Post 190: Not a Citi proxy Part 1 - 7.18.2023
- charitycolleencrouse
- May 29
- 7 min read
It's only wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria.
Below is not.
__________________________________
Regarding considerations per “In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation”, Master File No. 08 Civ. 9522 (SHS) upon review on July 17, 2023
In my experience, “Master files” often refer to and via derivative litigation efforts, including those that may have substantial long-term contexts. I do not have any background that this “litigation” is meant as a derivative action, but insofar as I have begun to review it, the implications are entirely NON-DERIVATIVE.
As I discussed yesterday, after reviewing only the first five pages and some context within, a number of matters become apparent:
One: Where is my December of 2007 letter of resignation from the Young Women’s Empowerment Project in Chicago, IL? I contended in that letter that due to decisions about disclosure within the organization structure and the unwillingness to accept my proposals and direction for how to address matters pertaining to the risks that had become apparent in regard to the work that was being done, I understood I could no longer maintain my relationship with the organization. Specifically, I had decided to seek “support” in augmenting my capacity to address emergent crisis and emergency situations by involving myself in a group in a manner in which I had a leadership position and was regarded distinctly different than I was in YWEP. That it involved, among other things, the capacity to address matters regarding physical self-defense, as well as provided access to people and networks wherein law enforcement and/or other security personnel (including private security requiring training in self-defense or other de-escalation tactics) meant I was additionally involving myself with groups of people who would have a different consideration of the risks of engaging crime, knowingly and willingly, as opposed to altering their lifestyle considerations in order to be capable in other manners.
This is what I said when I said that the “people I am working with may expose you and the girls to greater [risks].” As I recall, there was NO support in me learning self-defense to teach the girls self-defense. There was also no other manner in which to engage on a policy level with the girls except as a recipient of one basic training they provided in harm reduction and the “lecture” I gave on the difference between a credit union or a bank. This was not acceptable to me and after more than a year – half of which I was unpaid for despite being told upon being offered the job that I could rightfully expect a certain salary at a certain rate and then was told before I was given access to the official financial paperwork I was supposed to have access to to do the job for which I was hired that there was no money to pay me and the other co-director AND the rest of the staff – I knew that the goals of the organization were incompatible with mine. Is it reasonable that if someone says “we need time to develop trust with you” that it should be understood as reciprocal, especially when the person who is saying it is in a lateral relationship with the person to whom she is saying it?
To begin, however, there are specific references to consider:
Number 7. Citigroup’s statements about its SIV exposure were untrue and omitted material facts. In reality, Citigroup was ultimately forced to acknowledge, the Company was obligated to consolidate its SIV’s in its financial statements and absorb the SIV’s losses. Indeed on December 13, 2007 – only one month after it again publicly assured investors that it was not responsible for losses incurred by its SIVs – Citigroup announced that it was consolidating the SIV assets onto its balance sheet, thereby exposing the Company to billions of dollars of failing subprime mortgage related securities. …
I asked several times for paperwork needed to “reconcile” the accounting records. I was repeatedly told it was not available and that the person who insisted on positioning herself between me and the people responsible for obtaining it was not going to tell them they needed to acquire it or they would not be able to access funds. This went on, even in regards to mail that was supposed to be regarding “bills.” In addition, the “treasurer” of the organization attempted to chastise me one evening when she was “reconciling” and was commenting on “paperwork,” however, she was also working for the Public Health Department and bringing “supplies” to the office and refused at any point to provide me with inventories or invoices for these “supplies.” I also did not have THAT paperwork.
My understanding is that she has since then attended medical school and is now a M.D. Is that correct? Was there a reasonable expectation that a woman serving as treasurer of an organization of such a sort that refused to provide inventories or invoices for “supplies” provided via her job at the Department of Public Health would become a “M.D” within the timeframe she has? Did she provide those “supplies” as “personal donations” or was there a bidding process that had been engaged with the County Public Health Department to award YWEP with the access? I SHOULD have had access to THAT paperwork as well. Inclusive in this consideration is that I was later “transported” to access “resources” from an out-of-state entity in-network, and myself obtained a job in “public health” – including for which I was eligible for a pension fund – and never received it. Did the “treasurer” have a “job” where she earned “pension benefits” and has she since used her “pension benefits” to enter and complete medical school? I contend no one had any reasonable or rightful expectation to enjoy my “pension benefits” by virtue of working in the Public Health Department of another city in order to complete their higher education while I was libeled, robbed, kidnapped, and denied any assistance from law enforcement or the legal community in filing charges or prosecuting the crimes. It was not about “stock.” That is merely one matter of concern, including that many of my kidnappers included medical doctors in public health in other cities and those who “worked” with them.
Now, this is not what I discussed last evening. There is, however, the matter pertaining to the continuation of that which WAS discussed yesterday and the threats I woke up with this morning. What is the status of the trip to Philadelphia that both co-directors, the treasurer, and the staff attended – after driving there and back in a white van? Unlike the “trip” to Atlanta, this trip was one I recommended and organized with an intent to provide another perspective on “leadership development” and the contexts within which to consider one’s possibilities, inclusive in understanding that a) exposure to the material conditions by and for which to commit crime did not necessarily mean you were permanently remanded to it, and b) that being subjected to discrimination, violence, or even framing by law enforcement did not necessarily invisibilize you or mean that you would be left isolated in your efforts to address it. Mumia Abu-Jamal was considered to be a political leader EVEN FROM JAIL and the public actions to secure justice for his cause was annual – in the city of Philadelphia. “Resources” from another city were made accessible to the people in the organization that would otherwise not have been made available. At no point has the honest and accurate assessment of the implications of THAT form of leadership been evaluated relative to whatever the “expectations” of my “relationship” or “obligations” to the organization have been considered.
And, consider as well, that prior to RETURNING TO CHICAGO that I was working for a capital defense firm in Houston, TX at a time when more capital punishments were set to be executed than in any year in American history. That brings a completely different context to the consideration of why I would “expose youth leadership” to the “risks” associated with attending marches like the ones in Philadelphia. That context regarding Houston precedes my return to Chicago – a city where prior to going to Houston I had spent over two years working at a notable law firm for family and real estate law in good standing. Would it have been realistic to expect that during that time I could have been considered in regards to potential eligibility as a lawyer myself? And that upon my arrival in Texas, matters pertaining to my ability to address civil versus criminal cases would have been evaluated? Is it realistic and reasonable to expect the following to be understood:
Insofar as Mulryan & York was a firm known to assist individuals and families who were experiencing legal needs in regards to a medical illness that was known to disproportionately target people who were considered to be in political opposition to the context within which certain legal standards had hitherto been applied and that the disease was fatal;
Insofar as that medical illness had been identified in a history of medical conditions that had been used to specifically target political opposition with the intent to alter their movement’s trajectory or to retaliate against them for their political views;
Insofar as the process of addressing capital punishment in the state wherein they operated had recently had to undergo a process of evaluating its own relationship to capital punishment based on understanding that evidence proved capital punishment had been sentenced in cases wherein the Constitution was violated and in manners that were determined to be racist and politically discriminatory;
That just as the firm above had been successful in changing laws to address the facts at hand for their clients so too had political movements been able to change the terms of implementation of law and law regarding matters pertaining to the livelihoods of their community;
And that these were the sorts of matters about which I spoke when applying for a job in another state engaged in defense of capital cases and wherein the most capital punishments in the history of the United States were scheduled to be engaged.
From there, I contend it would have been reasonable to expect that the person of concern would have qualified for the Texas Bar before December of 2007. Would I have qualified for both the Texas and the Illinois Bahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkXAAHDIN7Ur?
11:29 am CST [11:36 am CST]
July 18, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
______________________________
10:54 am CST
May 29, 2026
Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-RvTJxdee0.
2:27 pm CST
May 29, 2026
Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse