Another pro se lawsuit against the Federal Reserve

[notorial dissent]

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

Well, sort of almost kinda well not really even close to right, but par for the course with you.

The idiot in question is claiming that the FRB is "refuse(ing) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes "on demand". The rest is your usual misinterpretation of what someone else said or did. The law he is trying to use applies ONLY to banks within the FRB system, and does not, and never did apply to individuals, something else you are confused about. The law in question only had any value when FRN's weren't considered legal tender early in their existence, and that function expired with the legal tender act. And, since the law in question actually only applied to a specific in house issue of Federal Reserve Notes, it had no application outside of the internal FRB system. The third thing you are equally confused about is the difference factually and legally between a bank note, and a stock certificate. FRN's are not, in any way, shape, or form stock certificates, your delusions not withstanding.

[fortinbras]

FRNs are not "stock certificates" in the Federal Reserve. Having a lot of FRNs does not entitle you to cast a lot (or any) votes at Federal Reserve meetings.

[Doktor Avalanche]

FRNs are not "stock certificates" in the Federal Reserve. Having a lot of FRNs does not entitle you to cast a lot (or any) votes at Federal Reserve meetings.

Thank goodness for that. Only the very rich would be able to vote.

[Gregg]

FRNs are not "stock certificates" in the Federal Reserve. Having a lot of FRNs does not entitle you to cast a lot (or any) votes at Federal Reserve meetings.

Thank goodness for that. Only the very rich would be able to vote.

As opposed to now when they only count the votes of the very rich.

[Pottapaug1938]

A very interesting web page -- and one that squarely refutes David Merrill's idiocies about redeeming FRNs and the issue of FRNs vs. United States Notes, can be found here:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... ender.aspx

W: the U.S. Treasury
L: David Merrill (surprise, surprise)

[David Merrill]

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

Well, sort of almost kinda well not really even close to right, but par for the course with you.

The idiot in question is claiming that the FRB is "refuse(ing) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes "on demand". The rest is your usual misinterpretation of what someone else said or did. The law he is trying to use applies ONLY to banks within the FRB system, and does not, and never did apply to individuals, something else you are confused about. The law in question only had any value when FRN's weren't considered legal tender early in their existence, and that function expired with the legal tender act. And, since the law in question actually only applied to a specific in house issue of Federal Reserve Notes, it had no application outside of the internal FRB system. The third thing you are equally confused about is the difference factually and legally between a bank note, and a stock certificate. FRN's are not, in any way, shape, or form stock certificates, your delusions not withstanding.

That changed in 1933. Endorsement of private credit from the Fed was opened up to individuals. And so was the remedy - to redeem lawful money.


Good thing you guys are just silly quatlosers!

I will stick with the court opinion. The only thing that makes a FR Bank an instrumentality of the US Government is that it issues stock certificates, Federal Reserve Notes, that are designed (fractional lending) to depreciate over time.

Without the sanctioning of the US Congress, that would be illegal.

[Pottapaug1938]

David, here's a little friendly advice: when Quatloosers show that you're flat-out wrong, you only make yourself look even more foolish than usual when you repeat the same old discredited fantasies again and again. Here's a hint: if you review the last dozen posts, you'll have most of the answers!

[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.

What Congress did to forge Title 31 into "positive law". That seems to be worthwhile to examine in this matter. That was my first post before you obsessed Quatludes got off on how despicable I am...

Wesley? Are you keeping an eye out for new developments?

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

What Congress did to forge Title 31 into "positive law". That seems to be worthwhile to examine in this matter. That was my first post before you obsessed Quatludes got off on how despicable I am...

Wesley? Are you keeping an eye out for new developments?

We told you before, David -- there is no real distinction, anymore, between United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes. The former are no longer issued because they serve no function which FRNs cannot already serve. For the last 40 years, any unissued USNs have "circulated" by being moved around in their warehouse; and they will be destroyed (or possibly sold to collectors) once Congrees gets around to repealing the circulation requirerment (if they haven't already). We've also told you that, since FRNs are now legal tender AND lawful money, the concept of "redeeming" them is meaningless.

But of course, that's not what you want to hear, so you'll ignore it.

[wserra]

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

Motion filed yesterday.

[notorial dissent]

So, it looks like, as I expected, they are going for suing under the wrong law, doesn’t have standing to sue under the law in either case, hasn’t filed a complaint about which anything can be done, no relief grantable, nothing to grant relief against, even if he actually had anything to complain about, and is wrong on all counts on his conclusions at law, and is basically wasting the court’s time and please dismiss this nonsense since all the other conclusions he is depending on have long since been declared nonsense.

