Suing the FED for FRAUD - Is it Time?

Fri, Mar 11, 2016 - 7:30pm

Why this post?

From time to time it comes up that someone thinks that the FED has debased the currency, which is fraud and theft, and therefore thinks it is a good idea to lawyer-up and sue the FED or its mouthpieces such as Ben Bernanke, or Ole’ Yellen. The legal theories of recovery stretch from the mundane (fraud/theft) to the extremely creative (Qui Tam). So, what's the problem? They CAN be sued, right? Well, yes, technically, they CAN be sued. But ultimately, the lawsuits will be dismissed upon motion, which motion to dismiss will be granted, and whoever decided to sue will be stuck paying the costs of the ill-fated adventure into the hallowed marble edifices of the regime, known more commonly as United States Federal Court.

Any fraud or theft lawsuit against the FED have, and will, all share a common element: they ALL have zero chance of recovery, for many reasons, philosophically, practically, and more importantly, factually and legally. The only exception I am aware of is for a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which can, and has been successfully done. See here:

But, this is not a post about getting documents under a FOIA request from the FED.

This is a post about the propriety, or really, the absurdity, of suing the FED for harm that they ostensibly cause from their operations itself.

An attempt to sue the FED, or Bernanke, or Yellen, or any of the FED Governors, will be met with swift opposition, an order granting the dismissal motion, then certain consequences against the attorney who foolishly tries to embark on such a lawsuit (Rule 11 Sanctions, State Bar ethics complaint, etc.)

So, thinking about suing the FED? Is it a good idea?

The short answer is NO, not now, not ever.

Instead, do something productive. Focus on accumulating tangible resources and assets, shed liabilities and debts, prepare and help others.

There is a reason why attorneys are not filing these cases, at least here in the USA (one brave Chinese attorney is pioneering a case in China. I’ll take long odds against him that the case goes nowhere, but I won’t go so far as to say they execute the poor lawyer for having the temerity to sue! See here:;imode )

The short answer to the question why the FED cannot be successfully sued is simple. And, it is unlikely to change anytime soon, so move on to more productive things to think about.

The FED is an “instrumentality” of the Federal Government. It enjoys sovereign immunity. It, and its people, like Bernanke and Yellen are represented by the deepest pocket attorneys on the planet, the US Justice Department. U.S. Department of Justice represents the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in civil litigation: see, e.g., TCF National Bank v. Bernanke, 643 F.3d 1158 (8th Cir. 2011); McKinley v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 647 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Fox News Network, LLC v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 601 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010). They will certainly oppose any lawsuit, swiftly, and the Federal Judge will inevitably grant the motion to dismiss, ending the foolish lark. Don’t do it.

For proof, look no further than a recent case right out of the USA heartland in Missouri.

I point to this recent example, for definitive guidance, lest anyone think differently.

Example of An Ill-Fated Quest to Sue the FED

United States of America ex. rel. James Carter, Plaintiffs, vs. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, et al., Defendants, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Western Division, Case Number 4:12-cv-00129-HFS. It is available on Pacer, as is the docket sheet listing the proceedings.

The Complaint is filed under seal, as is required in a Qui Tam action. However, the motion to dismiss and order are right out there for the world to see.

In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff, a gentleman in Missouri, James Carter, filed suit against the FED for fraud. His theories are all set forth in detail, in many documents, and websites, scattered all over the internet, that basically argue the same thing.

The theories are unsound, and are factually and legally without merit.

Let’s take a look in detail at the lawsuit and aftermath.

From the federal court motion to dismiss, filed by Acting US Attorney David Ketchmark and Jeffrey P. Ray, Deputy US Attorney, from the Charles Evan Whittaker Courthouse, 400 E. 9th Street, Fifth Floor, Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 426-3130, //jeffrey[dot]ray[at]usdoj[dot]gov">jeffrey[dot]ray[at]usdoj[dot]gov :

“In his QUI TAM COMPLAINT, Carter alleges that the Federal Reserve systematically and
improperly obtains a “purloined profit” that is concealed from the federal government by the
Federal Reserve through “euphemistic smoke and mirrors.” QUI TAM COMPLAINT, Exhibit A.
Carter estimates that the total amount of funds concealed since 2006 is approximately $7 trillion.

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT’S FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2009 SCHEDULES OF FEDERAL DEBT, and other public documents. Indeed, the idea that the Federal Reserve is engaging in an ongoing “Ponzi scheme” and utilizes “creative accounting” so that “profit can easily be reclassified as expense,” has been advanced publicly by other theorists. See, e.g., C. EDWARD GRIFFIN, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND,
). And in actuality, Carter himself – in an
earlier publication1 of the document he attaches to and principally relies upon in the QUI TAM
COMPLAINT – has noted that, once the public records are examined, “the rest of the analysis is an inescapable mathematical progression.” JAMES CARTER, RIP-OFF BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE,”

There are many websites that have his and others’ theories, just go look. (With only very minor variations, Carter’s Exhibit A (“Rip-Off by the Federal Reserve”) has been previously published on numerous Internet web sites, including,,,,,,, and These are generally published under screen names such as “Olde Reb,” “Jim,” “Sartre,” “OldeReb1,” and “Liberty.” An example of one of these publications, dated January 10, 2011, was attached to the motion to dismiss).

The lawsuit was premised upon the theories Carter espoused on one of his lengthy web rants, such as “Rip-Off by the Federal Reserve (a mathematical analysis). See here: which takes you here: , or here: which perpetrates this information circulation that gives rise to these questions for which I am hoping to put to rest.

The US Justice Department attorneys responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint. They laid out the compelling case against the theories, all of them, and the court granted the motion dismissing the case.

From that case, one has all the answers one needs to the questions that typically arise about suing the FED, etc.

Since the case was from Missouri, in that spirit, let me “show you” and let me answer them all in the words of the US Justice Department attorneys, with official blessing by the Federal Judge’s Order dismissing the case.

Question: Can someone sue the FED for theft, fraud, debasement of the currency, etc.?

No. Not even under the extremely creative, but legally unsound theory of Qui Tam.

From the Order dismissing the case:

“James Carter filed this qui tam complaint on January 27, 2012. The essence of Carter’s
complaint is that the Federal Reserve is engaged in an ongoing accounting and financing scheme related to deficit spending and Carter seeks the return of “purloined profits” in excess of 7 trillion dollars. (Complaint ¶ 8 - 15). On March 30, 2012, the United States filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 4). The government argued that dismissal is appropriate because: (1) Carter’s allegations fall outside the scope of the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act; (2) the proposed defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity; and (3) this action cannot be maintained by a pro se litigant. . . . ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court provide a copy of this order by regular and certified mail to James Carter at the following address: 33905 East State Route Two, Harrisonville, Missouri 64701.


/s/ Howard F. Sachs
Dated: May 1, 2013
Kansas City, Missouri”

Question: Was there any merit to any of the claims? No. The Qui Tam action was doomed as unsound factually and legally from the start.

The Qui Tam action failed for both factual and legal reasons. Factually, it was doomed because it was based on information previously publicly disclosed, and the plaintiff did not have independent knowledge. These are fatal factual flaws and easily defeated the case.

Legally it also failed because the federal government cannot sue itself, as such a lawsuit is what is referred to as a “non justiciable case or controversy.” Further, one MUST have an attorney to sue under Qui Tam, but Carter did not and his case was doomed under that theory because he had no attorney (“Carter has brought his qui tam action against the Federal Reserve as a pro se litigant.")

By its plain language, the FCA is silent on whether a private individual not utilizing the services of an attorney can bring a qui tam suit. Nonetheless, several federal courts, including the Eighth Circuit, have concluded that pro se litigants may not maintain a qui tam action under the FCA. See, e.g., Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008); Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-28 (9th Cir. 2007); United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773, 775-76 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6-7 (8th Cir. 1951).”). No competent attorney will ever take such a case, as to do so would guarantee some sort of disbarment action.

Question: Can a Qui Tam case EVER succeed against the FED? NO. Qui Tam fails against the FED because the US Govt cannot sue itself for fraud.

Qui tam is short for the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.” The phrase dates from at least the time of Blackstone. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769 n.1,
120 S.Ct. 1858, 1860 n.1 (2000)

From the motion to dismiss: “The False Claims Act (“FCA”) establishes a unique form of litigation through the qui tam mechanism. The qui tam provisions of the FCA provide a special means for the United States to recover damages suffered as a result of fraud or false claims, through the assistance of private parties (“relators”) who file suit “for the person and for the United States Government.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b). Under this statute, the relator initially files a complaint under seal and serves it and a statement of evidence on the United States. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(1), (2). The United States thereafter has 60 days (and any extensions granted by the district court) to investigate the allegations and elect whether or not to intervene in the litigation. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(2), (3). The Act provides for trebling of the damages the Government has sustained, and civil penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 for each false claim submitted. 31 U.S.C. 3729(a); 64 Fed. Reg. 47,099, 47,104 (1999). Damages are liberally calculated to make certain that they “afford the government complete indemnity for the injuries done it.” United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 549, 63 S.Ct. 379, 387 (1943).”

It is well established that a qui tam suit against a federal agency or employee presents no justiciable case or controversy, as required by the United States Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. III. See also Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 955 n.4, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 2845 n.4 (1984) (Article III’s case or controversy requirement is jurisdictional).

In any qui tam action, the United States is the real party in interest. Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, in a qui tam action naming federal agencies and officials as defendants, a relator is essentially suing the United States in the name of the United States. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105 (1985) (a suit against a federal officer acting in an official capacity is a suit against the United States); Daly v. Department of Energy, 741 F. Supp. 202, 204 (D. Colo. 1990) (a suit against a federal agency constitutes a suit against the United States). Inasmuch as such a suit is tantamount to a suit by the United States against the United States, it presents no justiciable case or controversy. [C]ourts only adjudicate justiciable controversies. They do not engage in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves. United States v. I.C.C, 337 U.S. 426, 430, 337 S.Ct. 1410, 1413 (1949).

Question: Is the FED is a government instrumentality and part of the federal government? Yes.

The Federal Reserve is a unique instrumentality of the federal government, and is a part of the federal government such that a qui tam action against the Federal Reserve is a case by the United States against the United States and, thus, presents no justiciable case or controversy.

From the motion to dismiss:

“The Federal Reserve is an instrumentality of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act established the federal reserve banks as part of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. 12 U.S.C. §§ 221, et seq. The preamble to the Federal Reserve Act states that its purpose is to “provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.” FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 (1913). The system consists of twelve federal reserve banks and a Board of Governors. Members of the Board are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. 12 U.S.C. § 241. The Board oversees the federal reserve banks and has additional enumerated powers to control the operations of the banks. 12 U.S.C. § 248.

In First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 103 S.Ct. 2591 (1983), the Supreme Court generally defined a government instrumentality:
A typical government instrumentality . . . is created by an enabling statute that prescribes the powers and duties of the instrumentality, and specifies that it is to be managed by a board selected by the government in a manner consistent with the enabling law. Id. at 624, 103 S.Ct. at 2599. The Federal Reserve conforms to the general description of government instrumentalities as enunciated in First National City Bank. It was established directly by Congressional legislation for the public purpose of increased control of the nation’s currency and banking system. Although it consists of partially-independently-owned corporations, it nonetheless exists only by virtue of the enabling statute and possesses only the powers granted by the legislation. Moreover, the individual banks are supervised by an entity that bears the hallmarks of a federal agency, in that the Board of Governors is subject to more direct political control via the Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of its members.

Consequently, it is unsurprising that the Eighth Circuit has unequivocally held: In light of the important governmental functions performed by the federal reserve banks and the United States Supreme Court's willingness to hold that financial institutions performing even fewer governmental functions are federal instrumentalities, we hold that the federal reserve banks are instrumentalities of the federal government. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Imp. Dist. No. 1, City of Little Rock, 657 F.2d 183, 186 (8th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added) (also noting that the “holding is consistent with other circuits that have faced this question.”).

Question: Is the Federal Reserve is protected by sovereign immunity. Yes. As such, even if the lawsuit is filed, it will be dismissed upon motion as the FED enjoys sovereign immunity which means it cannot be sued absent some strict statute that so allows, like, e.g., the FOIA.

