Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed

[Trust Guy]

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 .

[David Merrill]

Yeah. Things like throwing the case so that the judge will not opine:

[allodial]

yeah. Things like throwing the case so that the judge will not opine:

18 usc 241.

[David Merrill]

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!!

[Trust Guy]

Thanks for the update David. Now to spend some quality time in x-refing .

[Richard Earl]

yep.. thank you for the update!

[David Merrill]

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

[David Merrill]

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.

[Richard Earl]

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.

[David Merrill]

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.

[Trust Guy]

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/private-attorney-general-doctrine/

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3480376

[David Merrill]

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

[Trust Guy]

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 .

[David Merrill]

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

[Richard Earl]

With some brief information on qui tam action, this gets a little more interesting.