Post 114: Per Telecommunications Act Proposed on May 21, 2017 - 5.1.2025
- charitycolleencrouse
- May 1
- 9 min read
The following proposed "Telecommunications Act of 2017" was dated for may 21, 2027. It was available along with another proposed piece of legislation entitled "Use of Non-Destructive Testing Techniques for Financial and Information Transactions Law of 2017" for consideration.
See here:
for the manner in which this factored into my first Presidential Election for Election year 2020 dated for April 19, 2019:
and then later during the period after the 2020 Election swearing in when I acknwoeldged the political conditions and presented the following:
regarding priorities for my Administration.
At the time I did not post the "Telecommunications Act of 2017" as I will herein present it. It was the second effort at a proposed telecommunications legislation. In addition, I included it and modifications to it as part of what was intended to be a comprehensive counter-terrorism legislative package in three parts entitled the "Terroristic Trading Activities Prevention Act of 2020" that was ready by the summer of 2020. it was also considered in connection with my proposed "Counter Sex Terrorism Act of 2022" that was ready in primary form for later modification by Oct. 14, 2022.
Since then I acquired the following book on July 14, 2023:
and allowed for it to be considered as a good faith offering for a former friend and colleague I understand was on his way 20 years ago to national leadership in his own country. Six months after the purchase I reviewed the book once for security and considered its recounting of the following case:
in excerpted form, including both the dissents provided by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia. I consider this case to be an essential matter for consideration in regard to the above mentioned and agreed with the manners in which both Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia presented their dissent specifically Justice Scalia. I contend that Justice Kennedy erred in at least three manners, which I contend "would have been" addressed by Feb. 23, 2022 were my appeal in one of my own cases to have been considered before the court. I did not have a reference at the time to the above cited case but instead referred to the following cases:
and
.
There is now at this time available to me other documents on this and other cases, however, you may notice that now the actual opinion in the Blagojevich case is not available. Why would that be?
I argued in consideration of manufacturer and then availability of material for distribution that was illegal in its manufacture. I contend that my argument negates the opinion of Justice Kennedy in the Ashcroft case, however, that the opinion in the Ashcroft case -- as I found more than a year and a half later -- may well have altered the trajectory of the Court such that the arguments in the two cases presented for consideration in my argument in February of 2022 would have been impacted by the manners in which those cases were brought before the Court without my argument commensurate with other criminal consideration of "acquisition with intent to distribute" and the relationship of "legal acquisition" with "legal manufacture" and the means by which acquisition becomes "illegal" when that which is attempted for acquisition was illegally manufactured. This particular argument and the "opinion" upon which it is based goes back to one of the first opinions ever presented by the Supreme Court of the United States specific to its "untruncated" form.
See the following for consideration at this time:
________________________________________
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 2017
The purpose of the Act is to set limits on use of shared networks through the acknowledgement of participation in a shared network and to end the proliferation of sex trafficking using telecommunications technologies.
Sec. 1: All telecommunications networks must disclose to users of services whether or not they share their networks with any military, police/security and/or other emergency services prior to the contracting of services and assure that user is aware of and consents to being held accountable to use of services on a network as such shared.
Sec. 2: No telecommunications network is permitted to change services/numbers or other coordinates related to the ones expressly acknowledged and consented to in the written contract by the user or to relay/offload user data to another provider/contractor/intermediate without express prior written permission/consent of user.
Sec. 3: No user data can be obtained, stored, analyzed, utilized, bundled, sold, or employed for the purposes of marketing or other means testing without the express written consent of the user, including projections on the financial and other benefits associated with the obtainment, storage, analysis, utilization, bundling, sale or employment of this data and agreed upon terms of compensation for the user.
Sec. 4: Sexual content shall not be used in the transmission of data over shared telecommunications networks.
4.1: No user is permitted to use a network shared with military, police/security and/or emergency services for the viewing, dissemination, creation, upload, download, transfer or relay of material with sexual content;
4.2: No user is permitted to use sexual content for marketing and/or encoding/encrypting or other “network security” purposes, including viewing, dissemination, creation, upload, download, transfer or relay of content containing, implying, soliciting, advertising or fronting as or for any commercial activity;
4.3: No sexual content shall ever be connected with any content viewing, dissemination, creation, upload, download, transfer or relay of content connected with, including, providing for or otherwise attempting to involve people under the age of 18. Violations are absolutely considered capital offenses. (Added Aug. 24, 2019)
Sec. 5: No content advertising, promoting, marketing, selling or providing for the use of any narcotic or other mind-altering substance, including FDA-approved or pre-FDA-Approved experimental psychotropic medications, shall be conveyed over shared telecommunications networks.