The Federal Reserve enjoys the status of a non-appropriated fund instrumentality (“NAFI”) that receives no funding through congressional appropriations. Albrecht v. Committee on Employee Benefits of Federal Reserve Employee Benefits, 357 F.3d 62, 67 (D.C. App. 2004); Texas State Bank v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 815, 818 (2004). See also United States v. Hopkins, 427 U.S. 123, 125 n.2, 96 S.Ct. 2508, 2510 n.2 (1976). Although the Supreme Court has never expressly held that a NAFI, as an instrumentality of the United States government, necessarily enjoys sovereign immunity, it has established that where NAFIs are “arms of the government deemed by it essential for the performance of governmental functions” and “share in fulfilling the duties entrusted to [the federal government],” they “partake of whatever immunities it may have under the [C]onstitution and federal statutes.” Standard Oil Co. of California v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 485, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 1170 (1942). At least one court has noted that “[f]ederal agencies or instrumentalities performing federal functions always fall on the ‘sovereign’ side of [the] fault line; that is why they possess immunity that requires waiver.” Auction Co. of America v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 746, 752 (D.C. Cir.1997) (emphasis in original).

Based on these legal principles, lower federal courts repeatedly have concluded that the Federal Reserve enjoys sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Albrecht, 357 F.3d at 67 (“we have no doubt that the Board of Governors enjoys sovereign immunity”); Research Triangle Institute v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve System, 132 F.3d 985, 987-88 (4th Cir.1997). See also Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation, 499 F.2d 60, 62 (1st Cir. 1974) (“[F]ederal reserve banks . . . are plainly and predominantly fiscal arms of the federal government [and t]heir interests seem indistinguishable from those of the sovereign.”). As concluded by the Albrecht court: An integral part of the federal government, the Board conducts monetary policy, regulates banking institutions, and maintains the stability of the nation’s financial system. . . . Therefore, at least with regard to the existence of sovereign immunity, [the plaintiffs’] claim against the Board is little different from a claim against the United States. Albrecht, 357 F.3d at 67 (emphasis added).


Qui Tam = certain dismissal.

FED = govt instrumentality, sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity = motion to dismiss GRANTED.


Suing fed = waste of time.


Reading TFMR = excellent use of time.

Prepare accordingly.

About the Author


Mar 11, 2016 - 7:42pm



Mar 11, 2016 - 7:50pm

I'll try for 2nd

Did I get it?

Nope, Turd, but I made room for Marchas.

Mr. Fix
Mar 11, 2016 - 8:46pm

Can I help?

Finding a judge that hasn't already been bought and paid for is the real problem.

But in principle, I love the idea.

Dear California Lawyer,

For the past couple of months, I have been studying law. I stand accused of offenses that never occurred, and initially, thought it was rather laughable. I have since become dreadfully aware of the seriousness of the situation, as the United States is essentially lawless, and since my accuser happens to be a law-enforcement officer, creating a defense against a corrupt system is time-consuming, expensive, and probably a futile effort.

My own moral code dictates that I give it my best shot.

Proving that a government entity is guilty of fraud, in a government court, requires somebody, somewhere to have a degree of integrity, and as of yet, I find no evidence of that whatsoever.

I don't really think that anything can be fixed within our current system, the powers that be are well insulated from any legal challenge.

A systemic collapse can't come soon enough for me.

And then, maybe, just maybe, an honest system can replace it.

By the way, I can't find a lawyer willing to take on a corrupt establishment. You might be the only one that I've ever heard of even thinking about it.

How are you different?

You appear to have a moral backbone that most lawyers seem to be strangely devoid of.

Since my only viable strategy is to take on a corrupt system, a system that lawyers seem to have sworn an oath to uphold, and protect, it would appear that I am going to have to argue this case myself.

I've still got a lot to learn, but what I have found so far is appalling. Hopefully, I can get past my dismay, overcome my fears, and learn to approach this with some confidence.

Taking on the Fed, as you have described it, has many parallels.

Thank you for your efforts here. Being aware of the nature of our challenge is the first step.

What to do about it, is a work in progress. I find this article timely, and useful.

The very existence of the Fed appears to be in blatant contradiction to the United States Constitution.

I have recently learned that the United States Constitution is not the law of the land, only cases that have interpreted the constitution can be used as law. Many people are screaming "End the Fed", and yet, I don't even see a legal mechanism that makes that remotely possible, short of a serious rebellion.

What do you think?

I have been filing my own freedom of information requests for the past couple of months, and I'm amazed at the excuses they can come up with for not complying. I filed five more of them today, and was putting together discovery motions as I noticed this article was posted.

Too much legalese makes my brain feel like it's oozing out of my ears.

I've never been interested in this crap, not until it was thrown in my face. Our legal system is convoluted way beyond the point of absurdity. The system is designed to protect fraudsters, and government extortion rackets at every level. I wish more people understood this basic fact.

Is there anyone that can be sued for a fraud being misrepresented as law?

It might save some time.

Mar 11, 2016 - 9:45pm
Fred Hayek
Mar 11, 2016 - 10:39pm

Mr. Fix is right. It's not just the argument but who hears it

But how is the Fed an NAFI when there's nothing about the Fed that's essential to the functioning of the U.S. gov't as the gov't plainly functioned without it before the Fed was created?

But, yes, I think that one could do more, at this point, by filing FOIA requests asking for information from this "instrumentality" and letting the world see parts of its mendacity.

Mar 11, 2016 - 11:01pm

This is the part that gets me...

"...partially-independently-owned corporations..."

WTF does that mean? Does anyone know? Cal?

My guess, in essence: We (the partially-independent-owners) get to print money, decide what to do with it, and get paid for our troubles, and if you don't like it, go talk to my big brother (you see, we are partially-dependent on him, so long as we keep giving him money and you the people are responsible for paying it back, plus interest), and he'll tell you to either fo, or he'll btlsooy*, got it? Good!

*beat the living snot out of you

We're screwed (and have been for some time now, like, over a century and counting)

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

-Woodrow Wilson

Mar 11, 2016 - 11:42pm

Sage Advice

"Instead, do something productive. Focus on accumulating tangible resources and assets, shed liabilities and debts, prepare and help others."

Here, f'ing, Here!!!

Mar 12, 2016 - 7:31am

How do you choose a judge?

You get all the attorneys together and pick the ones with the lowest IQ's...

Mar 12, 2016 - 10:32am


Thanks Cal,

You are continuing my legal education here at TFMR.

Could fed governors or the Chair be sued or tried for lying to, or misleading Congress? Or is their public discourse so ambiguous that you simply cannot pin a false statement on them? I know it would not end the FED, but we might get some satisfaction to see these public figures have their careers ruined.

Nah... scratch all that. It'll never happen.

I am waiting for a legitimate activist or political group that has a chance to really change things. I'll join and support that kind of organization. Message me privately if any of you are a member, or know of one. That kind of organization might have a chance to emerge as a legitimate power after the financial side of this thing collapses.

Mar 12, 2016 - 11:08am

Dr. Jerome

Here is a simple thought, in explanation to your post.

I am a firm believer that eventually sound money will arise, as the fiat model is rejected. When that occurs, the circumstances of how it occurs, etc., are all unknown.

What is absolutely certain, though, in my mind, is that eventually, commerce will occur with exchange of value, that is, NOT with fiat nothingness conjured up from a central authority.

The regular folks will resume their ways using tried and true exchange mechanisms, and I firmly believe that gold and silver will play a big role.

Remember, we always end up with some entity collecting and storing the actual specie, in exchange for the convenience of circulating paper, or claim tickets, or what will soon be electronic claim tickets whether through Bitcoin, or something similar.

That eventual occurrence is guaranteed, as well, as that ALWAYS happens.

The key in my mind, is to follow the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Whoever in the time of chaos has gold, silver, means of protection and a likeminded network of associates, will absolutely be in the discussion group regarding how the new system of exchange evolves.

All I know is that I want to be in that group, and NOT in the group of banksters who will be hunted and eventually held to account for their Keynesian religious nonsense that lead to this CERTAIN eventuality.

Mar 12, 2016 - 11:23am


Excellent. I always felt criminal action was the way to go since it would be the Fed gov self regulating which puts the Courts in a trick. Since The Justice Department is in a stand down, then some form of a "prosecutorial misconduct" action may be appropriate, but the Administrative Branch is complicit, so that won't happen either. My conclusion is that more success would come from an "Impeachment Action" whereby the "public investigation" of corruption could expose the myriad of criminal activities being pursued by our leadership initiating far reaching public investigations and actions. This requires An element of Congress actually doing their jobs.

Your discussion of the Civil problems coupled with the blocks to criminal actions demonstrate the extent of the deep dark hole the American people have to find a way to crawl out of...

Mar 12, 2016 - 11:49am

the Rothschild "investigation"

one of the rothschilds is supposedly being investigated by the french for some type of fraudulant activity.

this is being reported to divert any suspicion away from the real hoax and to control the public's context of perception.


just like the reports of "market" manipulation divert any suspicion from the actual nature of the silver chart itself


Fed investigations, Fed lawsuits... i would suspect are no different.


this is a common tactic of tptb/bros. that plays out over and over and over again in varying scales and contexts.


if even the tiniest part of your reasoning requires even the slightest assumption that any part of the system is legitimate and will perform as advertised... STOP! step back, get a clearer more 'removed' perspective, and then work thru it again.

i would suggest that you consider that the system is a 100% hoax throughout, that Only Silver and Gold are Money, and that stacking physical Silver is ultimately the only play to make at this time. I am confident that we will all eventually arrive at this position.

Mar 12, 2016 - 12:49pm

Mar 12, 2016 - 3:10pm

Hi CAL. Nice blog post. Keep


Nice blog post.

Keep them coming.

Fred Hayek
Mar 12, 2016 - 4:38pm

Question for you, Cali Lawyer

My legal knowledge is only slightly greater than my familiarity with Sanskrit grammar and Esperanto literature. That said, I was once talking to someone who was (compared to me) very legally knowledgeable and he described the concept of a writ but said that trying to use them to make gov't do what it's supposed to do had completely fallen out of favor.

Frankly, I don't see why. If you had some idea of how to get your request for a writ heard by a friendly judge then why not file a request for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the U.S. to adhere to immigration law for example. Show that the U.S. is clearly acting in a manner completely counter to the law. Or request a writ of mandamus in regard to some section of banking law that's being flagrantly ignored. Etc etc etc.

If you can't be sure that you can get to a friendly judge then request many writs in the hope of getting to one by chance. Maybe this is nearly as hopeless as the lawsuit you describe. Why doesn't anyone even try this?

Mar 12, 2016 - 5:37pm

Thank you CaL

Great stuff and very helpful.

Mar 12, 2016 - 7:50pm

GATA won.

Lets not forget. GATA won in their legal battle against the FED. The only non-profit I'm aware that achieved such a magnificent result. You know that's why we have payback in the PM markets.

Mar 12, 2016 - 8:36pm

Thank you, Argentus Maximus

I appreciate that high praise from you. I'm honored you took the time to say thanks.

It is I who appreciate all of your stellar work.

Keep them coming, too.

Mar 12, 2016 - 8:51pm


I am not an expert practitioner under United States federal law. Thus, my knowledge of writ proceedings, which would fall under this arcane set of knowledge, is basically rudimentary. For example, taking a case to the US Supreme Court is done by way of writ of certiorari. It is discretionary with the 9 (well, 8, since Scalia died). They meet, and decide which of the many cases they want to take up.

With regard to this federal law, understand that there is procedure, and there is substantive law. Federal law is notice pleading, not technical, like under the old English common law rules of pleading.

What that means, is that one need not follow arcane pleading rules. What one need only do is make a short, plain, statement of the case, and seek relief. There is no substantive formality. However, there are pleading rules, set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which every ABA accredited law school drills into the first year law students.

Hence, we lawyers know some rudimentary latin, such as "res judicata," "a fortiorari," "et sequentum," "sina qua none," and a whole list of stupid things that filled my mind up long ago, which I have forgotten.

Under the Civil Procedure rules, there are technicalities, that if one does not follow, then one has his or her case dismissed.

For example, the rule of a case or controversy, or of standing, means that at the very beginning of filing the case, if the basics of a case or controversy, or standing are not met, the MERITS of the case are never reached at all.

It is all so very tilted to force cases to a decision in an orderly, albeit excruciatingly slow and seemingly tedious resolution. Even then, there are layers of higher appellate courts that can and do weigh in, sometimes sending the case back down for further hearings, etc.

