Periodic review of one's thesis -- even after award of degree, including PhD or equivalent -- to see how the long-term factors of consideration initially panned out over time.

In the context of discussion of "abstract capital" -- specific to the unwillingness to convert "capital" to "labor" by accepting "wages" to give the appearance of an agreement to "alienate" the capital for acquisition and conversion to the one acknowledged as "paying the wage" -- comes the inevitable consideration of the alleged "capitalist" in an illegal "labor" arrangement "investing" defrauded or illegally acquired "capital" and then "defaulting" on the investment. The "extortion" (ie., my "post-doc" on "Abstract Capital and Labor Racketeering") then comes up for consideration in the manner in which the illegally acquired "capital" of concern was "invested' for and in manners to which the original capital creator/holder would not have otherwise agreed and the manner in which the defrauder invested and continues to attempt to claim the "credit" for the "capital" investment by compelling the capital creator/holder to "cede" on their capital by relinquishing it for the duress involved in refusing to engage the fraud.

We JUST saw this -- and are continuing to see this -- in considerations of (as they have again mentioned in the last three to four days) "judicial capital" and how decisions by courts confer "capital considerations" not ONLY on the "judge" or the "court" but 1) on claimants/parties to the case of concern; 2) to "members of the bar" or other practitioners of law who would then use the case for their own benefit, including in representation of a client, and 3) the "public at large" which has a legal right to read the cases themselves for any number of reasons, including academic scholarship, personal interest in considerations of application of law, or even in the event that such is necessary to craft "legislation" to be presented for legislative review, including in the course of an election campaign. All of the aforementioned is "legal" and constitutionally protected. But, certain actions wherein the court is engaged in bad faith -- including when members of the court act in bad faith in their respective positions -- contribute to efforts to "alienate capital creators or contributors."

I have since the onset refused to consider "ethics" as an amelioration of the attendant legal concerns for three reasons, two of which were directly expressed at the time of purported consideration:

1) My first "thesis" proposal had to do with an evaluation of the "latke-hammentaschen" debate, which was an event performed at the University of Chicago annually, in coordination with the Hillel, and present the "orange" -- as specifically presented already by Ms. Heschel -- for comparable consideration in accordance with the parameters of the event's coordination. The proposed outline was in a purple bag I had brought to Houston with me from Chicago and stolen before the Super Bowl in 2017. I later came to understand its theft had resulted in it being located at a specific site in downtown Houston that was operated by a "state agency" and was intended for long-term speculation along with the other contents of the bag, which included evaluations of emergency responses in countries like Honduras and extensive notes on treaty research undertaken in Chicago.

2) That as was gleaned from reading through Morris Cohen's "Ethics and Nature" that often times "ethics" is the realm of those who are in a time of political and specifically religious-political persecution and so it is a tactic utilized to attempt to "draw in" other frames of reference to make religious points that would otherwise lack consideration altogether in performance of the persecutorial rite. I have extensively considered this tactic and do not myself agree to partake of it and have instead attempted to apply other tactics, which is also why I am not considering it "strategically."

3) That "ethics" usually comes after an extended denial of "due process" and is attempted as a form of "illegal insurance underwriting" that I contend has already been demonstrated does NOT actually meet the standards for successfully creating or maintaining insurance and is also in another manner related to the above thesis in consideration of "alienation" through duress, intimidation or extortion. THAT itself is covered by "insurance" in what manner? I contend it is NOT covered and hence we have to go back to the beginning anyhow.

The manner in which we just saw this was with reference to how a "Constitution" by one party can be used by another as "insurance" when itself in default WITHOUT RECOGNIZING THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE ATTENDANT CONSTITUTION and yet expecting to be able to utilize it as a form of "substitute compliance" -- including to mete out claims or efforts that would themselves be AGAINST the Constitution being used as "insurance." The original Constitution and those to whom it would otherwise apply are supposed to give the appearance of "agreeing" to "alienate" themselves from its coverage by committing the unconstitutional actions on behalf of the other Constitution and hence put on them the "default" to which the defaulter refused to attend. This is not so dissimilar from how in a "purely economic" context the "capitalist" attempts to determine another potential capital contributor or creator as a "laborer" in order to alienate them from their own capital and then "convert" to a use or purpose that makes it either (as I contend they hope) unrecognizable to the original capital creator/holder or to "irreparably damage" it to the point where the original creator/holder shuns it or repudiates it. It would seem the "capitalist" is not satisfied in just allowing it to be ceded; the "shaming" and the "disgrace" is attempted for use as leverage to interfere with future capital creation/contribution, including insofar as a recognition or cooperation with the alleged "capitalist" in their "investing" alters the material conditions.* Ie., burning of books with primary source information; counterfeiting "new books" with false information in their place; using these counterfeit publications to libel others; and destroying other assets and bases upon which production or productive capacity can be determined and developed and applied -- including via the "law" and especially via alleged "laws" that operate in knowing constitutional voids.

"Regulatory reform" is actually anti-capitalist, but why the demand for "reducing regulatory burdens?" Because regulations and appropriate application of regulations have the potential to actually acknowledge capital contributions and "diversify" the attributed capital base for investment. This is not only a "material precondition" of "socialism" but a "material precondition" of democracy.

