Another pro se lawsuit against the Federal Reserve

[Prof]

Actually, "Beam Me Up" Beach did file a response to the court's order to show cause on about July 25. He did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court apparently found the Response to the Motion to Show Cause to be unpersuasive. I suspect it was not very interesting.

[notorial dissent]

Unpersuasive, as in the whole thing in general? As in totally illusory?

Imagine that dismissed!!!!

[David Merrill]

Actually, "Beam Me Up" Beach did file a response to the court's order to show cause on about July 25. He did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court apparently found the Response to the Motion to Show Cause to be unpersuasive. I suspect it was not very interesting.

If the judge was unsympathetic he might have been patient until Monday do dismiss the case.




It looks to me like Scott Gregory has until then to be responsive and show how the Atlanta Fed bank has injured him.

[notorial dissent]

We know how distorted your vision is, as you continue to provide ongoing examples of it.

The idiot had until the 2nd to respond, he sent in a gibberish filing, the judge accepted it as such and DISMISSED the case, he doesn't get a do over. At this point he has to refile.

[David Merrill]

We know how distorted your vision is, as you continue to provide ongoing examples of it.

The idiot had until the 2nd to respond, he sent in a gibberish filing, the judge accepted it as such and DISMISSED the case, he doesn't get a do over. At this point he has to refile.

The judge would be the one to decide that. Not you.

[Judge Roy Bean]

We know how distorted your vision is, as you continue to provide ongoing examples of it.

The idiot had until the 2nd to respond, he sent in a gibberish filing, the judge accepted it as such and DISMISSED the case, he doesn't get a do over. At this point he has to refile.

The judge would be the one to decide that. Not you.

The judge did decide it, Van Pelt. That's what dismissed means.

[David Merrill]

Likely we wont find out though. I concede, unless he tries to amend it before the deadline, you are correct. I am just saying it is not for you guys to decide for the judge.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Likely we wont find out though.

But we did "find out", it was dismissed.

I concede, unless he tries to amend it before the deadline, you are correct.

He filed it before the deadline. It was dismissed. He doesn't get another go because it was dismissed.

I am just saying it is not for you guys to decide for the judge.

The judge has already made a decision.
You know that thing about repeating something and expecting a different answer and insanity? Which party does it apply to?

[David Merrill]

Indeed; so little to cling to but you keep going and going...

It seems you have caused an entire Category, may a forum in itself considering it is not public; about stupid urinary contests! - A product of your repetitive keyboard fits.

[David Merrill]

To understand the essence of my point, you have to imagine that private attorney general is a law concept that actually carries authority qui tam - as a whistleblower. Therefore Scott Gregory would need to build into the Record, the injury that the Atlanta Fed has cause to everybody by reconciling par value of United States notes with Federal Reserve notes.

What I implore you consider, if you would like to salvage this cause is to drop the Title BEACH.



From Robert VINING’s Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law if you were to become a man, without Title, then you might proceed qui tam as you like, private attorney general. A class action.



You will also have to describe how you/we have been injured by elastic currency and the reconciliation of the United States note with Federal Reserve note. I think you might have a chance if you get it postmarked by Monday. If not, you would at least get it in the record?

This of course assumes that the "judge" you all so believe to be so, is a Taxpayer and is therefore not a judge, leaving the Record-Forming to a higher cause; a higher authority for ultimate Judgement.


Fun stuff!

David Merrill.
High Priest for the DEITI

[Dutch East Indies Trading Industry.]

Yes, I know...

If you have not bothered to read it, then you just cannot dispute whether or not I have the only correct interpretation can you? What you say is my ego, my arrogance is actually proven to be your ignorance. So you get to fight ignorance by ordering it up, waiting for it, and sitting down to read it...

Then and only then, you might challenge how I interpret VINING's book.

[Paul]

To understand the essence of my point, you have to imagine that private attorney general is a law concept that actually carries authority qui tam - as a whistleblower.

Absolutely correct. You have to live in an imaginary world to understand his nonsense. And not just any imaginary world, but Van Pelt's very own fantasy world where he is actually right and the rest of humanity is wrong! Imagine Van Pelt has a point -- it's easy if you try!

[Pottapaug1938]

Robert VINING’s Legal Identity; The Coming of Age of Public Law If you have not bothered to read it, then you just cannot dispute whether or not I have the only correct interpretation can you? What you say is my ego, my arrogance is actually proven to be your ignorance. So you get to fight ignorance by ordering it up, waiting for it, and sitting down to read it...

Then and only then, you might challenge how I interpret VINING's book.

Sorry, David -- I couldn't resist. If we see no value in anything that you post, why on earth would we see value in spending time reading a book recommended by you?

[Kestrel]

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.

ND,
I understood the above, I think, but how would you respond to this piece of malarkey which got thrown my way? It has to do with the Board of Governors. The person who threw it at me challenged me to prove him wrong.

The Federal Reserve Bank is neither owned nor managed by the federal government... The Grace Commission Report reveals that every penny taken from you is handed over to the Federal Reserve Bank, a PRIVATELY OWNED bank, OWNED AND CONTROLLED by big money banking concerns, many of which are FOREIGN!!

[Paul]

Ask him to show you exactly where the Grace report says that. It doesn't. I believe it is baased on a statement in the Grace report to the effect that the revenues from the individual income tax were about equal to the debt service of the federal government -- idiots take this to mean that your income tax is being paid straight to the ebil banking cabal.

[Pottapaug1938]

Ask him to show you exactly where the Grace report says that. It doesn't. I believe it is baased on a statement in the Grace report to the effect that the revenues from the individual income tax were about equal to the debt service of the federal government -- idiots take this to mean that your income tax is being paid straight to the ebil banking cabal.

... and since they fervently believe that this is true, therefore it is (Charles Pierce's Third Great Premise of Idiot America).

[Kestrel]

How do you recommend I respond to the allegation that "Foreign Big Money Bankers" control the Federal Reserve Banks or the Board of Governors? I can show the US local ownership of the banks, of course, and the federal control of the Board.

But the response I get from this fool is that the owners behind the owners are an international banking conglomerate like the Rothschilds, and that the big money controllers of the Board of Governors are the same international conglomerate.

[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.

ND,
I understood the above, I think, but how would you respond to this piece of malarkey which got thrown my way? It has to do with the Board of Governors. The person who threw it at me challenged me to prove him wrong.

The Federal Reserve Bank is neither owned nor managed by the federal government... The Grace Commission Report reveals that every penny taken from you is handed over to the Federal Reserve Bank, a PRIVATELY OWNED bank, OWNED AND CONTROLLED by big money banking concerns, many of which are FOREIGN!!

You mean aside from it being fictitious quote? Apart from that little bit of nonsense, the rest is even more so. “...every penny taken from you is handed over to the Federal Reserve Bank...” This makes no sense whatsoever in any context. Each Federal Reserve Bank is “owned” if you want to use that term equally be ever member bank in that district, and each bank has the same number of votes, which means, if you can do the math, that NO one bank of banks control that district bank. Further no individual can “own” an interest in a Federal Reserve bank, and so there is no way for any “big money banking concerns” to own or control said bank. The ownership at best is questionable since the stock they “own” is neither alienable, transferable or saleable, and reverts back to the Fed dist if the bank is closed or changes ownership. The “ownership” is effectively a membership in the bank system and nothing else. The only thing they get back out of it is a dividend equal to what loaning the amount of money their shares cost would have earned them.

[Gregg]

I think any argument of how all our taxes go to pay off the Federal Reserve Banks could be refuted by the fact that every penny of profit they make (and yes, they do make pretty good profits truth be told) is handed over to the Treasury every year. So instead of the Mellons and friends taking big checks from the government, they are in fact paying the government. And that's money that any other private corporation would get to keep and presumably distribute to their shareholders. The Shareholder banks in the District Banks get a 6% Dividend on their "invested" capital, which is a bit less than they could make deploying that money in the other lines of business.

[The Operative]

I think any argument of how all our taxes go to pay off the Federal Reserve Banks could be refuted by the fact that every penny of profit they make (and yes, they do make pretty good profits truth be told) is handed over to the Treasury every year. So instead of the Mellons and friends taking big checks from the government, they are in fact paying the government. And that's money that any other private corporation would get to keep and presumably distribute to their shareholders. The Shareholder banks in the District Banks get a 6% Dividend on their "invested" capital, which is a bit less than they could make deploying that money in the other lines of business.

It should be noted that the dividends totaled $1.58 billion which would be split between the 1,415 national banks and how ever many state banks that are also members.

[Kestrel]

Thanks for the replies and the direction.

I always knew the guy's spew was total conspiracy theorist BS, like most of the rest of his ideas, but didn't know how to shut him up on this one.