Where is the Senator?

In the State of Texas

Concerning events of April 18, 2024 at riverside area adjacent to parking lot for Fourth Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, TX

I. 

The area of concern is a protected watershed area of the State of Texas. Insofar as Texas is an administrar of federal lands, the context is an understanding of the jurisdiction of the State of Texas pending a justification for acknowledgement of the jurisdiction of the federal government. Individuals visibly identified as local (Dallas) police; security for the health system that regularly patrols the parking lot; and two individuals identifying themselves as indicated by marking on their shirts as representing the Dallas Homeless Outreach Solutions were present. The manager of the grounds of Fourth Presbyterian Hospital identified as Norman was present and brought over for discussion of the context of the proceeding. Understanding was that police officers with visible body cameras on their vests had cameras on and the proceeding was recorded and eligible for subpoena as evidence.

Crouse approached the area and saw two Dallas Police vehicles parked near the entrance to the homestead site. She asked if anything was wrong and was originally told no, despite other vehicles being present further down the parking lot. When she indicated that she was going to enter the homestead site she was told there WAS a problem and then other individuals were called over. The proceeding was immediately referred to and as being as in connection with the two individuals from the Homeless Outreach Solutions. Crouse informed them it was a business homestead, she had been there continuously for over two and a half years, had regular contact with the police and security that patrolled the area, and was only informed once of any concern coming from the groundskeeper. She was asked if the person of concern was “Norman” and after seeing him indicated it was. Information on the specific event is in an affidavit that Crouse already composed and may be part of the electronic records that were stolen on April 1, 2024; back up in writing is also provided onsite.

Crouse was told that they had identified the property as “private property” and were going to “clean it out” at that time. She contested the legality of this, and requested a court order. She was informed that they had entered the property and she asked if they had a search warrant; she was told they did not at which point she indicated it was breaking and entering if they had in fact entered the property. Crouse informed them that there was documentation including in the form of a federal case that had been submitted in downtown Dallas at the federal court house in connection with a local proceeding that was engaged in the context of the federal suit. She told them she had a business homestead and informed both the police officer [specific officer - wearing body cam] and the two individuals from the Homeless Outreach Solutions that is was covered legally under Article 16, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution and that the federal case involved the context for the consideration of this site in accordance with the information provided in the case. She was asked to provide documentation of the case and indicated that she did not have it on her, but that it was in the case file inside. She stated that if they did NOT acknowledge it as her property then she could not enter or it would be considered breaking and entering. Crouse was told they were saying it was “criminal trespass;” Crouse informed them it was not and met the legal standards for homestead including in connection with it not being “private property” of the hospital as the specific location had a bond that had been issued by the State of Texas via the City of Dallas in June of 2018.

Crouse acknowledged she had previously spoken with Norman more than six months ago. Norman indicated that he did not remember. Crouse acknowledged that there was another person present at the time, that it was alleged to be about visibility of items in the area, and that she was awaiting his provision of documentation which he had said was being composed at the time in the hopes that it would accompany a means by which to contact hospital administrators to get support for appealing to and applying to the city for a contract to provide the work on the waterway that was the provisions of her business. Crouse also indicated that her personal identification documentation was a subject of the suit and that she did not have it on her person at the time and was unwilling to enter at that time until they acknowledged it was hers to bar against consideration of a “breaking and entering” charge.

Crouse and the assembled individuals with the assertion of Norman arranged a time of Monday morning by 10 am CST as the alleged “move out” time. Crouse indicated that she did not believe they had the authority, and that if the Governor was involved with an invocation of eminent domain insofar as it was identified as “private property” needed for a good reason by the state then it would require intercession of the Governor. Crouse was not informed that it was a proceeding that would be covered by eminent domain and all assembled refused to state their knowledge that it involved invocation of eminent domain. Crouse said she was going to proceed in addressing it, understanding there was no cause of action on their part aside from justification of invocation of eminent domain, and then only with “compensation” accorded to her and not the City and not Fourth Presbyterian Hospital.

The property qualified under Section 16, Article 50 of the Texas Constitution as a “business homestead.” Insofar as the location is located at a protected watershed area and is public land, it is available by law for homestead. Continuous use and improvement has been demonstrated for over six months – in this case for over two and a half years – and no one else has entered to assert their claim or right to the land in over 12 months, demonstrating there was a continuous absence of any other claim for over 12 months. 

The homestead is additionally eligible in consideration of federal crimes engaged against the business of concern, Space Hawk, LLC, which was damaged in the course of an unconstitutional proceeding masquerading itself as “possession of property” in accordance with an “eviction” proceeding engaged in July of 2021 and sustained through September of 2021. The context for the crimes accorded in that proceeding qualified for invocation of federal jurisdiction; the federal court was informed before the Sept. 7, 2021 alleged “eviction court” proceeding in Travis County.

The context for the presence and use of local police department personnel calls into question other allegations. That the police would be present and grant access to persons who have no court order and no search warrant makes police complicit with the breaking and entering by the persons identifying themselves as working on behalf of the city. That the groundskeeper of the hospital was previously informed of the context and stated that he would return at that time with a “security report” needs to be considered in the context of the “city” attempting to assert a right on behalf of alleged private claimants.

Crouse informed persons to be mindful of the timeline and specifically asked, “What is the relationship between April 18 and August 18?” This specific relationship triggers consideration of abuse of court processes regarding the FEDERAL PROCEEDING and hence puts the proceeding outside of the legitimate jurisdiction of the city; due to the nature of the implications of the state interest, the actions of the city without acknowledging the potential applicability of eminent domain and hence the authorization of the Governor then elevates this proceeding to beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Dallas and County of Travis.

Insofar as there was intent on revisiting the crimes that were alleged in the federal proceeding, this process also compels consideration of the federal charges filed ON Sept. 21, 2021 as identified in the motion submitted to the court that day. That the original effort identified “tomorrow morning” (meaning April 19, 2024) as the date of the “cleaning out” triggers the bar for reconsideration of the charges as filed on Sept. 21, 2021, inclusive in consideration of the CRIMINAL implications and the very real “threat to life” that accompanies the charges. Crouse contends that choosing this alleged justification with an intentional refusal to provide verifiable documentation of the just cause and in accordance with the fact that the persons of concern refused even upon direct request to provide the legal or Constitutional justification for the proceeding involves the Constitutional determination provided in accordance with “new evidence” that was available by Nov. 10, 2023 concerning the roles of “criminal proceedings” once they are engaged and acknowledged by the state. As such, to refuse to consider the escalated implications is a potential danger and cause of action on its own accord.

Any effort to remove property from the location if theft, and if there is another act of breaking and entering qualifies as burglary1. Not only that, a good faith process through either the federal or local court that was granted mandamus by a higher court would have provided a safe and documented evidence provision process. Under federal law, transportation of items identified as evidence and safe and secure storage is to be provided by the court. The federal court has been informed consistently since September of 2021 that evidence was available, that lists of evidence have been submitted and new evidence has become available, and that Crouse has been continuously keeping inventories of additional accumulated evidence until this time.

Included in the evidence is acknowledgement of the financial implications – including consideration of allegations of “securities fraud” that also include “mortgage fraud” – and “scheme to defraud” that have implications regarding lost legitimate business and personal income. The refusal of the state to take up the case itself has implications not only regarding the consideration of violations of individual Constitutional rights concerning protection of private property but good faith and the interest of those holding themselves out as “government officials” that would defraud the people by abusing the protections of immunity provided to officials of the state.

Crouse has considerable documentation of her good faith efforts before the court DESPITE the court refusing to return her personal identification documents in over two and a half years AND refusal to provide a safe and secure evidence submissions process. Almost ALL of the items that are threatened with “cleaning out” are eligible for consideration of or as evidence – including in regards to Crouse’s allegations of “identity theft” – and any effort to “remove” them without according legal justice is itself a crime and a crime that transcends the jurisdiction of the State of Texas. Considering the implications of the original effort to request consideration of “diversity jurisdiction” there may well be cause of action in regards to foreign countries.

As such, an injunction is requested until such time as there is official documentation of who levied the threat and in whose interest it was levied. Even insofar as lien is being put on the city or the state, there is no just cause to move against a homestead in a “removal proceeding;” the judgment identifying the decision by past judges in consideration of the Constitutional implications of a homestead was already provided to the federal court in a motion submitted in Spring of 2022. The request for the application of the Texas Constitution is the original appeal to the federal court in September of 2021 identified the Constitutional provision that in the event of fraud or deceit or other lack of just cause, one who was damaged in accordance with an illegal use of their own homestead was to be restituted at like or greater value; in this time the value of consideration was in accordance with what was identified before Sept. 21, 2021 that was permitted to be stolen ON Sept. 21, 2021. That included original filings before the federal court, including in regards to appeals of cases FIRST submitted in Texas courts that requested federal Constitutional consideration of violations of the Texas Constitution. Crouse also has evidence that consideration of “tribal jurisdiction” has been abused; the cases of concern originated under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas and efforts to request federal consideration of the state Constitutional issues was comported in accordance with the evidence relative to the acquisition of the evidence in accordance with the original proceedings and the jurisdiction under which they were originally engaged. 

II.

I contend an injunction should be granted and proceedings be commenced to identify who authorized the act of concern. Additionally, there is just cause for seeing this as “new evidence” that brings into consideration the original charges as filed. In the meantime, the court is required to provide relief to Crouse, including in regards to access to necessary court processes and protection of her “case work” as work on her case. That includes electronic records, electronic evidence documentation including regarding her case development and legal theory development, and the work products that she has maintained consistently and are the subject of her claims regarding damage to her business. The court is also required to provide transportation assistance in the event there is need for protecting the requisite “property” and/or evidence. Crouse is due restitution at an “equal or greater” value to what she was defrauded out of in September of 2021 without threat of damage being levied against what she has acquired in the meantime. Recall that once a criminal proceeding has been engaged in the State of Texas and accepted by the court – as the original case of July of 2017 was – then the criminal justice process is continued until there is satisfaction before the law. In the context of the manner in which today’s actions were engaged – including refusal to provide search warrant; refusal to provide any form of court order at any level; use of city police including in the alleged provisions of a “trespass” citation that does not identify the legal code or legal authority for alleging trespass; and the threat of harm to property – it is obvious that this still remains as a criminal proceeding. The refusal of the court to intercede to accord justice to the process needs to be considered, including in the consideration of appeals of previous judgments by the court or in consideration of the same and additional charges that have been justified during the course of the proceeding.

2:04 pm CST

April 18, 2024

Charity Colleen  Crouse

/s/: Charity Colleen Crouse

[Signed]

I attest that I am over 18 years old, a legal citizen of the United States of America and State of Texas, a legal resident of the State of Texas, that I am of sound mind, and that everything said herein it the truth to the best of my ability and cognizance. Any considerations of disputations of my official “title” are the subject of the original suit and to be evaluated with the attendant implications of the charge of “identity theft” and the threat to destroy documentation.

/s/: Charity Colleen Crouse

Note: Crouse is not alleging that “escalation” was exacerbated or compounded by the presence of officers of the law or security guards with sidearms that would otherwise have been indicated as necessary, required or permitted for carrying in connection with performance of their law or security enforcement duties. Crouse is also not identifying that the presence of active cell phones that were being used by the others when she informed all assembled that she did not have a cell phone is equivalent for consideration as a “weapon” in the context of “escalation.” Crouse did not understand there was any threat to use a weapon at the time; a threat to use a weapon in the future was not provided in any manner that would allow for Crouse to believe at that time there would be use of a weapon. The “threat to life” comes as a result of the fact that the illegal actions undertaken in the course of an ongoing proceeding with the aforementioned specific implications leads Crouse to understand there is a real and present threat against her life in the future, including by allowing her to be deprived of items that are being used to protect her legal rights and legal interests in the course of a criminal proceeding and includes the concern that another person will use a weapon. That also means the state and protections of the state against coercion or threats that themselves do not comport with what would be legally required and verifiable evidence submissions process is both part of the abuse of the legal process and it itself evidentiary, including in the context of the original charges and legal arguments in the case. 

1- I heard you. NO it does not. I have reviewed three cases, including in connection with service of writ, that demonstrate that in fact what would justify “property seizure” in this case does not apply. This is another reason why it is a “scheme to defraud” if one purports to have justification to “enter” and “remove property” under fraudulent pretense. None of the property was “stolen” – were it “stolen” then a search warrant would have been necessary and no search warrant can be granted after breaking and entering, even on presumption of stolen property. Not only that, Crouse identified that provided with a search warrant she would have complied; that was additionally stated in the original appeal. Additionally, as of August of 2022 Crouse had ALREADY reviewed cases regarding this and other points in her original case for  which appeal date was August of 2022 and that case work was STOLEN by others who broke and entered. Attempting to “press the point” brings up considerations of “patterns” involving specific timelines and co-conspiracy. Being told that one would require a search warrant and attempting to enforce burglary demonstrates willingness without the cover of lack of cognizability for consideration as co-conspirator. I did say that THEY escalated AFTER I identified the federal court house and I was aware of that.