The Theme in the contracts for FEDERAL FUNDS

Folks,

I have heard from numerous WGEN readers – some who have great access to those *contracts* for receiving FEDERAL FUNDS (STOLEN MONEY).

First of all I need to make a comment that I failed to make when I asked for your help on this matter…  There isn’t a cookie cutter contract as each **GRANT** is for a specific use by a specific agency so each *contract* is going to have different wording – BUT – I have a strong hunch that there is a common theme that is in each and every contract – and that is the part that locks the CHAINS on our wrists, or the noose around our neck, when those funds are accepted.  That is why I am hopeful that many of you will be able to obtain copies of those **contracts** in your local areas so that we can find that COMMON THEME.    QUESTION YOUR LOCAL OFFICIALS and ask them for a copy of the contract that funds the Sheriffs department….  this may come thru some other name but the Sheriffs Office is the end recipient.

For instance, when you get a mortgage on your home you may obtain many different types of loans – FHA, VA, Conv,  etc. and they will each have TERMS that you must meet in order to get the funds.  It is the *failure* to meet those terms  that is followed by the CONSEQUENCES of failing to meet the terms you AGREED to when you accepted the
money (loan).   How many of you have ever really sat there at the CLOSING and read all that fine print you sign your name to?

It is those *CONSEQUENCES* that I want readers to become aware of.  It is that FINE PRINT that all these SHERIFFS have signed onto and are now declaring they will arrest or rebuke any Federal Agent that comes into their County to enforce the Soetoro orders on guns.  Granted, some of the Sheriffs may not have personally signed those contracts but they are made subject to those contracts by getting the funding.

That is the main thrust of my questions and points to the Sheriffs that are proclaiming they will not abide by Soetoro’s gun grab.  WHOSE LAW ARE THEY GOING TO OBEY?  The Constitution (2nd Amendment) or what Soetoro or  his  ilk  have falsely proclaimed to be *law*?

I am going to insert some of the responses including part of one contract that was sent in so you can get the gist of what others are saying and seeing.  We still need more so don’t stop and think this is over with – it isn’t.

Jackie Juntti
WGEN   idzrus@earthlink.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jackie, Those grants could all be different, however, if it’s federal money, say from the DEA, they’ve probably all got the same mandates in them. When I did my FOIA request of Washington State for grants accepted to implement the National Animal Identification System, (NAIS) it showed at the very bottom that the state of WA also agreed to abide by the Scenic Rivers Act. Later, when others started doing FOIA requests around the country for grants that their state had accepted, they all had that agreement to abide by the Scenic Rivers Act in them. My guess is a lot of county sheriffs probably don’t even know what all they agreed to in these grants. The best way to get a copy is to do a FOIA request for a copy of the grant.

“Since so few actually READ what they are signing many of those who sign may be ignorant of the terms but they aren’t ALL ignorant and that makes them complicit in telling out our RIGHTS.”

I see it as more than complicit. They have the responsibility to the public to read these agreements prior to signing. That’s their job. Reality is, they probably haven’t even read the first line of the document before they sign. Bottom line, all they’re interested in is the quick cash they’ll get for their department. That said, I do wonder how many are standing up in their county and saying they won’t go along with the feds not realizing that what they’ve already signed has put a noose around their neck.

Alice

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About 40% of city, state expenditures come from Federal grants, loans, matching funds, etc. They all come with strings: passing local laws or adopting AGenda 21,or planning
rules.All under the one size fits all. In Wash the 1992 Law requiring Comprehensive Planning, was formatted from Wash DC. Small communities get funding to create 1000 page documents delineating committees that need to be formed, new regulations, zoning, code enforcement, bla,. bla, bla. When the federal funds dry up, and they will, locals will be left with an unfunded nightmare.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jackie, the 26 pages attached to each of those “Grants” was why I would never sign any of them when in office. The feds don’t commit the criminal act, the elected officials do.
That was what I tried to explain to a lot of them, only to be out voted every time. I went back a couple years ago and tried to obtain copies of a couple grants the other commissioners approved that had those attachments in them.

Funny, but they could not locate them and I believe it was because I had exposed the fraud in a few meetings and told the people to go check it out. I did have copies of them from when I was in office so that I could show it to others. Someone borrowed my copy and now I don’t have one.

Andy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and this gem from Ev.

I am working on an email which hopefully will describe where I think we have gone with ‘grants’.

In the interim here are the requirements for one type of grant: HOME funding http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=20603_finalrule.pdf

Here is the portion of the above link which few elected officials read or know about. An unelected bureaucrat gets to decide how the rules are interpreted and what the price is if you do not adhere to their interpretation:

SUBPART L – PERFORMANCE REVIEWS AND SANCTIONS

§ 92.550 Performance Reviews

a. General. HUD will review the performance of each participating jurisdiction in carrying out its responsibilities under this part whenever determined necessary by HUD, but at least annually. In conducting performance reviews, HUD will rely primarily on information obtained from the participating jurisdiction’s and, as appropriate, the State recipient’s records and reports, findings from on-site monitoring, audit reports, and information generated from the disbursement and information system established by HUD. Where applicable, HUD may also consider relevant information pertaining to a participating jurisdiction’s or State recipient’s performance gained from other sources, including citizen comments, complaint determinations, and litigation. Reviews to determine compliance with specific requirements of this part will be conducted as necessary, with or without prior notice to the participating jurisdiction or State recipient. Comprehensive performance reviews under the standards in paragraph (b) of this section will be conducted after prior notice to the participating jurisdiction.

b. Standards for comprehensive performance review. A participating jurisdiction’s performance will be comprehensively reviewed periodically, as prescribed by HUD, to determine:

1. For local participating jurisdictions and State participating jurisdictions administering their own HOME programs, whether the participating jurisdiction has committed the HOME funds in the United States Treasury account as required by § 92.500 and expended the funds in the United States Treasury account as required by § 92.500, and has met the requirements of this part, particularly eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching requirements; or 902. For State participating jurisdictions distributing HOME funds to State recipients, whether the State has met the matching contribution and other requirements of this part; has distributed the funds in accordance with the requirements of this part; and has made such reviews and audits of its State recipients as may be appropriate to determine whether they have satisfied the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

§ 92.551 Corrective and Remedial Actions

a. General. HUD will use the procedures in this section in conducting the performance review as provided in § 92.550 and in taking corrective and remedial actions.

b. Performance review.

1. If HUD determines preliminarily that the participating jurisdiction has not met a requirement of this part, the participating jurisdiction will be given notice of this determination and an opportunity to demonstrate, within the time prescribed by HUD (not to exceed 30 days) and on the basis of substantial facts and data, that it has done so.

2. If the participating jurisdiction fails to demonstrate to HUD’s satisfaction that it has met the requirement, HUD will take corrective or remedial action in accordance with this section or § 92.552.

c. Corrective and remedial actions. Corrective or remedial actions for a performance deficiency (failure to meet a provision of this part) will be designed to prevent a continuation of the deficiency; mitigate, to the extent possible, its adverse effects or consequences; and prevent its recurrence.

1. HUD may instruct the participating jurisdiction to submit and comply with proposals for action to correct, mitigate and prevent a performance deficiency, including:

i. Preparing and following a schedule of actions for carrying out the affected activities, consisting of schedules, timetables, and milestones necessary to implement the affected activities;

ii. Establishing and following a management plan that assigns responsibilities for carrying out the remedial actions;

iii. Canceling or revising activities likely to be affected by the performance deficiency, before expending HOME funds for the activities;

iv. Reprogramming HOME funds that have not yet been expended from affected activities to other eligible activities;

v. Reimbursing its HOME Investment Trust Fund in any amount not used in accordance with the requirements of this part;

vi. Suspending disbursement of HOME funds for affected activities; and

vii. Making matching contributions as draws are made from the participating jurisdiction’s HOME Investment Trust Fund United States Treasury Account.

2. HUD may also change the method of payment from an advance to reimbursement basis; and take other remedies that may be legally available.

§ 92.552 Notice and Opportunity for Hearing; Sanctions

a. If HUD finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a participating jurisdiction has failed to comply with any provision of this part and until HUD is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply:

1. HUD shall reduce the funds in the participating jurisdiction’s HOME Investment Trust Fund by the amount of any expenditures that were not in accordance with the requirements of this part; and2. HUD may do one or more of the following:

i. Prevent withdrawals from the participating jurisdiction’s HOME Investment Trust Fund for activities affected by the failure to comply;

ii. Restrict the participating jurisdiction’s activities under this part to activities that conform to one or more model programs which HUD has developed in accordance with section 213 of the Act;

iii. Remove the participating jurisdiction from participation in allocations or reallocations of funds made available under subpart B or J of this part;

iv. Require the participating jurisdiction to make matching contributions in amounts required by § 92.218(a) as HOME funds are drawn from the participating jurisdiction’s HOME Investment Trust Fund United States Treasury Account. Provided, however, that HUD may on due notice suspend payments at any time after the issuance of a notice of opportunity for hearing pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, pending such hearing and a final decision, to the extent HUD determines such action necessary to preclude the further expenditure of funds for activities affected by the failure to comply.

b. Proceedings. When HUD proposes to take action pursuant to this section, the respondent in the proceedings will be the participating jurisdiction or, at HUD’s option, the State recipient. Proceedings will be conducted in accordance with 24 CFR part 26, subpart B.

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

%d bloggers like this: