Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed

[David Merrill]

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.

[Banja]

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.

[Trust Guy]

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 .

[David Merrill]

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.

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:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

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].)

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 El 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 .

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.

[Richard Earl]

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.

[Amaz]

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.

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.

[David Merrill]

Better yet, a private attorney general would hire a professional private investigator to do that.

[Amaz]

Better yet, a private attorney general would hire a professional private investigator to do that.

Which I be... and it works every time...I wonder if we are related...lol....A P.I. can actually go in as a Factual Witness....

[powder]

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.

[hvncb]

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.

How can any corporation register in any of the states when the states can only accept gold and silver? "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"