Republic for the united States (RuSA) Fruitcake Extravaganza

[notorial dissent]

Or more to the point, ask embarrassing questions.

[gatsby]

I'm listening to Thursday's call. Kelby Smith says RuSA will soon have its own passports!

I'd love to watch a RuSA passport holder returning from an overseas trip go through U.S. customs.

[gatsby]

Don't miss tonight's session of the fake RuSA Congress! It starts at 9 p.m. EST.

"Please join the House of Representatives in the gallery for each session."

712-432-0900
Access Code: 448229#

http://goo.gl/0jMlT

Don't forget to buy some fake congressional souvenirs as you exit the fake House gallery!

P.S. I'm disappointed I didn't receive a similar invitation for the fake Senate gallery.

P.S.S. My apologies for stealing LightinDarkness's "fake" this and that shtick, but it's so appropriate for RuSA's delusional world.

[fortinbras]

Perhaps someone can clarify if the RuSA is the same crowd as the "Guardians of the Republic" who got on the radar a few years back by sending letters to all the governors telling them to resign their offices.

Naturally RuSA bears some resemblances to that and to The United Cities Group and the Republic of Texas and some other outfits that announced "we've decided to take over the business of government from y'all".

[gatsby]

It's definitely the same group that sent letters to governors. In fact, the letter sent to the Alabama governor is the basis for one of the charges in TIm Turner's criminal case.

[ashlynne39]

It's definitely the same group that sent letters to governors. In fact, the letter sent to the Alabama governor is the basis for one of the charges in TIm Turner's criminal case.

Really, what is the charge? Unauthorized letter writing? The feds sure waited a long time to charge him over the letter if that is the case. I would have thought they would have better stuff than that but this is why I'm not a federal prosecutor and can just sit back and mock Timmy and his ilk.

My understanding was that the Guardians group became Rusa (or however it is capitalize/lower-cased) sometime around or shortly after the time that Unger and the other guy were pushed out.

[gatsby]

Re the letter to the Alabama governor, Turner was charged for violating 18 USC § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

[gatsby]

Several new docket entries in Donna Kozak's criminal case:

02/05/2013 50 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time to File Pretrial Motions regarding Order for Progression of a Criminal Case 48 by Attorney David R. Stickman as to defendant(s) Donna M. Kozak. (Stickman, David) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/05/2013 51 WAIVER of speedy trial by Attorney David R. Stickman as to defendant(s) Donna M. Kozak. (Stickman, David) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/06/2013 52 ORDER granting 50 Motion to Extend Pretrial Motion Deadline as to Donna M. Kozak (1). Pretrial Motion Deadline set for 3/8/2013. The time between 2/6/13 and 3/8/13 shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (JSF) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

[gatsby]

A link to RuSA's latest Thursday conference call:

http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.or ... _22-18.mp3

A highlight for me was a pitch by the fake Illinois governor about what sounds like the newest scam: Buying shares of stock in a failing bank in a poor neighborhood that could become RuSA's own bank. It's so ridiculous that you need to listen for yourself. Her pitch alone may violate state and/or federal securities laws. And the thought of regulators allowing these loonies to operate a bank is hilarious.

But I suspect there is no real bank -- just 400,000 shares of nothingness for $12.50 each.

[gatsby]

I purchased the audio of Donna Kozak's Oct. 19 arraignment and uploaded it to SoundCloud for everyone's entertainment:

https://soundcloud.com/gatsby1/usa-v-ko ... na-m-kozak

[notorial dissent]

... a pitch ....Buying shares of stock in a failing bank in a poor neighborhood that could become RuSA's own bank. It's so ridiculous that you need to listen for yourself. Her pitch alone may violate state and/or federal securities laws.

I think you pretty well got that in one, either scam or stupid, and considering the crowd, I'm betting on both. For one thing, if the bank is failing, buying stock isn't going to do one whit of good, as unless the capital requirements are met, the FDIC doesn't care who owns it, they'll close, seize, and sell or disperse, leaving these yahoos out in the wind. I mean $5M might be enough, but most of the bank failures I've seen lately have been for a lot more than that, and where are these chuckleheads going to scrape up $5M when they can't find $400K for dear ex-pretend Pressy Tim? I don't know if this exactly violates any of the securities acts, but I'm betting it does, as she isn't a broker, and the bank couldn't do it that way, and that sure sounds like a solicitation to me, and since she did over wire, it is a Fed matter now be it scam or securities violation.

[fortinbras]

I am not conversant with the laws of banking, but I would think that whoever takes over a failing or failed bank simultaneously takes on that bank's liabilities and obligations. So it would require more than merely buying up the bank's stock -- they'd need to have the money (in the millions) to cover that bank's considerable negatives. If, by a miracle, they took over a solvent bank, they'd soon discover that, whether or not it's a national bank, it has to comply with various rules and standards set by the Federal Reserve, an institution that RuSA types just love to pieces.

[notorial dissent]

In the real world, when a bank is getting ready to go belly up, several things have happened, at some point they have been told to up their reserve loss for loans, since most, if not all bank failures are due to a toxic loan portfolio, and when and if they haven’t/can’t do that they are then required to really up their capital, which usually entails getting a loan from someone, selling LOTS and LOTS more stock(and who in their right mind is knowingly going to buy stock in a bank on the brink), or finding a buyer(if they’re really really lucky).

When all of the above fail, which they more often than not do, since they wouldn’t be in that position if they didn’t have a toxic loan portfolio to begin with, they usually get closed down, either by the state banking regulators, or the Fed version. At which point, they usually eat the toxic loans, and sell the rest of the assets, deposits, loans due, etc to a new owner who absorbs them, sans the duds, changes the name and basically assumes what is left. The Fed can get them to do this since they usually but not always have swallowed whole the reasons the bank failed, leaving just the performing assets behind.

In the case of someone buying in to a sinking bank, they are direct owners, and unless they are prepared to put enough money in to keep it afloat they will eventually lose their entire investment.

In all of the above scenarios, the original stock holders usually take it in the shorts and end up, if they are really lucky, only owning nothing, having lost their entire investment.

You are quite right, just because they bought in to the bank doesn’t mean they don’t have to play by the rules, and in some cases on a large purchase, the Comptroller will veto the sale since the buyers aren’t up or qualified or suitable to managing what they are buying. The rules and regs are voluminous and mind numbing, and it is bad enough when you get people who should know what they are doing who can create a disaster without having total rubes trying their hand at it.

I still think this sounds more in the realm of a con than anything else. Bank stock cons are old and well honed, and this would be a prime ripe audience for one.

[GlimDropper]

I'd like to thank gatsby for maintaining the RuSA updates. And I also think I found my new favorite Judge, more on that in a bit.

The kind lady from Chicago who introduced the "let's go buy us a soon to be unchartered bank" deal is Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi who styles herself in court documents as an "American National Sentient Woman" (She can bring home the bacon, DuhNahNahNah, fry it up in a pan, DuhNahNahNah, and never ever ever let you forget you're an ALL CAPs de facto corporate actor). She is also the governor of Illinois. I still don't know what she was being investigated for in the first place but the IRS is involved, so in true sovereign fashion she sued everyone involved in her investigation. On April 23 of last year she filed suit for Malfeasance, Misfeasance, Nonfeasance and of course, Libel. Oh, that never ends badly.

My growing admiration goes out to the Honorable Milton I. Shadur, docket entries tend toward dull recitations and perhaps necessarily so which is why I love reading things like:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Milton I. Shadur: Enter Memorandum. With all of that said, however, this Court feels it would be remiss if it failed to caution Anzaldi that the filing and pursuit of lawsuits such as this one are not always risk-free. Mailed notice (srn, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

That was a quote from this Memorandum, Judge Shadur could have been even more concise if he just quoted himself thusly:

Instead this memorandum speaks to some of the problems that are apparent from a threshold examination of Anzaldi’s allegations.

To begin with,

Moving down the timeline a bit we find that Ms. Anzaldi might be a little impenetrable to good advice. As quoted here:

One of the deliveries to this Court’s chambers late last
week was a summons directed to Judge Martin Ashman that bears a
May 11, 2012 Clerk’s Office Stamp and appears to reflect a May
14, 2012 date of service. Because of Judge Ashman’s very recent
death, that summons should have no further consequences, but this
memorandum is issued sua sponte in light of its very issuance.

With pro se plaintiff Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi
(“Anzaldi”) having paid the $350 filing fee at the outset, this
Court was not of course called upon in the first instance to
address any aspects of the case in the manner that would have
been appropriate if Anzaldi had sought in forma pauperis status.
All the same, a number of troubling aspects of Anzaldi’s self-prepared Complaint led to this Court’s issuance of an April 26, 2012 memorandum (that was just a few days after suit was filed). That was done in the hope that some of Anzaldi’s obvious
misapprehensions might be eliminated, on the premise that a word
to the wise is (or at least should be) sufficient.

[Side question, speaking as one of the hopefully only slightly eccentric but in the unlikely event I ever become fully bat sh!t crazy, what legal advantages does in forma pauperis status provide to those individuals who's belfry may benefit from some airborne rodent abatement?]

Again moving forward and again, my respect to the plain spoken Judge Shadur:

Within a few days after this Court received its Judge's Copy of the truly bizarre
Complaint that had been filed on April 23, 2012 by pro se plaintiff Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi
("Anzaldi") against an Assistant United States Attorney, two of this District Court's Magistrate
Judges, an FBI agent, a United States Treasury agent and someone whom she characterized as
"an unknown terrorist (believe he was a Marshall [sic])," it issued a brief memorandum (Dkt. 6)
that identified and briefly discussed "some of the problems that are apparent from a threshold
examination of Anzaldi's allegations."

On July18 Anzaldi showed up with a bulky document that she said she had just filed.
That, upon examination, proved to be even more outre than her original filing -- it must be read to be believed (or, perhaps more accurately , not to be believed).

Moving along with my platonic lovefest for Judge Shadur's writing style:

Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi (“Anzaldi”) continues her
extraordinarily bizarre (and often regrettably misleading) course
of conduct in this pro se action brought by her (see this Court’s
July 19, 2012 memorandum order (“Order”) for a short description
of some of her earlier conduct in the case). This time she has
tendered another bulky filing (needlessly bulky, as will be
explained here) on July 30.

That new filing (Dkt. 25) begins with a photocopy of a
letter addressed to the “Freedom of Information Office, U.S.
District Court Clerk, Thomas G. Bruton,” bearing a May 10, 2012
verification. It simply doesn’t belong in this case, and it is
stricken.

Next comes a so-called Affidavit of Fact signed and verified
by Anzaldi on July 30, which states that she had attempted to
file an “Answer” on July 18 but that the document “did not appear
to be on Record with the Clerk of Court.” That is simply
false--as Order at 3 stated, “On July 18 Anzaldi showed up with a
bulky document that she said she had just filed,” and that
document is indeed of record--it is Dkt. 23. Hence Anzaldi’s
current refiling of that thick submission is stricken--indeed,
the original filing is retained, even though it contains a welter
of improprieties, simply because it reveals so much about
Anzaldi’s distorted approach in this litigation.

And, the hits keep coming:

Pro se plaintiff Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi ("Anzaldi") has continued to demonstrate
throughout her filings in this action that she occupies a fantasy legal world of her own creation. This Court might well have terminated this action before now on grounds of its legal and factual frivolousness (see, e.g., Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)), but it harbored a slim hope -- perhaps unrealistically on its own part -- that an identification for Anzaldi of the potential consequences that she risked by persisting in her bizarre misperceptions might perhaps shock her back into the real world of the law.

Coming to the end of the public access portion of the file we find:

Unsuccessful in her effort to wreak vengeance against judicial officers and the prosecutor who are involved in the federal criminal case against her -- an effort that is clearly in retaliation for their performance of their assigned roles in her prosecution on those criminal charges --Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi ("Anzaldi") has now turned (perhaps predictably) to launching ad hominem attacks against this Court for doing its job in addressing her groundless Complaint filed against those federal targets. Because Anzaldi's September 7 filing has permitted more than Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule")59(e)'s nonextendable28 daytime limit to elapse following this Court's August 7, 2012 dismissal of her action, that Rule is unavailable to her --and she has shown no basis for relief under Rule 60(b).

So, at the end of a long read what have we learned? I've learned that if I were to ever find myself wishing to purchase stock in a bank that was losing it's charter, I would consider Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi's endorsement as a negative barometer. And I've learned that if the United States Court for the Northern District of Illinois ever holds an open mike comedy night I want front row seats for Milton Shadur's set.

[ArthurWankspittle]

[Side question, speaking as one of the hopefully only slightly eccentric but in the unlikely event I ever become fully bat sh!t crazy, what legal advantages does in forma pauperis status provide to those individuals who's belfry may benefit from some airborne rodent abatement?]

I think it saves you from paying some sort(s) of court fee(s). You are claiming you have a case but not the money to pay the filing fees(?), therefore you wish to be excused the fees as otherwise it is only the lack of money that is stopping you getting justice.

[grixit]

5 million would be enough to create an old fashioned Mutual Aid Society. Problem is it assumes only a small portion of the membership will need aid at any one time, the rest will continue making payments.

[gatsby]

I'd like to thank gatsby for maintaining the RuSA updates.

You're welcome!

And thank you for this post, as it was very entertaining.

As to your question:

[Side question, speaking as one of the hopefully only slightly eccentric but in the unlikely event I ever become fully bat sh!t crazy, what legal advantages does in forma pauperis status provide to those individuals who's belfry may benefit from some airborne rodent abatement?]

If you can prove you're too poor to pay the filing fee, a federal court can grant you in forma pauperis status. It also saves the filer the costs of serving someone with the complaint, as the court directs the U.S. Marshals Service to do it.

However, there's a major downside: Before the complaint is even served on the defendants, the judge reviews the filing and can dismiss it if it "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." [28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B)]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1915

So many frivolous lawsuits end before they really began, saving the court and the defendants a lot of time and money.

[Gregg]

5 million would be enough to create an old fashioned Mutual Aid Society. Problem is it assumes only a small portion of the membership will need aid at any one time, the rest will continue making payments.

If I were to guess, I'd say you'd run up twice that in legal fees preparing the paperwork to apply for a charter. Since old style credit unions all consolidated, the lowest realistic capitalization for a bank these days is north of $50 million, and that would be a little tiny one.

Also, someone said something about meeting Federal Reserve standards, and while virtually all banks do belong to the Fed, there is no requirement that they do so.

[notorial dissent]

... to those individuals who's belfry may benefit from some airborne rodent abatement?]

Point of order that I was father forcefully reminded to make, the flying belfry inhabitants are not Rodentia, but Chioptera. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[The Observer]

Point of order that I was father forcefully reminded to make, the flying belfry inhabitants are not Rodentia, but Chioptera. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

I wonder if Rocket J. Squirrel was ever in a belfry?