Another pro se lawsuit against the Federal Reserve

[fortinbras]

Scott Beach has just filed a pro se complaint to revoke all the charters of the Federal Reserve Banks on the premise that they do not intend to "redeem" FRNs that the Federal Reserve System is producing. This harkens back to the provision in the 1913 Federal Reserve Law that the FRNs would be redeemed "in lawful money" (a term somewhat more expansive than "legal tender"), indicating that FRNs were interchangeable with the several different currencies in use in 1913: US Notes, Silver Certificates, Gold Certificates, Gold and Silver coins, non-precious coins, etc.

Of course, now, the FRN has outlived all other forms of paper money, and (except for the Mint's Gold & Silver Eagles) the coins are all non-precious, so FRNs are exchangeable for other FRNs or for current coins.

Here's the complaint (on a form that looks like it was bought at an office supply store):
http://web.me.com/scottbeach/Scott_Beac ... nta_1.html

[David Merrill]

Go Gregory Scott!

Viewing Title 31 U.S.C. and its premise of becoming positive law on adding the term currency to United States Notes, Page 1, Page 2, I think it is very clear that the Fed has had no intention of reconciling parity of US notes and Fed notes for quite some time now.

[Pottapaug1938]

Go Gregory Scott!

Viewing Title 31 U.S.C. and its premise of becoming positive law on adding the term currency to United States Notes, Page 1, Page 2, I think it is very clear that the Fed has had no intention of reconciling parity of US notes and Fed notes for quite some time now.

Go... back to sleep, David. You've never been right on anything to do with the Fed, before; and you've already been proven wrong on US notes/FRNs, so I have no reason to think that you're anywhere close to being right now.

[wserra]

FRCvP 12(b)(6) was written for "cases" like this.

[David Merrill]

FRCvP 12(b)(6) was written for "cases" like this.

Curious that after 60 days to respond, the first thing the Government wants is and Extension?

[Pottapaug1938]

FRCvP 12(b)(6) was written for "cases" like this.

Curious that after 60 days to respond, the first thing the Government wants is and Extension?

Without seeing the entire record, it's hard to say; but perhaps the Government wants to get all its legal ducks in a row so that, when the Motion to Dismiss is heard, the Government brief and the oral arguments (if any) will blow this suit out of the water before it gets started.

[David Merrill]

There's the whole record. - As of this morning.

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9716 ... rt6811.pdf

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/1879 ... e002oq.jpg - summons.

My point is that if the Rule Wserra cited is that slam-dunk, why would anybody need more than 60 days for such a simple Complaint?

[wserra]

My point is that if the Rule Wserra cited is that slam-dunk, why would anybody need more than 60 days for such a simple Complaint?

You haven't litigated a lot against the govt, have you?

Wait a second. The only times you've litigated at all, you've wound up in jail.

[Pottapaug1938]

There's the whole record. - As of this morning.

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9716 ... rt6811.pdf

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/1879 ... e002oq.jpg - summons.

My point is that if the Rule Wserra cited is that slam-dunk, why would anybody need more than 60 days for such a simple Complaint?

To quote myself -- accurately: "...perhaps the Government wants to get all its legal ducks in a row so that, when the Motion to Dismiss is heard, the Government brief and the oral arguments (if any) will blow this suit out of the water before it gets started."

[David Merrill]

Anybody who matters reading here gets my point about honesty Poppycock;


The rest will get it after examining this Post. Whenever the FRB wants to avoid paying taxes they plead that they are an agency, "instrumentality" of the US Government, but when it comes to being sued in this case:





There is the real reason for the Extension Wesley!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Gregg]

The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are private corporations, owned by the member banks. They pay the member banks a set dividend and the rest of any profit they make is paid to the Treasury, it may not legally be tax, I honestly dunno, but paying 100% of your retained earnings to the government looks like a tax to me.
The Federal Reserve Board, which oversees the Federal Reserve Banks, is a government entity, and of course would not owe any tax.

[notorial dissent]

The Federal Reserve Banks are wholly creatures of the Federal gov’t, established by Act of Congress, and as I remember the actual law, they can equally and ONLY be dissolved by act of Congress, so to my mind that makes them pretty much a creature of Congress. While the member banks in each district technically “own” stock in their district bank, the “stock” is basically only a membership certificate with no other characteristics of ownership attached. The “stock” can not be borrowed, pledged, given, or sold, and while it is technically “owned” by the member bank, if the bank is dissolved or insolvent, the “stock” goes back to the Fed and they get their membership fee back, which is incidently what they are getting a “dividend” on since the money they have in the “stock” would otherwise be used as part of the bank’s assets as backing. Each bank can only own an amount of stock equivalent to their asset base, and there is no set number of shares issued in the Fed bank since the shares are based on the assets of the joining bank. So in effect no entity other than Congress actually owns a Federal Reserve Bank. The member banks can not end it, dissolve it, or do anything else with it, that power ONLY resides with Congress, and that being the case whether it is actually spelled out or not, I would say that they Fed banks are actually owned by the gov’t.

The main point of this lawsuit is based on 12 usc 411, which doesn’t, and never did apply to individuals, and on that basis alone the suit should be dismissed for failure of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause for which relief can be granted. There is nothing in the law that applies to him as an individual. The fact that 12 usc 411 is archaic and has no modern function is just icing on the cake.

[David Merrill]

Re your point about the FRB evading taxes: could you cite the case or publication in which the FRB claims exemption from taxes? That would be very helpful; and thanks for getting back on topic....

I gave you this citation.


Interestingly, the linked cases describe the only thing that makes the FRB an instrumentality of the US Government is that its stock certificates, Federal Reserve Notes, are designed to depreciate over time - meaning that the stockholders are in that form of syndicalism. In other words if you endorse your paycheck, you agree to depreciate the stock you hold in the Fed - legally!

That is the only thing that makes the private corporation an Instrumnentality, an agency of the US Government!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

Re your point about the FRB evading taxes: could you cite the case or publication in which the FRB claims exemption from taxes? That would be very helpful; and thanks for getting back on topic....

I gave you this citation.


Interestingly, the linked cases describe the only thing that makes the FRB an instrumentality of the US Government is that its stock certificates, Federal Reserve Notes, are designed to depreciate over time - meaning that the stockholders are in that form of syndicalism. In other words if you endorse your paycheck, you agree to depreciate the stock you hold in the Fed - legally!

That is the only thing that makes the private corporation an Instrumnentality, an agency of the US Government!

Regards,

David Merrill.

Well, I have to give you credit for coming up with a case which seems to be on point; but as usual you're wrong on the interpretation. This is a case involving not taxes, but a special assessment for a business district. It's more akin to what you and your neighbors would pay to the town or city if your sidewalks were going to be torn up and replaced by something better.

However, you couldn't be more wrong when you claim that FRNs are stock certificates. Earlier, the nature of the true FRB stock was explained to you; but my even the most basic definitions of stock and stock certificates, FRNs don't even come closer to qualifying. As for the idea that FRNs are "designed to depreciate over time", this is another one of your many fantasies, and is just as devoid as the others are of fact, law or even logic.

You're still oh-for-everything.

[David Merrill]

I figure if I let you look at some of the related links for yourself, you might learn something.

Notes of the Federal Reserve are its stock certificates.

[David Merrill]

The Federal Reserve Banks are wholly creatures of the Federal gov’t, established by Act of Congress, and as I remember the actual law, they can equally and ONLY be dissolved by act of Congress, so to my mind that makes them pretty much a creature of Congress. While the member banks in each district technically “own” stock in their district bank, the “stock” is basically only a membership certificate with no other characteristics of ownership attached. The “stock” can not be borrowed, pledged, given, or sold, and while it is technically “owned” by the member bank, if the bank is dissolved or insolvent, the “stock” goes back to the Fed and they get their membership fee back, which is incidently what they are getting a “dividend” on since the money they have in the “stock” would otherwise be used as part of the bank’s assets as backing. Each bank can only own an amount of stock equivalent to their asset base, and there is no set number of shares issued in the Fed bank since the shares are based on the assets of the joining bank. So in effect no entity other than Congress actually owns a Federal Reserve Bank. The member banks can not end it, dissolve it, or do anything else with it, that power ONLY resides with Congress, and that being the case whether it is actually spelled out or not, I would say that they Fed banks are actually owned by the gov’t.

The main point of this lawsuit is based on 12 usc 411, which doesn’t, and never did apply to individuals, and on that basis alone the suit should be dismissed for failure of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause for which relief can be granted. There is nothing in the law that applies to him as an individual. The fact that 12 usc 411 is archaic and has no modern function is just icing on the cake.

Gotcha!!

[notorial dissent]

You mean the part about "unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress", seems to be something I said.

[Pottapaug1938]

I figure if I let you look at some of the related links for yourself, you might learn something.

Notes of the Federal Reserve are its stock certificates.

Read my earlier post, Bucko. I work in the financial sector, and deal with stocks and other securities on a daily basis; and there is not the slightest chance that FRNs are stock certificates. Take a look at a genuine stock certificate if you don't believe me; and check out the various securities acts of the 30s while you're at it.

On second thought, never mind. You'd only misinterpret what you'd read, and take it out of context.

[David Merrill]

I figure if I let you look at some of the related links for yourself, you might learn something.

Notes of the Federal Reserve are its stock certificates.

Read my earlier post, Bucko. I work in the financial sector, and deal with stocks and other securities on a daily basis; and there is not the slightest chance that FRNs are stock certificates. Take a look at a genuine stock certificate if you don't believe me; and check out the various securities acts of the 30s while you're at it.

On second thought, never mind. You'd only misinterpret what you'd read, and take it out of context.

That is what this thread is all about now, huh?

It began with a fellow sueing the FRB because they obviously have no intention of redeeming their stock!

[Pottapaug1938]

I figure if I let you look at some of the related links for yourself, you might learn something.

Notes of the Federal Reserve are its stock certificates.

Read my earlier post, Bucko. I work in the financial sector, and deal with stocks and other securities on a daily basis; and there is not the slightest chance that FRNs are stock certificates. Take a look at a genuine stock certificate if you don't believe me; and check out the various securities acts of the 30s while you're at it.

On second thought, never mind. You'd only misinterpret what you'd read, and take it out of context.

That is what this thread is all about now, huh?

It began with a fellow suing the FRB because they obviously have no intention of redeeming their stock!

David, not all stocks are freely tradeable. Any beginner in the financial world knows that. You, and this fellow, obviously don't. On top of that, the transferability of stock certificates has nothing to do with FRNs.