[Re-]Post 163: Did you say "Socage" on July 2, 2023? - 4.16.2026

Review February 2024 Part I - 2.4.2024

Review of Campaign Activities Lot - 8.27.2023

In consideration of practical application of the following:

“Aug. 9, 2023 follow-up to 8.8.2023 meetings”

“Notes for meeting 8.8.2023” (one minute review 9:17 am CST on 2.4.2024)

Communication with Secretaries Simonetti, Thompson, and Jefcoat of 8.8.2023*

Communication with Secretaries Juarez and Feldman of 8.8.2023 with follow-up 1.10.2024*

“Morning Meeting 2.2.2024”*

“Administration Update - Jan. 31, 2024” with follow-up 2.2.2024*

*-more comprehensive review to come this week.

______________________

I.

Re: review of legal terms concerning “donation” and implications of legal context of “donation” and when and whether or not it applies

“Donative intent”

“Gift”

“Indemnity”

The sequence for evaluation was as follows (OUTLINE):

“Donation” - p. 143

“Contribution” - p. 97

“Charitable Contribution” - pps. 66-67 

“Indemnity” - p. 226

“Donative Intent” - p. 143

“Gift” - p. 203

“Power of Appointment” - pps. 354-355

“Causa” - p. 62

“Inter Vivos” - p. 243

The above was reviewed (in addition to other legal contexts) to address efforts to attempt to compel an individual to “donate.” As was reviewed, legally, a “donation” as a “contribution” is a form of “compensation for injury” and establishes the one who is the “donor” as one with a claim in regards to the matter for which the alleged injury is incurred. That is distinct from a “gift” for which one relinquishes and further consideration or intent in regards to how it is used. Hence, one cannot “compel” one to “donate” in order to “pay” for something. If one is due “compensation” for an “injury” then there needs to be LEGAL verification of BOTH the initial claim of the one who is to be the “donor” and the one to whom the compensation is due.

Under law, a “gift” in the form of a “donation” needs to be reported for tax purposes if it is valued at over $250. The value is determined by the “donor” and acknowledged by the one who receives the donation legally, including as “transferor.” A donation under $250 does not by law need to be provided with a written verification of receipt of the amount but the recipient must provide written confirmation upon request. I contend it should be mandatory that such written documentation be provided regardless of the value accorded to the “donation.” I also contend that organizations that accept “donations” with the intent to redistribute them to others should be required to provide written documentation to the recipient of what they understand to be the  amount to be upon redistribution. 

Additionally, there is the matter of “time” and “labor” as “contributions”  – including “in-kind contribution” – and “volunteer” or “donated” time or labor. The organization must report such “donations” for budgeting and tax compliance purposes. “Volunteer” labor is not the same as labor provided in the course of fulfilling community service in accordance with intersession through the state in regards to alternative service of sentencing. This ALSO means that the community service is accorded a value by the state that may not correspond to the value accorded to the organization that provides the forum for the “community service.”

I contend these matters are the bases for identifying “money laundering” and its relationship to social service and “faith-based organizations” that included the anti-money laundering statute in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. One cannot be compelled or ordered to “donate” to an organization or an individual, including whether it is their tangible or intangible property. “Donation” is voluntary. “Contribution” as a matter of punitive action is different and MUST ACCORD WITH THE LAW. Such “contributions,” however, when demanded are PROOF that the person who is to be the contributor has a verifiable LEGAL CLAIM to the matters or subject at hand. Hence, the alleged “injury” is connected to an abuse of that person’s legal claim to the matter at hand and itself can be challenged by the person who is alleged to be required to “contribute.”

Not all “contributions” are necessarily punitive, however, instances of compelled “donation” without consent are not legal and may be evidentiary of OTHER Constitutional abuses. See “extortion (p. 174) and “blackmail” (p. 49).

The source for the above is “Barron’s Law Dictionary” by Steven H. Gifs, Barrons’ Educational Series, Inc., New York et al. 1984. (receipt in evidence)

Review took approximate 60 minutes on 2.3.2024

Distinction between “nonprofit” organization (including specific to “faith-based” v. secular) and federal programs

Distinction between “volunteer” (labor v. time) and “community service”

Regards concerning budgeting and auditing

“In-kind” contribution

Intangible property v. tangible property including “budget” as “property”

“Goodwill” relative to “faith” and “credit”

“Considerations” of “collateral” and “contract” including abuse of contract connected to illegal liens and illegal cross-collateralization relative to standards of performance (see two standards for “unconscionability”) and acceptable v. unacceptable “alternative performance of contract”

“Donor,” “transferor,” and “donee”

“Bargaining position” and responsibilities

Go back to “contribution” (re. “donation” v. “gift”) and documentation, as well as “imputation” relative to claim on one who is to be a “contributor” outside of “donor” context

“Common Law” and documentation/verification

“Inheritance” and “Taxation”

II.

Regarding matters pertaining to illegal compulsion to “donate”

1. “Discount”

2. “Secondary Market”

3. “Thrift”

4.  Relative to “Donation”

“Right to future enjoyment” and who has them and how to determine

Abuse of rights/claims concerning “contributions” and “perpetuities” pertaining to abuse of timelines for consideration of “efficiency” in determining “delivery” on “enjoyment”

That which makes tangible - means of production - sabotage and other crimes

Role of “crime” in “insurance”

“Insurance policy” and “loans”

Context for legal performance of contract regarding loan arrangement and what is or is not legally qualified as “default” based on what is legally qualified as “obligation” or “debt”

III.

[CLASSIFIED AT THIS TIME]

IV.

To be further expounded upon this week.

V.

Regarding “Copyright Law” and intangible v. tangible property rights

From notes obtained on June 4, 2019 and reviewed again June 14, 2019

“Copyright”

“Derivative production”

“Recordings” as tangible form

Point at which intangible becomes tangible

“Underlying” copyright and “proof” of copyrightability of “derivative”

“Computer programs” or “sequences” and “blueprints” as copyrightable

“Copyright protections” v. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding “mental impressions” and that which is covered by client/attorney privilege, including as pro se; copyrights and “case materials” or “legal work” production”

See Boddie v. Connecticut (not about “marriage”)

VI.

Review to 60 minutes on Feb. 2, 2024.

To be further expounded upon this week.

10:42 am CST

Feb. 5, 2024

Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse

12:55 pm CST

Nov. 22, 2024

Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse

________________________________________________

9:18 am CST

April 16, 2026

Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse