to the store and get it replaced by an item that has not expired its shelf life or get the amount returned; and
That the “choice factors” may also be party to menu planning and nutritional planning so that making and keeping a schedule for food purchase and preparation could demonstrate consistency sufficient to establish personal credit in a manner that may not be otherwise available for persons on a fixed income or with temporary need.
In addition to this are a number of factors concerning budgeting:
The manner in which the original “Food Stamp” program was set up during the war [World War II specifically] and its relationship to “stockpiling” and how in another manner stockpiling and “stock rotation” can be part of individual and community credit strategies as well as preparedness and prevention strategies; and that
Undercutting the budget for the cost of healthy fresh produce with “sales” like 50% off of fresh produce through Farmers Markets for persons on Food Stamps impacts other considerations in our relationships with farmers as well as different set of workers (recall my explication yesterday of the relationship of this and my arguments against permitting for members of Congress and the Senate to “refuse” to accept already authorized and appropriated “cost of living adjustments” on an annual basis;
That the “applications” in different states at different times had terms that were not only RACIST but I contend illegal and unconstitutional, including insofar as those signing people up for Food Stamps refused to answer questions they would otherwise have been required to have answered in order to be eligible for their job UNLESS they were “under orders from the President” to “test” out scenarios regarding our behavioral responses to “access” to resources to meet our needs (
Food Stamp application in Illinois in 2015/2016 regarding “royalties on tribal artifacts”;
Food Stamp application in Texas in 2017 regarding access to other information based upon information on Food Stamp application; and
Food Stamp application in 2018 AFTER state revision in Texas regarding access to MediCare information based upon Food Stamp application and via MediCare to other “databases” for which one’s MediCare information would be used.
These concerns go to other arguments that I have provided elsewhere, including in regards specific to databases and about which my Writ of Quo Warranto was submitted to the Texas Supreme Court in June of 2018.
That about sums it up.
I contend that making a schedule to purchase food items in connection with a planned menu and then demonstrating one kept to it is demonstrable of creditworthiness. That one would consider nutritional need is a manner in which to demonstrate character of creditworthiness. The Food Bank does not accord or afford this; I understand (and it was affirmed upon querying aloud this morning) that the “shelf life” argument is meant to also mean that once one “makes a plan” and then does not meet it by the “deadline” it goes “off the shelf” and to the “Food Bank” for redistribution to others. That makes the ALM case even more egregious and it also makes the refusal to adjust for the RACIST “Indian gaming” context PRIOR to interstate trafficking EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS.
Is this what they tried to do with “biologics” and the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile? And that is why the case references went from “defense articles" and the NRC to “fresh produce” that might not actually yet be…”fresh?”
12:49 pm CST
Dec. 14, 2024
In re Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse
President Charity Colleen Crouse
Six minutes.
[2 typos]
Published at 2:18 pm CST on Dec. 16, 2024.
Comments