Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed
Case Number 11-61058-Civ-MOORE/TORRES
Printable View
Thank you!
The simplicity is eloquent.
Click Here.
P.S. I have sent Gregory Scott a link to this post and left a phone message encouraging him to please register and narrate here!
Interesting point about that:
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/1...cture002oq.jpg
The clerk of court (apparently) changed the due date for the Answer to 60 Days - treating the FRB as a Government Employee.
Short , sweet , succinct and Pro Se all the way. Gotta LOVE IT.
According to the FRB Charter..windup results in all assets vesting in the US Department of the Treasury or the like.
Get this! When the FRB needs to evade taxes, they are an agency of the Government - an instrumentality. For the purposes of defending this particular case though:
Thanks David for suggesting this link for my perusal. This is great. You'd think they could defend themselves now.
Does the FRB know what "money" is? Maybe someone could sell them that info.
You are welcome.
This brings me to ponder about the IRS. Also, the notion about publishing a corporate charter with the Secretary of State?
Crosstalk:
Quote:
I forwarded the original email to the sender of this one. The reason is kind of self explanatory. He has a hell of a web site.
This man authored the Federal Zone: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm
-------Original Message-------
From:
Date: 6/8/2011 7:04:13 AM
To: Cc:
Subject: Re: Fw: IRS - FRB being sued
That was tried many years ago, at the USDC in San Francisco.
I think what the Plaintiff should also consider is an APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta should not be ordered to register with the Florida Secretary of State as a "foreign corporation" -- because it was created originally by an Act of Congress: Lewis v. United States:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/lewis/
See definitions of "foreign" and "domestic" corporations here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm
We tried to request an Attorney General Opinion from the Washington State AG, several months ago, but their reply
was that I was not eligible to request same because a private Citizen is not listed in State statutes as someone eligible to do so, even though I am also a Private Attorney General.
Moreover, we have not been able to find any Federal Regulations implementing the Federal Reserve Act as amended.
When Congress creates a Federal corporation, it does so in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone: Daly v. The National Life Insurance Company of the USA:
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-a.htm
Same. -- Congress as a Local Legislature. -- Constitutional Law. -- An act of Congress creating a private corporation is the act of Congress as the local Legislature of the District of Columbia; as Congress can not, under the federal constitution, as the Congress of the United States, create a private corporation.
[end quote]
According, the original Federal Reserve Act also appears to be Federal MUNICIPAL law.
If FRB Atlanta is acting outside of its original charter then the requirement for registration with the State of Florida might have merit on top of directors of FRB Atlanta being personally liable UNDER FLORIDA/STATE LAW for ultra vires acts, fraud, etc.Quote:
I think what the Plaintiff should also consider is an APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta should not be ordered to register with the Florida Secretary of State as a "foreign corporation" -- because it was created originally by an Act of Congress...
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
“ * * * as undersigned counsel has only recently been retained * * * “
Retained and not assigned . Hummm . . .
AKERMAN SENTERFITT - Over 500 Lawyers and Government Affairs Professionals .
“ Akerman serves clients throughout the United States and overseas from Florida, New York, Washington, D.C., California, Virginia, Colorado, Texas, and Nevada. We are ranked among the top 100 law firms in the U.S. by The National Law Journal NLJ 250 (2010) in number of lawyers and we are the largest firm in Florida.”
Financial Institutions Commercial Litigation - "This firm continues to represent the Florida Bankers Association (FBA) and is actively involved in lobbying, drafting and reviewing new legislation. The transactional practice includes M&A as well as capital raisings for community banks." (Chambers USA)
Chambers USA: Ranked as one of the leading Banking & Finance law firms in Florida since 2003.
The Best Lawyers in America: Top listed in Banking Law in Florida
Pretty big dogs by the look of it . Sending a younger pup as point .
Michael O. Mena, Esq - J.D., Columbia University School of Law, 2004; American Review of International Arbitration, Senior Editor B.A., University of Miami, 2001; cum laude, with honors
Key: To have its succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.
(A) Twenty years? How long has it been? Was there a renewal of the Federal Reserve Act? Perhaps the 1933 extension was under bankruptcy with the FRB as creditors 'enforcing debts' --which under most state SoS laws might not constitute "doing business in {state-name}".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...m-Seal.svg.png
The franchise ended in 1933. :) Was there any renewal? Perhaps it was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? What exactly is the Federal Reserve System?
(B) ...unless its franchise becomes forfeited by law.Quote:
In 1791, which was after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the government granted the First Bank of the United States a charter to operate as the U.S. central bank until 1811.[17] Unlike the prior attempt at a centralized currency, the increase in the federal government's power, granted to it by the constitution, allowed national central banks to possess a monopoly on the minting of U.S currency.[19] Nonetheless, the First Bank of the United States came to an end under President Madison because Congress refused to renew its charter. The Second Bank of the United States was established in 1816, and lost its authority to be the central bank of the U.S. twenty years later under President Jackson when its charter expired. Both banks were based upon the Bank of England.[20] Ultimately, a third national bank, known as the Federal Reserve, was established in 1913 and still exists to this day.
As for ultra vires acts, each director, president, vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta could be liable under state law. As in ___ vs {names of persons acting as director/Pres./VP/etc.} by name not by title/office. Also is acting beyond the term of the franchise a violation of law that terminates the franchise?
***
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/commun...money/seal.gif
Quote:
Before 1996 {80 YEARS BEYOND THE FRANCHISE}, a seal from a Federal Reserve Bank is printed on each bill. Beginning with the $100 bill in 1996, a general seal that represents the Federal Reserve System will replace individual bank seals. Currently, the letter on the seal matches the district number of that bank. The district number is located in the four corners of the bill.(Source FRB Minneapolis.)
Perhaps this might be relevant:Quote:
The following activities do not constitute “doing business” for profit corporations, and limited partnerships:
1. participating in litigation;
2. conducting internal affairs; {As in "internal" revenue?"]
3. keeping banks accounts;
4. having offices for the transfer and management of corporate securities; {FRNs?}
5. effectuating sales through independent contractors; {Bank tellers?}
6. procuring orders which require acceptance outside of Utah; {Orders for FRNs are fulfilled from the Federal Zone?}
7. creating, securing or collecting on its own debt;
8. owning property;
9. being involved in interstate commerce;
10. performing an isolated transaction; and
11. obtaining conditional sales contracts or debts, either in or outside of Utah, secured by property in
Utah.xii {Can you say "car note" or "mortgage"?}
(Source:What Constitutes Doing Business In Utah?)
The Federal Reserve - Its Origins, History & Current Strategy
[ Remember Alan Greenspan was knighted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_o...British_Empire ]
What's the chance the court will rule he has no standing?
Interesting point .
"in this State" as used in the California Motor Vehicle , Franchise Tax Codes and others ( plus every other State I've looked into ) defers to the Buck Act definition . "In this State" means within the exterior limits of the State ... and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.
Also understanding that maintaining bank accounts , managing credit , owning real estate and such are classified as not doing business in this State . Part of the whole banking swindle . And most profitable I might add .
However, the main contention of the case rests on "Counterfeiting" and Contract . A pretty novel and direct approach , IMO . One I think would side step all business related arguments for dismissal or ruling in favor of the Atlanta branch .
Plaintiff states he is in possession of a specific 1996 Note which was issued with no intention of redemption . He obviously considers this a Tort and has been harmed . He has standing .
Maybe the Judge will order his 100 Note be redeemed to cure .
I consider FRNs stock certificates - redeemable in lawful money. His complaint is the same as mine; I have just been facing facts a little more obliquely. Make your Demand and then leave all the counterfeiting to the banks if that is what they are doing with the funds - after redemption.
This guy seems a little more direct. I think he is just paying $350 for an opinion. He wrote back and said he would take a look at this thread. I am not going to dog him about it. Maybe I am projecting that is what he is up to because I too, am very interested in what the judge is going to say.
Regards,
David Merrill.
I've pondered FRNs as Stocks and at least they have a stated Par Value ( "worth" ) of 100 Cents per "Dollar" . Or used to .
It will certainly be interesting to see how the law firm crafts the Atty's . initial Answer / Motion for Dismissal . Particularly the "Status" claimed for his client . That should be amusing .
Yeah. Things like throwing the case so that the judge will not opine:
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/6...ufficients.jpg
The FRB attorneys are trying to make out that Scott Gregory was never injured.
I will describe the injury. At lawful money rates and redemption, Scott's $100 bill should buy over two ounces of gold. Look at the footnote - $42.22/troy ounce of gold. Instead Scott's bill will buy only a fraction of that - Spot being $1540/troy ounce. So Scott can only purchase about 1/15 an ounce today with it.
If you divide $1540/$42.22 you get about 1/20 value of his $100 bill. The bill if redeemed should be redeemed at its lawful money value. Lawful money (US notes) is not elastic nor is it to be used as reserve currency.
I am telling Scott!!
Thanks for the update David. Now to spend some quality time in x-refing .
yep.. thank you for the update!
You are welcome. For some background into that $42.22/troy ounce earmark price:
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/55/pl945643.jpg
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7357/pl945644.jpg
Scott tells me that he does not need to prove any personal injury because he is a private attorney general. The attorney general can revoke the Atlanta FRB (allegedly) and so Scott thinks he can too. That got me looking at the complaint and it looks like Scott makes a big presumption - that the FRB will not redeem its notes.
He can take his $100 note to any corner bank and redeem it with 4-$20, 1-$10, 1-$5 and 5-$1 bills; no questions asked. So I suggested he get on a response showing the injury described above.
Any attorney general would investigate and get some evidence - even a private attorney general. Scott has no evidence that the FRB issued notes with no intention of redeeming them.
Even as a private attorney general, I would think he still needs to prove that they have no intentions of redeeming them. Perhaps he can get them to open up their accounting and show proof that the $100.00 is redeemed all the way through according to policy.
That is my thought on it.
I do not know the names - maybe William THORNTON is one - but there are a couple Internet pundits who teach being a private attorney general. I imagine there might be a basis in law about it. It seems though, that one would at least need to conduct an investigation, like an attorney general does; maybe even through a private investigator etc.
I suppose there is some metaphysics that could be applied. Maybe some old statutes and code too. But to apply that metaphysic one would need to conduct themselves as an attorney general. Scott has simply presumed he knows the intent of the Atlanta FRB not to redeem their notes.
I have only glanced at the Motion to Dismiss but it is based on Scott failing to describe how he has been injured. Scott accuses the FRB of fraud in the hope the judge will refer the Information to the AG? Well, if Scott is the AG, then I don't make any sense of that either.
Quote:
Rule C(3)(a)(ii) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.
As I have some personal experience in this PAG business , thought I’d drop a few notes :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pri...eral-doctrine/
Private attorney general doctrine is an equitable principle that allows a party who brings a lawsuit that benefits a significant number of people or which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest to recover the attorney fees. The purpose of the doctrine is to encourage suits of societal importance which private parties would not otherwise have an incentive to pursue.
The following is an example of a State Statute (California) on the doctrine:
In California, the doctrine is codified in § 1021.5 of the Civil Procedure code. The relevant law reads as follows:
Cal Code Civ Proc § 1021.5 Attorney fees in cases resulting in public benefit.
Upon motion, a court may award attorneys' fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. With respect to actions involving public entities, this section applies to allowances against, but not in favor of, public entities, and no claim shall be required to be filed therefore, unless one or more successful parties and one or more opposing parties are public entities, in which case no claim shall be required to be filed therefore under Part 3 (commencing with Section 900) of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code.
Attorney's fees awarded to a public entity pursuant to this section shall not be increased or decreased by a multiplier based upon extrinsic circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------
Important Rights and the Private Attorney General Doctrine
Carl Cheng
California Law Review
Vol. 73, No. 6 (Dec., 1985), pp. 1929-1955
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3480376
----------------------------------------------------------
Both statutes [RICO and Clayton Act] bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate; the mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages.
[Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates]
[107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In rejecting a significantly different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that Congress itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers the objects of the Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.
[Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General, Private
The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees, if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons. Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722. See also Equal Access to Justice Act.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following California State statutes were recently amended by voter approval of Proposition 64. We leave these provisions here, for comparative historical purposes.
Private Attorney General statutes,
California Business and Professions Code
Section 17204. Actions for any relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or any district attorney or by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, or any city attorney of a city, or city and county, having a population in excess of 750,000, and, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city attorney in any city and county in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any board, officer, person, corporation or association or by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.
Section 17535. Any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization which violates or proposes to violate this chapter may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction.
The court may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization of any practices which violate this chapter, or which may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any practice in this chapter declared to be unlawful.
Actions for injunction under this section may be prosecuted by the Attorney General or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any board, officer, person, corporation or association or by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.
Thank you! In your studies and experience do you understand how Scott might be trying to apply the doctrine?
I was unaware he was claiming PAG status. Wouldn’t have surmised that from his filings. Am also unaware of PAG specifics within the Venue of his suit .
One may declare PAG status in investigation / prosecution of matters pertaining to the ( so called ) “Public Good” . Most often applied in matters classified , “of Civil Rights” . Less often in matters of mis / malfeasance of Office or Appointment .
Our efforts in Orange County California were pursued by Citizens , Ex Rel : County of Orange . The Investigative Grand Jury was presided over by a “Justice” voted by the group , and assisted by someone requested to take the mantel of PAG .
Other cases I’ve seen were pursued by individuals via Qui tam action .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reflecting momentarily , he might be holding the claim in reserve as defense against a Nuisance suit for damages . Having PAG Status recognized in court would provide protection as a Government Witness. Unless he originally brought this matter up for investigation by some "Authority" , and was rebuffed , I'm not sure how this strategy would properly apply either .
Yes, qui tam action. That is what I was thinking when you described the PAG.
With some brief information on qui tam action, this gets a little more interesting.
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729
The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, also called the "Lincoln Law") is an American federal law which allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions against federal contractors claiming fraud against the government. *from wikipedia
This could fall into that category.
I suppose he has to show that the FRB is not accounting for redeemed money.
Exactly. If you look at his complaint he makes that assumption. He says the FRB never intended to redeem the notes. I just cannot see, without express intent to appear PAG how any judge can accept that as anything more than whimsical mind-reading. If he is PAG in fact though, he would exercise that authority to gather evidence for an indictment before going into the USDC for a judgment/remedy.
Thank you Trust Guy!
It appears that statute has redacted PAG to a reward process to regain the expense of that investigation, among others - today's version of a qui tam action. For one thing though, it looks like you must proceed under licensure of the Bar; at least according to statute. You simply become an attorney for the general public instead of a specific client.
Maybe I am reading the response incorrectly, however it seems to me that the Motion to Dismiss is based mainly on two points.
A. There has been no injury - hence no standing, which I believe you all are discussing with reference to the PAG.
B. That Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money.
"Plaintiff's apparent attempt to allege that his "redemption right" under 12 U.S.C. § 411
has somehow been violated, however, is wholly without merit under the law. Section 16 of the
Federal Reserve Act states, in relevant part, that "Federal Reserve notes… shall be redeemed in
lawful money on demand…at any Federal Reserve bank." 12 U.S.C. § 411. However, Federal
Reserve notes have been designated as "legal tender" by Congress under 31 U.S.C. § 5103.
Accordingly, such notes are "lawful money" as that term is used in Section 16 of the Federal
Reserve Act.
By this, the FRB-Atlanta is saying that FRN's are "legal tender" & "lawful money" which would essentially make 12 U.S.C. § 411 irrelevant. This argument seems idiotic on its face because that would negate the existence of US Notes and the laws that demand that US Notes be in existence.
Am I wrong in my assertion on point B, if not how does that argument get countered.
You’re most welcome David . Exercising PAG and Private Jury authority is near and dear to my heart. I am grateful to have this forum as platform for understanding .
The last few years has seen a push by the Court Systems and Code writers to compartmentalize the PAG powers into narrow areas of action . This does not really change or diminish the wide sweep of PAG authority .
“Under the BAR” ? In their dreams !
The process is to bring privately held evidence of crime to the attention of an “Authority” for verification , remedial action and , lately , protection and remuneration of the original party . If no action is taken at that level , the individual may proceed Ex Rel .
The entire structure of PAG and Jury may also be implemented when it can be shown all “Authoritative Parties” are disqualified to proceed due to Conflicts of , or Personal Interest in , a given activity , malicious act or Administrative oversight causing harm .
Example : The Orange County Prosecutor investigating the whys and wherefores of the Sheriff’s Oath not being on Public File , per State Statute and local Regulations . Void Office acting under Color of Law .
Few enough are willing to be “whistle blowers” as it were . Fewer still are willing or able to pursue a matter Ex Rel .
Keep in mind that Statutes do not replace existing Statute or Law , unless specifically stated in the body of the text with appropriate empowerment clauses . New Statutes on a given subject are otherwise meant to be construed in harmony with the prior and supplemental in nature . The basis of PAG authority and reach has not diminished . Only it’s understanding and implementation by the People capable of doing so .
No. I would not call you wrong - just approaching from an incorrect perspective. FRNs can function as lawful money but only when fully bonded and not accessible as a reserve currency. If you look into Title 31 as I described Scott's injury, you may see what I mean.
The courts do not describe FRNs to be lawful money:
andQuote:
Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182
Once in your hand, the only issue remaining is did you endorse private credit? (You are holding Fed notes.) Or did you demand lawful money? (You are holding US notes in the form of Fed notes [since 1971].)Quote:
Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400
I agree with you. The metaphysics of the authority in my opinion would demand that Scott had investigated into the "intentions" of the FRB not to redeem lawful money and formed a factual indictment before suing.
Regards,
David Merrill.
I would think Scott should have some information on the balance sheet as discussed here.
Fed Balance Sheet Grows To Record $2.86 Trillion
I hope Scott decides to sign up here and discuss this with us.
I would have sent a foia to the fed reserve first to get there interpretation of lawful money by code based off of a certified/seald copy of the defintion and or meaning per U.S.C. And then send another foia asking if lawful money is redeemable at the FRB by Code (using that specific code certified)....Then I would also do the same for Treas ........always remember the rules of evidence and how to get it in.
Better yet, a private attorney general would hire a professional private investigator to do that.
The problem is not the presumption of the FRB not redeeming the notes. The issue is the assumption the redemption is for gold. The definitions of words have been shifted, per above, to identify redemption into another species can occur or may not even be required as the notes are 'lawful money'.
If he is pursuing the PAG angle, good on him. Hope he knows enough to put certificates into the evidence jacket.
IMO, I think it is fruitless.