Post 191: Not a Citi proxy Part 2 - 7.18.2023
- charitycolleencrouse
- May 29
- 6 min read
.
_____________________________
Regarding considerations per “In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation”, Master File No. 08 Civ. 9522 (SHS) upon review on July 17, 2023
Now, let us pick up where we left off yesterday.
I applied for the Gulf Region Advocacy Center in, if I recall correctly, May of 2005. I was in Houston by June of 2005 and worked at GRACE mid-December of 2005. My understanding is that I worked at GRACE for less than six months. I was not informed when I applied or when I was working there that Texas law required one to obtain a Texas Driver’s License after six months in the state. By December of 2005 I had not yet obtained or been provided with the means by which to obtain a Texas Driver’s License. Until six months after being in Texas, the context around which my “licensing” status was concerned would not have been in violation of the law unless I was driving the company vehicle after six months without a Texas Driver’s License. I contend I had a reasonable expectation that the people in charge of the firm should know this and should provide the means by which to assure that I was legally eligible to drive and had the means to secure my driver’s test – which were different in 2005 than in 2017 and/or 2018.
My understanding is that the “law office” was in a residential building that was not used for housing accommodations but was used exclusively for the business of the firm. There was another residential facility nearby where interns and those who worked for the office lived/habitated, but the office itself was not “lived” in. Did, however, the “law office” have a mortgage on it? How was this mortgage paid? Was it paid through donations or grants provided to the non-profit organization that was operating the law office? Were there other means by which it was paid? Who was the provider on the mortgage and how many years had the mortgage been in effect? When I arrived in June of 2005, was the mortgage under 2 years?
The consideration of “paperwork” and the need for it becomes more piqued in regards to the business of the firm. Me informing the principal that paperwork was missing when it comes to accounting for the costs of the firm is not immaterial to the needs to provide documentation in regards to evidence processes concerning the work of the firm. It was understood that the firm in Houston had a “sister firm” in New Orleans. It was understood that Hurricane Katrina had not only impacted the New Orleans office of that firm, but that the evidence storehouse of the prosecutor’s office had also been impacted by the storm damage. This would put into consideration numerous questions, including as regards the evidence that was being stored by the prosecution/state versus the evidence that was being stored by the attorneys for those who were appealing their cases.
When Hurricane Sandy was announced as being on its way, I decided to stay in Houston while the rest of the staff decided to leave the city and seek safety elsewhere. I recall being onsite and observing while another person took certain measures to secure the windows and other areas of the office facility (though not the residential facility) to protect it from what was anticipated from the storm. I also stayed in Houston throughout the storm and went to check on the facility after the storm passed. Did this action put me into some considerations of responsibility for matters pertaining to the facility itself or – by extension – to the residential facility?
The facility was in a state where repairs were necessary prior to the storm. But, after a storm such as what had occurred in New Orleans and with the concern that something comparable was on its way to Houston, was there a realistic and reasonable expectation that those involved with maintaining the site would have knowledge of the heightened risk of the presence of poisonous spiders? Shortly after the hurricane, an intern who was from the United Kingdom got bitten at the residential building by a brown recluse spider. She had to get medical treatment. Was there a responsibility that was to be assumed in regards to protecting against the risks of poisonous spiders being present in the residential facility where the interns were being housed? Insofar as there was an expectation of her being able to receive medical treatment, was the firm – or even the state – responsible for seeing to it that she got complete follow-up treatment? Are there “vaccines” for brown recluse spider bites? What does the treatment entail in long-term treatment or follow-up treatment? Was I considered to be a “genetic match” for the intern who was bitten relative to others at the firm? Was I determined to be required to be made available to assure that her medical needs were attended to? I was not provided with “medical insurance” at the time I worked there, and my understanding is that I would not have been eligible until after – six months.
Additionally is the matter pertaining to the reason why I ended up leaving AFTER I HAD MOVED FROM ANOTHER STATE TO WORK THERE. Presumably, the necessary “paperwork” to appropriately account for the operations of the organization was missing. This was after spending MONTHS attempting to communicate that people were not giving me the paperwork I needed. The day of the “demonstration” of the insufficiency of my “reconciliation” there was a young man present who I understood was a legal intern, not involved with accounting or bookkeeping. He was being shown how incomplete the paperwork for the reconciliation was, however, there was more paperwork missing than there had been the previous time I had gone through and attempted to reconcile and then REPORTED that the reconciliation was incomplete because there was missing paperwork. The concern is that in a capital case, the state is the prosecuting party, meaning that upon appeal the state is represented by the Solicitor General. Was I ALSO responsible for the “medical treatment” of “family members” of the future “Solicitor General?” I contend I was not.
I contend that just as – if not more than – whatever was the paperwork at the time that of concern regarding reconciliation (much of which would have been recovered or answered for in another manner) was the fact that a) evidence had been compromised per the custody of both the State and the defense firms of concern in capital cases in Louisiana, for whom defense was in network with firms and appeal cases pending in Texas and b) the “missing financial paperwork” was compounded by my missing “driver’s license” which also should have already been on record OR there should have been paperwork documenting the process and the intent behind my complying with Texas law and having secured my Texas Driver’s License within six months of moving to the state, especially since I was the primary driver of the firm’s vehicle and used it to deposit checks and monies into the bank.
Let me ask a question: If the Attorney General of Texas is accused of “securities fraud,” who defends the State’s interest?
We will return to the “licensing” issues soon.
I will indicate that the recent evidence has proven that the “interest” the “Miami Beach Employees’ Retirement System” may have in my relationship to these matters goes back to when I was ten years old and eating with my family in a restaurant…I was from out of town but in state. That has been PROVEN in the last few days AGAIN. I have reported on the contexts directly to the Department of Justice, including specifically in Autumn of 2019. That context ALSO, however, involves an “IQ test” administered by a private practice child psychologist as well as “medical treatment” for my mother involving a “family counseling” session. Both events occurred in Tampa, FL. Was it within six months of the meal in that restaurant?
Would someone bidding on that ten-year-old have a reasonable expectation that she would be the Attorney General of Texas by 2017?
How about the Congresswoman of California?
How about the Senator of Illinois?
It was not about “child prostitution” as “sex work.”
For the record, considering the implications of municipal investments from the perspective of “counter sex trafficking” is materially and substantively different than “protecting the rights of sex workers.” I considered their perspective. I did not agree. I still do not agree. It did not matter whether it was a “bank” or a “credit union” if I said NO or if ANYONE ELSE SAID NO.
12:09 pm CST
July 18, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
10:57 am CST
May 29, 2026
Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse
______________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvO3HFFWMLM.
2:28 pm CST
May 29, 2026
Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse