Yesterday there was a video feed on CNN about young indigenous women in Montana that went missing and were later found dead. They identified as Cheyenne and lived on a reservation on the southern border of Montana.

Today there is an article about a man in Pennsylvania who allegedly moved into a woman's house after he killed her and pretended to be her on social media. He is set to go to court in a federal district court tomorrow.

 

Today there is also an article about a girl who was at first feared killed in a fire in Georgia and is now being charged with murder. Apparently she was caught driving a stolen Chevy Malibu.

​

Yesterday evening I was looking up information on my suspicions that what I had viewed in the CNN video was connected to my investigations into the misuse of tribal names and other identifying information in connection with "vehicle" reports. In 2017 I filed a Petition for a Writ in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals alleging a pattern of racketeering activity connected to the use of indigenous identifiers was used in acts of human trafficking. In my research last night, I found an article concerning the patent on a new Chevy "Cheyenne SS" that was approved on the same day as what is the anniversary of the following:

​

 

• A motion I filed in connection with a Leave of Information in the Texas Supreme Court requesting to withdraw as I understood that on Oct. 17, 2017 there were pending five bond issues for "housing" (two in Ohio, two in California, and one in Illinois) that had concerning metric correlations regarding the amounts of the issues as well as the names of the law firms involved in this issuance; and

• A major bond issue through the New York Transitional Finance Authority for two days of bond issues followed by a third day on a "refund" bond a year later.

There is also an annoucncement from 2019 that two days after the anniversary of my motion -- which is not posted on the Supreme Court website and was never acknowledged by the Clerk of the Court as being received despite the fact that others had been -- that Hillary Clinton was "withdrawing" from a conference on Women in Leadership and was attempting to disparage a Congresswoman as being a "Russian Spy." It would seem there are contrary reports now available saying that Clinton did not actually call her a "Russian spy" but rather insinuated that she was "favored by the Russians." At the time the headlines were alleging Clinton was calling her out for suspicions of collusion with Russia. The fact that Tulsi Gabbord is a veteran was not adequately explored in this situation. I reported elsewhere how this announcement correlated with other announcements concerning the then-current Secretary of Energy and former Governor of Texas Rick Perry's retirement.

Are the three anouncements from yesterday and today related? I believe so. A while ago I came across a recounting of a "myth" from Ireland regarding a Leprechaun. The myth went that a man walked into a woman's house and started to make himself at home. The woman came out and said that if he did something for her and then returned and set fire to the house, she would leave and he could take it for himself. In this recounting of the myth the man did this, the house was set afire, the woman left, and he got the house.

I was concerned at the time that this "myth" was being manipulated in a racist scheme that I had been both investigating and to which I had personally been subjected for going on two years at the time I found it over a year ago. The concept of "burning" the "house" had both literal and metaphorical implications. Concerning allegations of "Russian spying" the inference of "burning" a "house" can mean something very important at the highest levels, especially in regards to the implications of exposing political corruption, including corruption that was supposed to be "buried" or was supposed to be quieted through "nondisclose" agreements in civil or monetary settlements. In the betweens come the acts of people who are supposed to do something for someone and then they can return to take over a house that someone else was "burned" out of, as in something was found to be a justification for them to be displaced from their house.

I was raised by a mother who took great pride in her Irish heritage. She was what was often typified as an indentifiably "Irish woman" in that she had light skin with freckles, green hazel eyes and bright red hair. I did not inherit these specific phenotypical traits from my mother; I was more the blonde-haired blue-eyed girl that was for many years typified as the "All-American Girl" sort of archetype. But, I did inherit a bit of her "Irish temperment." There are those who think they know that that is supposed to be and how to take advantage of that.

Whether or not I am considered to be a part of a specific cultural paradigm otherwise is a personal, but also political, matter as far as I am concerned. I may or may not have indigenous ancestry in the land now known as "America." But, I do understand that the efforts to use "brands" and "symbols" that are sacred and significant to people of various spiritual and cultural tradition can be an imperative matter of consideration. I already know that there are several changes to laws in the last several years, even decades, that have used "vehicles" in derivative processes. A spiritually astute person can pick up this. I do all the time. It is NOT a sign of "mental illness" but it is something that has been manipulated as matter of opportunism. I am not revealing anything "confidential" or "classified." There is plenty of publicly accessible information on how "security" and "national security" functions have sought to use culturally significant methods to address strategies in a number of sectors. This was one among many of the concerns I had when I first began trying to inform people of my "investigation" into "behavioral science" techniques that had been sanctioned by Executive Order under former President Barack Obama and what appeared to be "derivative" uses of "tribal" factors as part of domestic and international policy.

I believe that the alarm being raised by the people in Montana is directly connected to the incidents in Pennsylvania and California. I had to contact a former colleague of mine in San Francisco a while back about concerns regarding theft of his identity. I have recently had need to contact someone associated with someone else I have not met from San Francisco but who works in a department of the same municipal government that I and my colleague used to work at. Several years ago there were suspect fires in San Francisco that had specificaly ethnic implications, as they ended up displacing people who had come from a neighborhood that had a long-standing relationship with the Latino and/or indigenous communities in San Francisco. The fire yesterday is in an area of San Francisco that for many years was the primary community for African American residents in the city, as well as others. It was also in an area that was known to have high levels of contamination from its proximity to a ship yard and was a locus for political organizing in the community as well as the city itself. It should also be known that shortly after I went to Chicago in 2015 there was reported to be a fire at another major institution of the Latino community there that had the same sort of suspect correlations. In the cases of concern, there was alleged to be an "electrical problem" that started the fire. Some of the people in San Francisco at least believed it was arson. I agree.

I recently learned that years ago in Texas there was what appeared to be a serious movement of people to protest the Smart Meter program. There was also it appears an active movement in Pennsylvania and California to protest the Smart Meter program. I was concerned to learn recently about certain Texas laws regarding "confidentiality" of information that I am attempting to challenge in court for being Unconstitutional. Among them is a law that would make certain "case information" regarding lawsuits involving "political subdivisions" "confidential." I contend it is part of a coverup not only for crimes that have occurred and intend to continue to be promulgated, but also a form of kickback scheme regarding places people worked where crimes were being committed.

I have been investigating these matters for their relationships to what I understand are certain pension scheme practices that at one point were accessible if one viewed publicly available information on certain investment funds and their specific contributions to various pension schemes. I was able to identify at least two specific investment funds and specific schemes involving assets in a number of countries that literally defined the "pattern" of "diverions" and "referrals" I was getting over and over again when I tried to access resources or file complaints. There were racial implications often associated with demographics that were determined to be associated with the specific scheme. Sometime in late summer of 2019, the information on many municipal pension plan sites changed. They stopped offering detailed information about the funders in their portfolios, but rather were providing "demographic" information about the people who were involved in the pension system. This "human capital" is different from the "capital contributions" of the investment fund managers that are using investments in municipal and public pensions funds in their respective portfolio management systems. The lack of disclosure about the specifics as they were previously available is I believe an intentional effort to prevent public disclosure about theft of people's intangible proterty and malfesance in various other public and private finance regimes.

I am disturbed that the person alleged to be implicated now in "murder" looks like my mother. I already know that the fire in San Francisco could have been prevented. But, in order to prevent it, the number I would have needed to call did not have a voicemail, much less a live person, to intercede with over the weekend. The call was attempted to be made two hours before the fire. Did I know that the call I needed to make was to stop a fire? No, but I knew it needed to be made to stop a racist crime.

It is also important to recall that there is a former "public defender" in San Francisco that was alleged to have died after having a heart attack. I believe they said he was a drug user and that there were drugs in his system when he died. He may well have actually been a drug user, but I suspect he was not and that the allegations regarding drugs were fraudulent. Even if they were true, he did not die of a heart attack. He was murdered. He had also been trying to investigate the San Francisco pension system. He was murdered in the same manner that the former mayor of San Francisco who was alleged to have died from a heart attack was murdered. He had a history of investigating the city contract procurement system.

I have been investigating these matters for a long time relatively speaking, not as long as some. I know these crimes will not stop until there is a not only "disclsoure" but a "market correction" of a sort. There are people and "assets" who have been intentionally mischaracterized in an effort to create liabilities associated with their human capital that can be leverged by others who have the means and have a need to offset their own potential liabilities using their access to those other assets that have been so characterized for that express purpose. These are NOT "civil" matters. These mischaracterizations accrue. There are those who know this very well.

It is very unfortunate that water main "broke" in Houston... 

I have a different perspective than some. I understand that in a specific "scheme" that the culmination is supposed to be some form of "insurance." The primary concern I have however is that because my past includes illegally acquired "insurance" billings that as of yet have NOT been corrected despite my efforts to report them, that the liabilities associated with the attendant fraud accrue and the risks "escalate." I believe it is an INTENTIONAL effort to defraud the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. For one thing, much of what would need to be assessed for coverge (and I understand on some level there is alleged to be justification for allowing defaults to accrue to these sort of fatal moments in order to "reinsure" terrorism insurance coverage policies in a preparation for an expansion of private terrorism risk insurance and other associated private insurance programs, such as "cyber insurance) has ALREADY been assessed via events in the past. But, for instance, at perhaps the highest level one could consider, a "nuclear facility" having to address the fallout from an attack (or an "accident") is going to be valued in a "developed" country with an economy that has the sort of GDP that Japan has in a manner much different than a past "nuclear catastrophe" in a place like the Soviet Union. There are other "acts of terrorism" and "accidents" that have happened on a large-scale in the last three years specifically that fit a pattern that is completely preventable. But it is not acknowledged and permitted for prevention. Why? Why now...19 years after 9/11? Some acts of "terrorism" I believe have been allowed to be reported in public as having had certain causes while others are characterized otherwise. But there is a specific pattern that includes "catastrophes" that are completely capable of being pre-empted if not altogether prevented. So, why continue to permit these events to occur?

I think at the core is that there was MASSIVE "insurance fraud" involved with the roll out of the Affordable Care Act marketplace, specifically in connection with designations and coverage for "mental health" issues that are now being attemped for subsumation and inculcation into "cyber insurance." I might feel differently if it HAD been San Francisco and NOT Georgia where the teen in the stolen car had been arrested after arson and allegedly killing her parents. But there is a major nuclear power plant in Georgia that's got a loan confirmation pending and the "mental" case that tried to cover the bridge has been ignored when she reported "fraud" and now TWO deadlines have been allowed to pass with nuclear defaults...but that is the sort of thing you won't find out about for 30 years...or is it?

You know now. "It was not a loan; it was a capital outlay."

For what? Who leverages the safety of nuclear facilities? And for what do they leverage it? It is NOT "insurance." But maybe this is...?

The thing about insurance is that it is supposed to be there for when you need it, but if you do it right, YOU DON'T NEED THIS KIND OF INSURANCE. 

I would like to think that 25 years of being hustled for political risk insurance for my opposition should be enough. By the way, it was a crime.

​

8:57 pm CST
March 1, 2020

 

​