Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed

  1. #21
    yep.. thank you for the update!

  2. #22

  3. #23
    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.

  4. #24
    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.
    Last edited by Richard Earl; 06-24-11 at 02:06 AM.

  5. #25
    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.


    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.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 06-24-11 at 09:37 AM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    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.
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

  7. #27
    Thank you! In your studies and experience do you understand how Scott might be trying to apply the doctrine?

  8. #28
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    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 .
    Last edited by Trust Guy; 06-25-11 at 01:40 AM. Reason: add reflection
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

  9. #29
    Yes, qui tam action. That is what I was thinking when you described the PAG.

  10. #30
    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.
    Last edited by Richard Earl; 06-25-11 at 03:19 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •