Citizen Sues Atlanta Fed

[David Merrill]

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

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]

[Trust Guy]

dreams !

[David Merrill]

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]

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"

[David Merrill]

That applies only to minting currency for the state. I do not believe any states have exercised that right - at least not since the Fed in 1913.

[hvncb]

That applies only to minting currency for the state. I do not believe any states have exercised that right - at least not since the Fed in 1913.

I am sure I may be missing something, but, I don't see it in regards 'minting.' Article 1 Section 10.1 forbids the States from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender. I imagine, 'making' can be equated w/ 'minting' but can also be read as 'allowing', etc. What the states 'have made' 'legal tender' is FRNs, this is not what is required by Art 1 Sect 10....

The Constitution forbids the federal government from making decisions regarding legal tender, since it is not authorized to do so. By default, it is a lack of authorization which prohibits the federal government from doing so, but, back to the states.

Refer to amendments 9 & 10. Basically, anything that the federal government is not authorized to do is a right of the States or the people UNLESS the States are forbidden, which in this case they are as per Article 1 Section 10.1

On the one hand, the federal government is prohibited from printing fiat money since there is no specific authorization for it in the Constitution. On the other, the States are also prohibited from printing (your minting) fiat currency because Article 1 Section 10.1 limits States to only using gold or silver as money. So, neither the federal government nor the state governments are authorized to coin money or emit bills of credit. The only thing that is allowed under the Constitution is for states too make gold and silver "a tender in payment of debts". ....so, back to question which perhaps seems rather simple to my simple mind but;

"How can any corporation register in any of the states when the states can only accept gold and silver?" when...there is no gold or silver. In fact, how can any state charge for anything when they are explicitly prohibited from doing so unless it is gold or silver coin?

[David Merrill]

I am speaking to your citation:

coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

[hvncb]

all right...I try again..... a state cannot (a) coin money (b) make anything but (gold and silver) coin a tender of payment, etc. So, the silver-gold they have no authority to coin comes from outside the state AND be the only tender of payment made. If there is no such coin available, then, the state cannot make "tender...payment" period. Has this inability to tender payment by a state been challenged? What were to happen?...curious.

also see:

http://www.constitutionaltender.com/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/at-least-10-states-have-introduced-gold-coins-as-currency-bills.php

[Richard Earl]

Any news on the case of this thread? Any action on the motion to dismiss by the bank attorners?