Term of Service
My "debt obligation" started in September of 1994. It started when I agreed to take classes at the community college after taking an SAT score and scoring for what was alleged to be a suitable score to qualify for "AP" courses. As the next year was the first year, there was no AP course for English offered so we were given the "option" of attending courses at the community college. Only two of us accepted and took English classes during the evening onsite (as in, IN the actual school high school , in the actual classrooms at the high school, but under the purview of Northern Virginia Community College and with an instructor that was listed as such with the Northern Virginia Community College.) There were others in the classes with us that were understood to be adults not in high school. These credits were transferred to the University of Chicago and were acknowledged as potential electives as they did not qualify for the core curriculum requirements. Ergo, my "education" began in 1994, not 1995.
So, if there is any "25" year term it starts for evaluation in 1994. If it is acknowledged as a "capital outlay" then one needs to acknowledge what the context around the original efforts were. In addition to be being the "class treasurer" I was also involved in a "mock trial" concurrent to other legal efforts. I was in a prosecutorial role. Had I qualified per any bar association? No. But that did not preclude people who HAD from using that scenario in connection with other processes to which they were able to avail themselves of from using my education and that participation in the mock trial from setting up and executing "options" for their own use. Many of those I have been able to track were in fact in the government at the time. The question as to what I was supposed to have been involved with per any "capital outlay" process then needs to be evaluated in the context of the terms surrounding the engagement of the orginal agreement.
There was not prior disclosure. Per basic contract law, if it can be revealed after the contract has been engaged that the one who contracted had intentions in the engagement of the contract that were intentionally not disclosed at its onset, then the contract can be declared fraudulent and there exists a variety of remedies for how to address it. It was said to be about "debt obligation" but the terms were misrepresented. If it was a capital outlay, then the process whereby it was intentionally mischaracterized as debt accrual is a fraud against me personally as well as the departments or programs for which the original agreement was to serve in connection with specific capital outlays. Insofar as I already know and can track and have tracked how I was used in connection with various federal, public-private partnership, and other projects that would necessitate engaging with specific federal regulatory bodies around "bandwidth" and "radiofrequency" allocation, then characterizing this as about a "defaulted debt" or a debt obligation that was allowed to be acquired after default for resale by someone else has consequences of great significance. That the terms of my "contract" were "brokered" aboard a Department of Defense installation while I was a DOD dependent then bring up considerations of jurisdiction. I did NOT agree to "enlist."
I understand that there does exist under the Code of Military Justice an infraction for "Simulation of Legal Process." Was in fact what was occurring a form of "Simulation of Legal Process," including a "legal process" attempting to defraud DOD appropriations processes or to interfere with or defraud miltary accounting procedures and processes, which are necessarily different than civilian accounting processes? This was entirely through no fault of my own, but the culpable parties need to be identified and prosecuted appropriately.
Additionally, the original considerations about what has transpired since then need to be assessed. I had said that I was going to request a Court Martial for a defrauding of the Judgment Fund of the U.S. military Judge Advocate General legal system. By refusing to appropriately address the jurisdiciton, any "civilian" legal proceedings that were themselves intentionally engaged so as to use me and my efforts in derivative litigation and that refused to "ground" those derivatives in disclosure or acquisition of prior informed consent, have run the risk of escalating the derivative into scenarios in manners that created risk engagements beyond the means of those who engaged them to contain. It was then on them to refer or assist in acquiring appropriate support and assistance in addressing them in the appropriate manner and within the appropriate timeframes. That has not happened.
In the meantime, various other jurisdictions in which these derivative scenarios have engaged broke laws within their own jurisdiction without appropriate and formal process of disclosure within whatever other jurisdiction they were derivating the processes into or among. As such, any "judgments" -- including judgments for "denials" or "dismissal" of charges -- were frauds against those in the other subsequent jurisdictions which were implicated or impacted by the frauds regarding the refusal to address appropriate jurisdictional application of law. I have three times requested a formal Court Martial -- twice via the military reporting process and once per the Supreme Court of Texas per aspects of the Texas Code of Military Justice that state that by default the jurisdiction for violations of the Texas Code of Military Justice is in the Supreme Court of Texas without an official referral, which they failed to provide and also violated important timelines around which to issue a verdict in regards to -- and in so doing escalated not only the threat level but increased the damages that occured as a result of the fraud against what would have been the judgement per the jurisidciton of an official Court Martial process.
In the course of so doing, benefits connected to retired family members of mine were embezzled per theft of my identity and numerous acts of fraud in other capacities and sectors were engaged. Even if I AM in the "25th" year, then one is going to have to address the "judgment" that I was "mentally ill" and availed of $24,000+ in social security benefits ostensibly as a means by which to address my work products/efforts in 2009 and 2010 prior to the award of "benefits." These "benefits" were allegedly in regards to "Social Security Disability Insurance;" I contend that was entirely inappropriate as a categorization of this "judgment" and created compounded frauds that have since accrued. As I DID disclose to the one who provided the intake concerning the original "diagnosis" that so qualified me for this "judgment" that I understand it was connected to application of "vibrational technologies" that were attempting to engage me biophysiologically, and had that been acknowledged for its cognizance, I could have engaged a process based on my pre-existing knowledge of radiofrequency and surveillance in manners that could have had substantially different outcomes in connection with the manners in which I became impacted by these circumstances. Later problems could have been addressed in different manners as well. This is part of the fraud of the judgment fund about which I speak.
I also contend that if at that time the implications of my attempt to seek assistance with these matters had been appropriately addressed, especially in consideration of an appropriate understanding of any capital outlay process with which I had been engaged in high school in the manner I was, then there could well have by now been considerable accrual of factors and paradigms that would have supported other forms of consideration on the judgment fund regarding matters specific to the circumstances of my experience but also in connection with other personal experiences that I had even prior to attempting to report what was occurring and seek assistance. Even after this occured with me I did contact my father, showing I was not unwilling to acknowledge what may have happened as a result of growing up in the military; I willingly continued to volunteer as part of food distribution on Treasure Island with military veterans even though I personally was not considered a military veteran; and I did even accompany a veteran to a graduation ceremony involving veterans PRIOR to seeking assistance with what I was experiencing. All of these actions show that I was willing to communicate with people who may have had a context for understanding these issues, including insofar as they may personally be impacted; that I was aware that people with these sorts of experiences were an appropriate "peer group" with which to associate in addressing what was occuring; and that despite discomfort I was willing and able to engage to get to the bottom of these matters.
It would not have required any deception or "betrayal" of anyone I had known prior to have been respected for my "cognizance" and it could well have established alternatives to the current paradigm that has unfolded. As such, it needs to be addressed for the profundity of the fraud involved. This ALSO involves a reconcilation of how military veterans are supposed to engage with their OWN children after certain "covert processes" are allowed to be meted out on or per their children, up to and including efforts to engage their children in criminal or even treasonous activities.
7:10 pm CST
Nov. 30, 2019
Proofread by 7:22 pm CST
Posted at 2:50 pm CST on Dec. 1, 2019
Corrected for one typo at 10:13 pm CST on April 26, 2020