Time frames and meeting of obligations within certain time frames create "time" as a form of capital available for the same fraud and exploitation, as we are seeing now. I first proposed this thesis in 2017; someone accessed my stolen records on my work and said I "qualified" as having met my degree requirements by Spring of 2023; I contended there needed to be a further review, finished by the Autumn of 2023. But in the meantime, what had happened to the "material conditions?" And since last summer, what has happened to the "material conditions?"

See below:

Regarding the lumpenproletariat - 1.26.2024 (see in video below)

Who are you? - 7.3.2021

I contend that the "lumpen proletariat" is actually a creation and is in fact "manufactured" -- including as "poverty" -- to accomplish political objectives, including to cover up for or promulgate crime or to "alienate" and "disassociate" persons from their political rights, including "work" they already did and that has a value that SOMEONE ELSE wants to utilize in manners that either disparage or defame the original production or that are not that to which the person who produced it WOULD HAVE AGREED. This is important because it entails an understanding that the "manufactured lumpen proletarian" was someone who ALREADY WAS CAPABLE OF AND DEMONSTRATED their productive capacity but did NOT AGREE to have it misapplied. That would bring up considerations of "democracy" and "tyranny" -- not just "bureaucracy" or "administration" -- and speak to "fetishization" of the lumpen proletariat by others alleging themselves to be "socialists" or even "communists." "Poverty" is not accorded either the same "private property" or "state property" rights that other forms of "property" are accorded, and hence exploitation -- including through fetishization -- is presumed to be acceptable without accountability. It also is manufactured to justify an "outlet" for the corrupt practices of those who would otherwise hold themselves forth as qualified as or for political representation, including on the state or another level. I consider a "religious organization" engaged in processes of "manufacturing poverty" to be a "political organization" for these purposes; specific techniques are a separate matter and yet would still be held forth to scrutiny under the "laws of the state" -- including laws alleging a "separation of church and state." In denial of these factors, one can merely reduce the CRIMES of manufacturing the lumpen proletariat and poverty as justifiable in consideration of "taxes"** and the "offsets" to "tax obligation" to and by the "state" or a political entity operating as the "state" (ie., the "Church" in an administrative jurisdiction where it affects a form of "government office" or operates over a fixed geography as if "government") while according opportunity to commit "crimes" as defined by the state without accountability to the state.

It is not "charity" to attend to the "needs of the poor" who are at "higher risk." "Ethical considerations" of how to "attend" to the "poor" are moot when one considers the actual material conditions for the manufacture of poverty -- including the political conditions -- and why access to legal recourses is allowed to be denied, including individually as well as as a class, and instead exploited as "insurance" for others who are not only NOT themselves so manufactured, but more often than not are employed in the machinery of the manufacturing process itself.

Addressing "intangible property," "abstract capital," and "intellectual property" are NOT "anti-socialist." In fact, we already know that as far back as the beginning of the 20th Century it was already being evaluated, and not just as "art" and "culture." It was also not just about "sacred" or "religious" practice, or "experience." The state claiming the "producers" of that property is not the same as individuals claiming the "producers" of the property. "Producer" is used herein in this manner beyond the above referenced "capital" considerations based upon to what resources one has access in the "development" and "productive" process, which may not be the individual's own "property." If it were merely about attribution that would be one thing. But, alas, it is not, because creating property "relations" legally is the essential tool of social and political control, starting with our own bodies and their productive capacities. Who says what in regards to which "body" is "allowed" to be acknowledged for "producing" is the major terrain of injustice and insufferability (ie, "sufferance" is not necessarily justifiable to and for everyone as discussed this morning).

If one regards "seizure" that is already explained elsewhere. Remember, however, that even "seizure" is a contract relationship, even if one wants to hold forth a process of seizure without "tangible form."

There should be consequences for destruction of competing capital contributions in order to attempt to obscure their theft and their misappropriation. I contend "insurance" is not adequate, just or viable. I also contend "ethics" is an excuse for covering up crime, and instead merely misappropriates what could or would otherwise be put to a more beneficial, just and equitable use for more than just the ones who needed the cover.

9:47 am CST

June 5, 2025

Dr. Charity Colleen Crouse

*-I just heard you. See bold.

**-Taxes are covered separately.

Attribution should include the Estate Trust of Michael Harrington and the Democratic Socialists of America.

___________________________

Concerning Civil Rights and Constitutional Protections - 6.6.2025

10:17 am CST

July 22, 2025

Comrade Charity Crouse aka

Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse aka Senator Charity Colleen Crouse (I-TX)

14 minutes...

2 Comments

Crouse.charitycolleen

Jul 31

Yes it is SEIZED:

https://www.cerberus.com/media/cerberus-acquires-leading-water-storage-solutions-provider-landmark-structures/

https://www.cerberus.com/media/cerberus-acquires-specialty-manufacturer-votaw-precision-technologies/

https://www.cerberus.com/media/aquatech-announces-landmark-investment-from-cerberus-to-advance-world-leading-process-technology-platform/

And you know why.

Yes, that "Polish bank deal" is also SEIZED.

10:46 am CST

July 31, 2025

[Comrade] Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse aka Comrade Senator Charity Colleen Crouse (I-TX)

Jul 24

https://jceeas.bdi.uni-obuda.hu/index.php/jceeas/article/download/77/version/77/73/434.

9:49 am CST

July 24, 2025

Comrade Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse aka Comrade Senator Charity Colleen Crouse (I-TX)