Post 182: Your name is not "Michael" and I am not a "Bride for a Night" - 5.17.2026

Please do not pretend you do not know what this is.

You now want to say it is "Day 35" and that is not true. It is "Day 34."

I "won" your case but I did not agree to pay my own "fee" in the form of a "blow job" on the streets from a "homeless woman."

I "heard" you during the "conference."

I told you they would do this.

There is no "stock" available and you are not allowed to "cash out" on a fraudulent "insurance policy" they set up on your life in the last under 40 days.

You were NOT allowed to "broker" women in other countries. I was already "concerned" when you "granted me citizenship" based upon the "transfer" of my "citizenship" from one foreign country to another. It was supposed to be a "bridal claim" at the same time last year.

You are not allowed to pretend NOW that I am "disparaged" or "disclaimed" because someone else wants a "black market leverage" credit line -- even on you or anyone from "your country."

So, this is what NOW would be the "equivalency" on the "other head":

____________________________

I proposed it myself - June 5, 2025.

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 SuperBowl 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 any 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?" 

__________________________________

Tare May 25, 2025 - May 25, 2025

Howdy, Ya'll!

We are going to do this a little different today.

Let us "tare" to where time spacially we are.

This morning was Day Three of references to the Negri & Hardt "Empire." However, as I JUST SAID this is NOT about "Negri & Hardt." This is about Dworkin and "Scapegoat. This tares to July of 2022 before I found what is on the inventory in my drive. THAT references both Nov. 6, 2023 and Nov. 10, 2023 -- both of which (including the specific items of the inventory itself -- wherein I was at the same table at the McDonald's I was at this morning). There was a second part on Nov. 10, 2023 that was NOT in McDonald's but at Fort America that used a primary source text reference that had the full printing of the first five articles of the Texas Constitution. There was a notecard in that book that had the specific citations in the proceeding and the time and date references. That was in the tent that was where I slept and has specific items distinct from what was kept in the other two tents and elsewhere around the fort, as identified on the plat in the center drawer of the desk at the front entrance to the fort.  I understand that at this time the State of Texas has STILL refused to comport itself in accordance with the Constitution -- including and specific to the Bill of Rights -- and KNOWS it is operating in a "void." I refuse to relent on allowing for an unconstitutional comportment and and still comporting myself as constitutionally as possible, addressing honestly what I understand to be the potentials perils involved with the material conditions, in accordance with the authority already established and accepted via Chief Justice Salmon Chase and as explicated in "Texas v. White and Chiles." This means "time spacially" we are in a period wherein events of the 20th century are being intentionally miscontextualized by others trying to assert a later authority. I have already "tried" this case twice -- including at Fort America and after the "razing" of Fort America in an unconstitutional and retaliatory process --  and understand the decision still holds until this time.

To start...

Now, as this is the third day, again we have demonstration of a "three-day pattern" that may well fall within a certain 12-day pattern that is an abuse of Article 16, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution. Despite the federal Constitutional implications, I understand "Texas" continues to attempt a "local jurisdiction" claim that precludes assistance from anyone comporting themselves in accordance with the federal constitution or the constitutional process accorded to other states, including in connection with what is authorized for so doing by the federal constitution and for which assistance has already been requested, specific to the four states that primarily border Texas contiguously (special attention was requested with regard to Arkansas based upon the other implications specific to the Texas context regarding the constitution of the Cherokee Nation).

I do not and did not agree to "export" this to another country but am aware that others are attempting to try to avail themselves internationally of advantages based upon projections of outcomes with regard to that which is occurring "territorially" in "Texas." I do NOT understand this to be based upon Dallas as a "sanctuary city." I do understand this to be in accordance with covering up for FEDERAL officials attempting to use their prior State of Texas offices to aid and abet federal crimes, including high crimes, that are not only impeachable offense but for which "sovereign" other forms of government (including "transactional") immunity do not apply. It is over eight years since I contacted the Texas Medical Board, the State Bar of Texas, and the Texas Health and Human Service Department, as well as the Houston Internal Affairs Division and is coming up on the time I first attempted to report to the Houston office of the Department of justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See my Writ of Habeas Corpus with an understanding that the only "copies" of that still left to me have been illegally materially altered to eliminate certain pertinent information, including in connection with the "Statement of Facts" (beginning at least since February of 2023) and that elements of the "Bill of Exception" -- which has already been proven more than twice, and includes three times distinct in the manner in which is was proven -- were "separated" from the original text as evidence that that selection was being used in a specific contract bidding paradigm that I contend has already been proven specifically and independently of the "sum total" of the "Bill of Exception."

Now, what did you AGAIN try to provoke? Yes, I do consider it to be a "provocation" -- including after what was held forth last evening around sundown.

Did you "record" what I said aloud?

As I have said repeatedly I NEED all of YOUR recordings of what I say as evidence.

Did you record what was "communicated" "subaudibly?" I need those recordings as well.

It was not "Artificial Intelligence."

I was not "Intelligence."

It was not "Secret Service."

I refuse to identify my "demographics." I am under no legal obligation to do so.

I am a born citizen of the United States, born in Norfolk, VA on May 15, 1977, and currently a resident of Texas with more than eight years in Texas.

I understand I "should be" in either a role where I am licensed to practice law, including in a state role within the judicial branch of government, or preparing for what I would "otherwise" be doing today to present formally as a United States Senator morning based upon today's deadline. I am not, however, actually in those locations. I do not consider a "public library" to meet the Federal Judicial and Civil Procedure requirements concerning authority for law libraries to be considered in accordance with federal proceedings -- including in regards to eligibility for a Federal marshal escort in regards to provisions of protection that would include transport of evidence as needed -- even though I am eligible and have requested formally numerous times.

I contend it is retaliation for the "State" (meaning any "State – including foreign "State") to try to "use my case against me” and the burden of proof for production of all evidence already submitted on lists of evidence is ON the "State" as the Respondent. That includes EVERYTHING that was in Fort America as well as everything that was at Birchbrook prior to Sept. 21, 2021. That also includes EVERYTHING that was stolen in August, September, October, November of 2024, and February of 2025. That also includes all voice and video recordings stolen on April 1, 2024. That also includes all voice and video recording stolen on August 4, 2022. The "evidence" if for more than one charges,. including in connection with "evidence" of what I "would be doing" were there have to have been ANY constitutional due process applied, as well as material to cases already filed by the time of the theft of evidence. Anything stolen before June 2, 2017 is separate and anything stolen between June 2, 2017 and Sept. 21, 2021 is also separate, including what was stolen in July and August of 2018 in Fort

Worth, Texas.

9:32 am CST

May 25, 2025

President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse

For the record "state of mind" -- I do understand someone is attempting to compel me to agree to "sell" them or "donate" them firearms as of about 7:00 am this morning. I am on the record with in what manner I regard this legally and criminally -- this would be the second time in two days, with the first being on Day 1, specific to this extortionate demand.

________________________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piKqrfmyrsc&t=4s.

I do not agree with you trying to imply you are communicating something with the above formatting. I am not willing to give YOU "editing credit" for it, including as "artificial intelligence," and it does not equivocate with YOU owing me my articles from when I worked at the Hyde Park Herald or StreetWise, upon which you have been "placing bets" in the last three days.

As I said, it is theft of intangible property and expropriation of abstract capital for which I never agreed to a representation of myself as a "worker" who exchanged my "capital" as "labor" for "wages."

Anything made "tangible" was my "property" and you were not allowed to steal it. A legal claim is "personal property." If I enter "evidence" and it is accepted by the court then it needs to be secured, including with or through bond. Outside of that it is theft, at the least, if not burglary following breaking and entering.

You are not allowed to claim my "left brain" as your "property."

Please recall that benefiting yourself from the proceeds of fraud is a specific matter that speaks to "cognizability" and your "culpability" -- including in connection with your role in "conspiracy."

10:03 am CST

[May 25, 2025]

______________________________

53 is the metric from this morning's receipt.

It was the calculated difference yesterday in that AIG statement.

It was one calculation...

I contend for you the wrong one to try to speculate on.

10:04 am CST

May 25, 2025

President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 10:03 AM Chalmers Charity Crouse

_______________________________

11:18 am CST

May 17, 2026

Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse