Summarizing the main
concern associated with a “virtual identity”, namely, it requires all details
to work out exactly for those finding themselves in such positions to “pull it
off”. For example, 1) you cannot use my parents’ identities just because their
birth years IN BARBADOS (NOT THE USA) allow “identity dodgers”
and others to mask themselves behind this information to justify their
legitimacy see (How "Virtual" Identities are Sustained). Such misuses require the impostors to use only the
information that suites them while ignoring the critical facts, namely that my
parents married older (as previously documented), neither of them had
offspring outside their marriage and their first child; a stillbirth
wasn’t until circa 1947 and ALL THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN BARBADOS.
2) The Northeastern Structures’ existence cannot be used to assist
those with “virtual” identities parade themselves off as small business owners
here in the Midwest and elsewhere, while ignoring the existence
of The Lighthouse Project Corporation, (LPC), see (Hidden Dangers of... "Virtual" Identities), which is more difficult to
explain away because of its main functioning place (THE “HEART” OF INNER
CITY OF NEW HAVEN, CT), when in reality, one justifies the other. In other
words, the reason for the Northeastern Structures’ existence was to provide a
means of long-term financial support for the not-for-profit LPC. That is why,
when my association with the LPC ended, so did any interest in Northeastern
Structures. 3) Finally, the cooperation of an estranged spouse in keeping up
appearances that benefit the impostor’ existence. For example, another
American Community Survey was delivered to this address on 12/31/2011 similar to
January of 2007. I would not even be aware of what occurred had not this
follow-up card been delivered on 1/4/2012.
This Form was secretly completed and
returned (mailed) the same day by my estranged spouse (with whatever she chose
to include, and since she did not have the courtesy to inform me of the information she included, I am questioning its accuracy).
All of the scenarios described require deception, by relying of bits and pieces of selected borrowed history (or information) while ignoring the factual details that are more difficult to explain and hoping that repetitive advertising will make “ghosts” of the details being ignored to make it “go away” in an effort to convey the appearance of legitimacy with their “virtual” identities.
P.S. I am still awaiting the outcome of the Court in the resubmitted Waiver Request of 12/19/2011 that was due in Court on 1/3/2012, by this occasion in the previous instance (of the initial Waiver – 2 days after), written notification of the Court’s decision had been received. - See comment update below.
 |
| ...Community Survey Follow-up Notification Card |
All of the scenarios described require deception, by relying of bits and pieces of selected borrowed history (or information) while ignoring the factual details that are more difficult to explain and hoping that repetitive advertising will make “ghosts” of the details being ignored to make it “go away” in an effort to convey the appearance of legitimacy with their “virtual” identities.
P.S. I am still awaiting the outcome of the Court in the resubmitted Waiver Request of 12/19/2011 that was due in Court on 1/3/2012, by this occasion in the previous instance (of the initial Waiver – 2 days after), written notification of the Court’s decision had been received. - See comment update below.
20 comments:
THE COURT'S APPROVAL OF THE MEDIATION WAIVER MOTION WAS FINALLY RECEIVED ON 1/14/2011
Effective immediately, i am taking over all activities associated with my divorce proceedings since my attorney has been too busy to keep me informed of critical developments. In this manner we can both gain our respective interests, he can go on with the other activities that has preoccupied him and I can focus on my divorce to see it through completion.
I was informed by the Court Clerk's Office earlier today that a ruling was mailed out to me in the divorce yesterday, which I should be receiving today, it will be noted here when it's received.
I received the court's ruling of 2/7/2012 trying to determine whether or not I was seeking a Default, and a follow-up was made to the Clerk's Office to determine if my default submission of 2/1/2012 was not considered. She is attempting to obtain details for me, but that will not take place today as their office closes early on Tuesday's & Thursdays.
The Judge who made the Ruling of 2/7/2012 is apparently the same Judge that rejected the two (2) initial Waivers and is apparently unaware of the approval of the eventual waiver by a different Judge nor about the Default motion submitted on 2/1/2012.
The Court Clerk's office informed me that the Default/Decree motion filed file by me on 2/1/2012 will be going to the Judge on 2/13/2012 for a determination.
An actual Default/Decree motion was filed today at 11:30 am in follow-up to the previous intent to file such on 2/1/2012; for action by the Court.
On 3/8/2012 a request was made to the Court for the Judge's approval of the final Divorce Decree, which was suppossed to go for a decision the same day, according to the Clerk.
The Judge did rule on my request for approval of my Divorce Decree of the March 8, 2012 by requesting that it be established that the Respondent does reside at 8263 140th Ave, Olin, IA 52320, at a hearing set for April 2, 2012 before approving the Decree, (which I obtained at the Courthouse on 3/13/2012). Implicit in the ruliing was that the Court wanted to be sure that the Respondent was aware of the ongoing actions about the Divorce Proceedings since Dejon Brazant (the son of the Petitioner and the Respondent) received the original Petition served and gave it the Respondent.
A request was immediately made to the Court for consideration of the fact that the Written Notice of Default was presented to the Respondent at the property at 8263 140th Ave., Olin, IA 52320 on February 1, 2012 and what was implicit in the Note on the Written Order of Intent was the removal of the name of the Petitioner from the property currently jointy owned by the Petitioner and the Respondent (8263 140th Ave., Olin., IA 52320) on the completion of the divorce and replacing it with the name of the adult son of the Petitioner and the Respondent, Dejon Brazant in order that the property would no longer be jointly owned by the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Court was requested to again review the case as It was on March 8, 2012; but with the subject clarification.
UPDATE OF 3/14/2012 COMMENT:
The Judge did rule on my request for approval of my Divorce Decree of the March 8, 2012 by requesting that it be established that the Respondent does reside at 8263 140th Ave, Olin, IA 52320, at a hearing set for April 2, 2012 before approving the Decree, (which I obtained at the Courthouse on 3/13/2012). Implicit in the ruliing was that the Court wanted to be sure that the Respondent was aware of the ongoing actions about the Divorce Proceedings since Dejon Brazant (the son of the Petitioner and the Respondent) received the original Petition served (and gave it the Respondent).
A request was immediately filed on 3/13/2012 to the Court for consideration of the fact that the Written Notice of Default was presented to the Respondent at the property at 8263 140th Ave., Olin, IA 52320 on February 1, 2012 and what was implicit in the Note on the Written Order of Intent was the removal of the name of the Petitioner from the property currently jointy owned by the Petitioner and the Respondent (8263 140th Ave., Olin., IA 52320) on the completion of the divorce and replacing it with the name of the adult son of the Petitioner and the Respondent, Dejon Brazant in order that the property would no longer be jointly owned by the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Court was requested to again review the case as was done on March 8, 2012; but with the subject clarification.
Communication with the office of the Clerk of the Court earlier today (3/20/2012) resulted in clarification about the intent of the immediate response on 3/13/2012 to the ruling of the Judge on 3/8/2012, on the Divorce Decree. It will be submitted to the Judge for a ruling on 3/26/2012.
An Addendum to the Request for Reconsideration of 3/13/2012 for Approval of the Divorce Decree with clarifications (originally submitted on 3/8/2012, & now scheduled for an opinion fom the Court on 3/26/2012), was offered to support the updated information that provided details to satisfy the Court’s concerns for the address of the Respondent as well as the issue regarding the property transfer to the son of the Petitioner and the Respondent; in the form of her signature on the March 23, 2012 Real Estate Taxes Money Order payment for the March, 2012 Property Tax payment and copies of the March 1, 2012 Quit Claim Deeds initiated to remove my name and add Dejon’s to the property (unsigned by the Respondent), were provided in this regard.
The Court's ruling of today 3/26/2012 basically left the previous hearing date of 4/2/2012 in place for demonstration on my part that the Respondent resides at 8263 140th Avenue, Olin, IA 52320 and that she is aware of the Divorce proceedings, [which she decided and chose to ignore]. Compliance with the Court's requests will be attempted at that time, to the best of my ability.
A written response to the Ruling of the Court of 3/26/2012 has been prepared and will be mailed out today via US Postal Service Mail, whenever pick-up for today occurs, documenting, that in addition to my Pleadings to the Court being called into question as noted in the Ruling, [which she (my estranged spouse) has been provided copies of], the following is also called into question: 1) the original Petition served, that was given to her by Dejon, (which she purposely removed herself from receiving when the Representative of the Office of the Sheriff turned up at our address (8263 140th Avenue, Olin, IA 52320 as she had been made aware of what was forthcoming), 2) the Pleadings by the Attorney who previously represented me and made copies of all available to her via US Postal Service Mail at the noted address and 3) the various Rulings of the Court to the various Pleadings by the Attorney and myself on, which she was copied and received via US Postal Service Mail. Therefore, since she made the decision and chose to ignore all of the above, I cannot in good conscience provide any explanation on her behalf why she chose such a course of action, only she can do that to the Court. This is the basis of my written response to the Court dated 3/28/2012
The two (2) page written response has now been mailed @ approximately 2:10 pm.
Communication with Clerk of the Court's Office on 4/3/2012 revealed that the Judge's Ruling on my written response to the Hearing, (WHICH I DID NOT ATTEND, as I was providing support to my brain-traumatized adult daughter Danielle in her Ankeny, IA facility, as stated in the Response); was being mailed out on 4/4/2012. NB: I WAS THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL THERE, AND THE DECISION BY THAT FACILITY TO SUDDENLY RUSH HER RELEASE WILL NOT SOMEHOW "MAGICALLY" ALTER THIS FACT AND PLACE SOME "VIRTUAL" IDENTITY THIEF/ENTOURAGE (TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND THE HEARING) AT HER FACILITY. When will these frauds & their Gatekeepers give up and find lives of their own?
Communication with Clerk of the Court's Office on 4/3/2012 revealed that the Judge's Ruling on my written response to the Hearing, (WHICH I DID NOT ATTEND, as I was providing support to my brain-traumatized adult daughter Danielle in her Ankeny, IA facility, as stated in the Response); was being mailed out on 4/4/2012. NB: THERE WAS NO OTHER INDIVIDUAL THERE BUT ME, AND THE DECISION BY THAT FACILITY TO RUSH HER RELEASE WILL NOT SOMEHOW "MAGICALLY" ALTER THIS FACT AND PLACE SOME "VIRTUAL" IDENTITY THIEF/ENTOURAGE [TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND THE HEARING (see the post "SIGNS OF SPRING AT 8263 140TH AVENUE")], AT HER FACILITY. When will these frauds & their Gatekeepers give up, you have caused enough trauma in her life? Going through all these twists and turns will NOT MAKE THE FRAUDS LEGAL RESIDENTS/CITIZENS OF THE USA, regardless of who/what entity/entities is/are providing these "virtuals" with support.
Whenever the results of the Judge’s Ruling on my Divorce Decree Hearing of 4/2/2012 is received here at 8263 140th Avenue, Olin, IA 52320, it will be documented here.
The Judge’s Ruling of 4/2/2012 reset the Divorce Hearing for 4/16/2012 based on my request to be excused on that date.
THE DIVORCE DEFAULT DECREE HAS BEEN APPROVED!
Post a Comment