Under (Secondary) Color of Law

​

​

          The concern here is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are either in the process of coming out of conservatorship or will be. It is important at the juncture to assure that they are NOT again turned back over to a situation wherein they are under the spending or other accounting authority of the federal government.

          The problem is that as a result of TARP a lot of individual wealth was expropriated for illegal debt service for those organizations that were offered a bailout rather than individuals being so offered. Unfortunately, due to serious mismanagement and corrupt practices, the federal government and its employees are now accountable for 2-years of debt service obligation. Those who as of today are employed are compelled to serve this out. That is EVERYONE who draws not only a "paycheck" from the federal government but works in a capacity as a third-party contractor. No contracts are off limits. It was already anticipated that via manipulation of access to assets via the secondary mortgage market various federal programs and both their employees and contractors/subcontractors would be availed of the processes that have for years remained unaddressed with mischaracterizing people's fixed assets and their accrual of credit in order to invest in or through a fixed asset. The whole process of subjecting people's mortgages to the practices that have been permitted thusfar via the secondary mortgage market need to stop. That also includes mortgages that are a part of federal housing programs, of which there are many.

          So too must the processes that leverage illegally incurred debt service requirements on individuals in an intentional effort to dispossess them of private property stop. In this regard, it is important to assess which coroprate entities as of today had previously divested shares to the federal government and until this time has not fully disengaged a process whereby the capital contributions of citizens and others can be diverted into or via the federal budget process. Without appropriate accounting of the accrual thusfar a lot has been squandered, embezzled or otherwise mischaracterized in the present situation. This is pertinent insofar as until now it was considered "debt" as opposed to an evaluation relative to a capital outlay process. Were it to have been considered as such then it is more than apparent that whatever justified the decision to focus on banking and financial institutions as opposed to working with the original intent behind TARP would have been deemed to be unsubstantiated. The substantial failure to deliver was compounded over the last ten years to and for those who were availed of the benefits of TARP as opposed to accruing meritoriously for those who otherwise should have been so availed.
 

          I will address concerns regarding "national debt" and the contributions of individual citizens who thusfar have also been mischaracterized in another manner. I already said that by LAST summer if one had not already gone on the record for reporting fraud up to and including beginning as part of the outstanding period of the investigative backlog with HHS and MediCare then it was too late to now "piggyback" and attempt to "flip reports" of fraud to one's advantage. This was prior to the "pubic comment" periods regarding the changes to "disclosure" policies regarding HUD and prior to changes considered regarding HHS and "human subjects." It was also prior to the Executive Order changing the fraud enforcement task force to "consumer fraud and market integrity." Those were specifically the sort of machinations that I understood were underway to attempt to obstruct reporting on the criminal activities that had already taken place. It has in fact been proven that the intention was exactly to enable those in the federal government who obstructed these processes to attempt to leverage access to resources only available through the federal process to agreements to commit to criminal activities with the aim of benefitting from the final privatization. Unfortunately, now those employees are required to serve for the next two years in payment on outstanding debt obligation and lack the personal credit to be put into position to personally engage in any contemporaneous effort to address the matters at hand regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until such time as they have "recharacterized" their debt obligations into value-added creditability in the system that will "emerge" moving forward.
 

          Another system is possible whereby instead of leveraging "deficit spending" individual contributions are accessed a meritorious value and appropriately accounted for in terms of regulatory merit or other areas into which they are appropriately aligned. This will be what unfolds moving forward. That does not mean, however, that a "default" in the present situation is to be put upon anyone other than those who used the credit of the federal system to benefit themselves while obstructing an appropriately-employed effort to implement sound policy and accounting procedures that accrue to the benefit of the general population. Hence it is imperative to acknowledge the contributions of civic participation in a manner that reflects the value of the country.

          The major policy area outside of the secondary mortgage market that needs to be addressed is the public pension system and its connections with the herein discussed.

          We will start with this:
                    Total Institutions Funded 707
          per this:

                    Treasury TARP October 2019

                    p. 1.

​

          We will address healthcare with this:
                    Total Institutions Funded 84
                    Same report, p. 2.

          And we will first have to see about a reconsideration of the implications of this:
                    In Bankruptcy/Receivership 34
                    p. 1
          Just in case Treasury is playing around with Warburg in manners which are completely inappropriate.

​

          Another matter to be reconsidered, especially today, is:
                    Funds Drawn Down in October State Amount (millions) Georgia $ 29
                    p. 4
 

          This is going to be difficult to appropriately assess until we deal with this:
                    D.C. Federal Credit Union Washington, DC $0.50
                    p. 2

​

          And see if there are any derivative agreements to SWAP out futures for "Secret Service" employees or others whose "business situs" was in Washington DC.
 

          It is matters such as these that "pension fraud" absolutely becomes about the standards set and applied via housing policy that is used to form the basis for the financiability of the attendant organizations. Insofar as that is the case, then any outstanding "warrants" or audits on the application of warrants by Treasury concerning purchase or sale options connected to any corporations that applied for TARP need to be addressed as part of attending to any debt service obligations that are now due.

​

          PPIP needs to get over the Civil War. In that regards, see pps. 9-13 for a list of "persons" available for consideration.

          We also need a review of the intermittent 10 years between this and its anniversary date:

                    Termination of the $5,000,000,000 Master Agreement between Citigroup and the UST, and FDIC occurred on

                    December 23, 2009 due to the improvement of Citigroup's financial condition and financial market stability.

​

​

          And what was done after the "termination" of this "Master Agreement?" In other words, an audit is due. Because, certain things have a statute of limitations of ten years and we can and will not let this go without an appropriate consideration, especially insofar as Treasury acknowledged its importance with such special selection. Specific attention should be paid to any major accounts that remained in in the "red" so to speak that had to be liquidated later in order to cover for potential pending defaults that were indeed available for appropriate accounting at the time of this alleged agreement that Citigroup had "stabilized." If that is the case, then there also needs to be considered current valuations of "risk credit" and to determine if in fact it is a "credit" to Citigroup or something...else.
 

          It is especially important because of this classification:
                    U.S. Treasury Department Office of Financial Stability
                    Troubled Asset Relief Program
                    Insurance Contracts [Section 105(a)(3)(B)]
                    For Period Ending October 31, 2019

          There is currently an Executive Order discussing "contractors" that is dated for Oct. 31, 2019. This, however, does NOT address PREVIOUS Executive Orders with the same day that undoubtedly are part of efforts that Citi was able to avail itself of in the ten years since it allegedly "improved" its "financial condition."
 

                    p. 14

​

          There is also a one-year benchmark coming up on the Federal Reserve's "Standardized Approach for Calculating Risk Amounts for Derivative Contracts" that is due on Dec. 17, 2019. All warrants and the terms of their alleged "repayments" and any associated "derivative transactions" that may still have any outstanding obligations attached to them need to be audited to assess for any potential reconsideration of financiability and refinancing.

​

​

12:18 pm CST
Nov. 28, 2019

​

Proofread and posted at 2:25 pm CST on Dec. 1, 2019

"day" not "date" at 9:01 pm CST on Dec. 1, 2019

​

​