Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed

[allodial]

From the Fed Act:

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}".

The franchise ended in 1933. Was there any renewal? Perhaps it was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? What exactly is the Federal Reserve System?

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.

(B) ...unless its franchise becomes forfeited by law.

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?

***

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.)

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?)

Perhaps this might be relevant:

The Federal Reserve - Its Origins, History & Current Strategy

[ Remember Alan Greenspan was knighted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_o...British_Empire ]

[Sovereignty]

What's the chance the court will rule he has no standing?

[Trust Guy]

--which under most state SoS laws might not constitute "doing business in {state-name}".

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 .

What's the chance the court will rule he has no standing?

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 .