5.1: No user is permitted to use a shared network to send information on, solicit purchase, compel ingestion or consumption of, or otherwise attempt to administer any mind-altering substance that is listed as an illegal or controlled substance or that is available for prescription through a physician, including any medications or substances that might be involved in clinical trials or are in testing phases pending FDA approval;
5.2: No user is permitted to detail specifications about any obtainment, purchase, sale, transfer, exchange, trade, inventory, catalogue, description, composition or consumption of an illegal or controlled substance or any mind-altering substance available through prescription, including any medications or substances that might be involved in clinical trials or are in testing phases pending FDA approval;
5.3: No user is permitted to use any shared telecommunications network for the authorized or unauthorized transmission of tele-medication to any individual or group of individuals; no advanced telecommunications technologies connected to any military, police/security or emergency service network (including precision targeting, beamed arrays, infrared, echolocation, satellite relay) is permitted to be used for the purposes of tele-medication of any individual or group of individuals.
Sec. 6: Any individual, group, corporation, political body or campaign, organization, operation, religious/spiritual group, entertainment establishment, sport or other competition, economic event or otherwise classified entity that violates Sec. 4 of this act will be considered a sex offender and will be registered as such in the appropriate databases.
Sec. 7: Any individual, group, corporation, political body or campaign, organization, operation, religious/spiritual group, entertainment establishment, sport or other competition, economic event or otherwise classified entity that is registered as a sex offender for use of telecommunications equipment, software, devices or networks shall be prohibited from further use of said equipment, software, devices or networks for a term corresponding to their inclusion on the aforementioned sex offender registry; prohibitions on the employment of sex offenders or resources to which sex offenders have access shall be modified to account for the nature of offense permitted and possible using telecommunications technologies.
Sec. 8: Implementation of this bill shall correspond with a public sexual education campaign that includes information on the importance of developing self-control and responsibility before any comprehensive use of or engagement with current or emerging technology commences.
Sec. 9: Sexual content shall not be used for the promotion of any political or commercial aim using telecommunications on shared networks.
9.1: At no point shall sexuality or sexualized representations of individuals or groups of individuals be used to promote any publicly- or privately-funded program, joint venture, public-private partnership, corporate entity, political body or campaign, educational curriculum or instruction manual.
9.2: At no point shall sexuality or sexualized representations be used to implement, administer or operationalize any form of legislation, appropriation, military or other national security operation, or tax measure at any level of enforceable jurisdiction.
________________________________________________
Please see here:
for more context on the argument from Feb. 23, 2022.
I will present a reposting of another review that as of this time is not available -- and not by my decision, as it should be readily available as needed:
________________________________________________
“...the Government disdains any interest in preventing children from seeing or hearing it with the consent of their parents…”
The question should be one of manufacturing or production of the material. Does it depict content that would be illegal to produce or that is illegal behavior, including in regard to sexual activity concerning individuals below the age of consent or sex between or involving an adult or adults that do not consent to engage the sexual activity? In this case we are not discussing a First Amendment right to view or hear material some might consider offensive, but rather are addressing criminal issues regarding proceeds from illicit activities or production of promotional material aimed at representations of crime, including as made commercially available.
“...and the statute which seeks to restrict it is content based.”
“Laws designed or intended to suppress or restrict the suppression of specific speakers contradict basic First Amendment principles.” But are we merely talking about “restrict[ing] the expression” or are we also talking about recruitment or commercial exchange involving the activity depicted? Consumption is not merely an expression, but also a form of commercial activity. One “pays” for the programming. Even if one does not “pay” with money, does the consumption enable the acquisition of other tangible or intangible goods, or does NOT consuming it preclude access to other tangible or intangible goods? Insofar as it is a commercial activity, it is one for which interstate transport would engage it in confrontation with laws preventing crimes involving interstate transport, such as the Mann Act?
There is then the consideration of “broadcasting” using telecommunications equipments, including satellite transmission and broadcasting via radiofrequency. The implications of incentivizing commercial sexual activity -- as such pornographic production, transmission, and viewing is -- then calls into consideration fair use and equal access to broadband and carriers that do not require non-commercial, non-sexual activity to compete with commercial sexual activity, ie., put legal commercial activity in competition with illegal commercial activity. Questions of the legal status of prostitution do not preclude concurrent, and I affirm primary and predicate, considerations of consent, state of mind, and age qualifications in determination of prevention of use of sex or sexual activity as a form of coercion, enticement, extortion or blackmail. Regulation of sexual activity for its use as currency has not been legislated or adjudicated; until such time as it is, the commercial sexual programming in the age of the digital economy needs to be evaluated beyond merely attempting to use First Amendment free speech or expression claims as protection. What, for instance, of the right to assembly as prevented or precluded based upon one’s willingness, or unwillingness, to engage in commercial sexual activity in order to obtain entry, or prevent against a ban or expulsion? The same can be said about rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment, as well as protections regarding invasion of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, including privacy of expression or participation in legal, consensual sexual activity without threat or coercion into broadcasting it as commercially accessible to others, including involving passive viewership or active income. The act of consumption, including AS income, or as “transmission” that may or may not be available for or as “credit” in regards to the production and distribution of such commercial sexual activity under other agreements or for other arrangements, needs to be addressed relative to the other Constitutional protections, including protections against compelling other individuals to subordinate other rights beyond First Amendment freedom of choice under the auspices that someone determines to pursue a course of actions protected by active pursuit of their First Amendment in these manners. Pornography, either in production or consumption, cannot be permitted acceptable as a right in abrogation of other rights.
“If a statute regulates speech on its content, it must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest.” This is not merely a matter of “regulat[ing] free speech.” Playboy intends to make the content commercially available and is attempting to engage the court around how to restrict or protect its commercial interests. Playboy did not offer “free” pornographic programming, for if it did, then the role of transmission at the cost of public access or other network costs involved with the transmission would have been considered, and not from a mere “freedom of expression” context. No determination on the production by Playboy or any of Playboy’s affiliates is presented; the assumption is that this “freedom” is specific to the consumer and that whom delivers the consumable, not produces the consumable. If it were to be determined that the production of the pornographic material violated laws besides ones attempted for coverage under the First Amendment “freedom of expression” laws, would such production be otherwise illegal to transmit and make commercially available? Yes it would. Insofar as the matter concerns transmission of a product meant for viewing consumption, then the matter is beyond mere “freedom of expression” considerations.
Insofar as minors are involved, the question then becomes -- in what manner are youth able to access the consumable in this mode of transmission? Do parents consent to making the pornographic material available to the minor? Then the question of the criminal implications likewise apply for consideration upon the parent -- is the parent transmitting or distributing -- including via relay -- illegal products to their children? Were the product a narcotic, or a weapon, would we relegate considerations to either the parents’ or the child’s rights to “freedom of expression?” To do so would itself be a crime.
See reference via “Telecommunications Law and Policy,” 3rd Edition, Benjamin et al. Carolina Academic Press, 2012.
(transcribed into digital format from the hand-written by 11:37 am CST on Dec. 2, 2021)
[11:34 am CST
July 29, 2024
Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse]
___________________________________
Thank you for your consideration .
1:07 pm CST
May 1, 2025
President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse
See here: https://charitycolleencrouse.wixsite.com/gubernatrixrevisit/13th.
1:24 pm CST
May 1, 2025
President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse
"“Intellectual property” and “human capital” are products of a “person.” Claiming another “person” as your property – including without compensation, through forced labor or sexual exploitation, or through acts of identity theft – is a violation of the 13th Amendment. Forcing someone to “produce” in order to fulfill “obligations” that the government is not Constitutionally authorized to incur is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Retaliating against someone for mere exercise of their Constitutional rights to due process – including in manners that steal their property and force them into homelessness, and steal their identity, including to be assumed by someone else or credited to someone else – is a violation of Constitutional protections regarding the right to be “safe…
"“Mental impressions” are protected in the course of mounting a case for prosecution, or for providing a defense...."
"My concern is that the “pyramid scheme” conducted by Stanton was allowed to be appropriated by the State so as to be played out BY THE STATE using different actors, in this case, allowing for “friends” of Bennett’s to be availed of the associated obligations – including details of the scheme and any accounts or assets that were seized by the State..."
There are four typos as of the "posting" of the above message. That is "twice" what they were in August of 2017.
1:17 pm CST
May 1, 2025
President Charity colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse