Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed

[Chex]

Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed

Case Number 11-61058-Civ-MOORE/TORRES

[David Merrill]

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!

[David Merrill]

Interesting point about that:






The clerk of court (apparently) changed the due date for the Answer to 60 Days - treating the FRB as a Government Employee.

[Trust Guy]

Short , sweet , succinct and Pro Se all the way. Gotta LOVE IT.

[allodial]

According to the FRB Charter..windup results in all assets vesting in the US Department of the Treasury or the like.

[David Merrill]

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:

[osbogosley]

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.

[David Merrill]

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:

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.

[allodial]

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...

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.

[David Merrill]

From the Fed Act:

[Trust Guy]

AKERMAN SENTERFITTMichael 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

[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 .

[David Merrill]

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.