I rather suspect that the Motion to Dismiss will be granted in fairly short order, and one more whack a doo will be down the drain.

[David Merrill]

So, it looks like, as I expected, they are going for suing under the wrong law, doesn’t have standing to sue under the law in either case, hasn’t filed a complaint about which anything can be done, no relief grantable, nothing to grant relief against, even if he actually had anything to complain about, and is wrong on all counts on his conclusions at law, and is basically wasting the court’s time and please dismiss this nonsense since all the other conclusions he is depending on have long since been declared nonsense.

I rather suspect that the Motion to Dismiss will be granted in fairly short order, and one more whack a doo will be down the drain.

Not if I can help it.

The injury is quite clear; look at the footnote:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/ ... assets.htm

If Scott Gregory could redeem his $100 note at its lawful money value, then he could buy over two ounces of gold with it. Instead it will only buy at Spot, less than one tenth of an ounce of gold.

$1540/$42.22 = 19.2

Scott's $100 bill is only worth 1/20 of what it would be if the Fed would actually honor its promise to redeem lawful money.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[fortinbras]

I daresay that there's nothing that DVP can do to help it.

This argument has already been trounced in Home v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (D.Minn 1964) 227 F.Supp 225 aff'd (8th Cir 1965) 344 F.2d 725.

Another case is Milam v. US (9th Cir 1975) 524 F.2d 629.

And I have plenty more where those came from.

[Pottapaug1938]

Scott's $100 bill is only worth 1/20 of what it would be if the Fed would actually honor its promise to redeem lawful money.

Regards,

David Merrill.

David, once again you are forgetting that you've had the truth about "redemption of lawful money" explained to you. In 1913, FRNs were not legal tender; thus it was necessary to provide for their redemption by a medium that was. Once FRNs attained legal tender status, this "redemption" concept became meaning less, because "redemption" now meant that you took your FRN to a bank and got another one in change, along with a funny look from the teller. Your ink stamps accomplish nothing besides earning the piece of defaced currency a trip to the issuing Fed bank where it is shredded and replaced, in circulation, by an undefaced note.

Finally, you are forgetting that, if your hypothesis about "redemption" of FRNs was legally valid and currently had the force of law, people much more sophisiticated and smarter than you (or, for that matter, any other Quatloosian) would be doing it. They aren't; so you're still oh-for-everything.

[wserra]

I just performed a radical PITA postectomy on this thread, moving myriad off-topic posts - mainly David's mishugas and the responses to it (including mine) - here. I left all posts related even tangentially to the subject, including David's. I think the subject is important, and appropriate for the TP forum. So I'm moving it there. I will follow up on the pending standing/12(b)(6) motion, unless someone else beats me to it. Any posts of the type I pruned will wind up, well, pruned.

Perhaps we could all (including me) avoid this type of exchange with David in real (i.e., non-Flame) threads.

[Judge Roy Bean]

re: Motion/Brief

I have to say Mr. Mena's brief is as clear and concise as any I've seen.

Me, I would have included some rather snarky commentary about the plaintiff's mental acuity and asked for sanctions and attorney's fees.

[AFTP]

What throws up a red flag to me is that the Fed has never been audited.
Some like Ron Paul want that but it seems that others are scared to mess with them.

[Demosthenes]

What throws up a red flag to me is that the Fed has never been audited.
Some like Ron Paul want that but it seems that others are scared to mess with them.

The Fed has been audited by the GAO since 1978 when the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (31 USCA §714) was passed.

http://www.gao.gov/browse/a-z/Federal_Reserve_System

The following are the exclusions to this auditing power:

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.

The Fed is also audited by an independent firm (Deloitte) on a regular basis. Here's a recent report:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetaryp ... mt2010.pdf

[Nikki]

What throws up a red flag to me is that the Fed has never been audited.
Some like Ron Paul want that but it seems that others are scared to mess with them.

It just hasn't been audited the way Paul wants it "audited." He wants an audit structured to come up with results he'll provide to them before they start.

Also, his "Audit The Fed" war cry is typical -- fits neatly on a bumper sticker and makes all the sense in the world -- until facts get in the way.

[Gregg]

Some people have no idea how thankful they should be that the Federal Reserve controls the mony supply and congress can't really do a damn thing to interfere.