Hence, when one with anecdotal knowledge tells you that it is a good idea to take a writ, to that I say maybe, but even it the procedural vehicle of the writ is meritorious, there is still the underlying substantive law that must allow one to prevail.

In that regard, the FED enjoys sovereign immunity, which means it can only be sued if there is a specific statute that allows for such.

I am not aware of ANY federal law that imposes any sort of liability upon the FED for making policy decision, even if those are abjectly wrong as a matter of fact, and even if the FED deliberately tried with all its might to fraudulently prop up banks at the expense of the middle class or main street.

The remedy is NOT going to be found from within the current system. Any attempts to secure such a remedy using the current system are foolish and foolhardy.

The current western fiat monetary system will fail, of its own flaws, guaranteed. The only question is when.

Will it be accelerated by outside actors, such as the Chinese, or the BRIC's, or some war, or other black swan? I really do not know, but it matters not.

What matters is that one prepare for the failure of the system, which will fail, and which will swallow up all forms of paper wealth forever.

Those with normalcy bias will be victims.

Those that have prepared will not.

Be the one that prepares.

Mar 12, 2016 - 8:52pm


That is absolutely correct!

I totally forgot about that victory. I should have mentioned it as a victory under the FOIA statute.

Thank you for mentioning it.

Fred Hayek
Mar 12, 2016 - 9:45pm

Cali . . thank you very much, but . . .

I wasn't thinking there was any remedy whereby any sort of penalty would be applied to any federal agency. What I was thinking, from the explanation of a writ that I once got, is that you would file asking for a writ to be issued by which a judge would force an agency, be it the border patrol or SEC or CFTC or whoever to do their job.

Look judge, here's what they're doing -- long and detailed citation of actions and/or omissions by a Federal agency including testimony of employees. Here's what they're supposed to do -- citation of law. We request that you issue a writ compelling the CFTC to do its job. Something like that.

I agree with you, in general, that change will not come from within the system. What sort of surprises me is that those who do seek to change it from within never try this particular remedy. The person who told me of it made it sound like the reason was simply that it was out of favor, old fashioned, simply wasn't used, not that it shouldn't have some useful application.

Mar 13, 2016 - 6:47am

There Is No Government Or Law

Several years ago a group that I was affiliated with discovered that, at minimum, there are 13 states which have no legally installed elected officials. In each state we reviewed, the state constitution requires that elected officials take an oath of office and produce a bond before they may legally assume their elected office. The revocation of bond is the only constitutional means other than impeachment by which an elected official can be ejected from office for malfeasance prior to expiration of their term.

In our state we discovered a case from 1938 in which a fellow who was elected county sheriff didn't have the funds or assets necessary to acquire the bond. In this case the prior incumbent remained in office.

The state constitution also requires the secretary of state to keep a ledger as to who has posted bond, for what period, and ascertain whether the bond is for the proper amount. We were able to obtain a signed document from the then current secretary stating that she has not maintained that ledger, nor has any secretary since 1968!

The state has simply substituted a blanket liability bond, funded of course, by the taxpayers which covers all elected state officials. This of course, removes the ability of the taxpayers to eject individual criminals which may hold state office.

Since there have been no legally installed officers in our state since 1968, there has been no one legally in office to certify the vote for the last 48 years. Therefore none of the federal officials are legally in office.

Our lawsuit was of course dismissed by the (vacant) federal district court and remanded to the (vacant) state courts which as described above have no legally installed judges.

Catch 22 as usual. Your friends still don't understand that we live in "The Matrix?"

Mar 13, 2016 - 10:14am

Federal Remedies

Organizations within the Executive Branch such as the CFTC, SEC, FBI,The Justice department were established to monitor and control behavior within Federal Agencies. Just as your local DA pursues criminal actions within your county, The US Attorney General, your state AG are the lead police officers at the state and federal level.

At the Federal Level the SEC regulates "Civil" actions concerning the markets. If they encounter "criminal" act, they have a duty to forward those cases for criminal investigation to an agency like the FBI or Justice. Failing to forward such cases of merit or selectively forwarding cases is a criminal act in and of itself. Justice failing to investigate, act on, or selectively act on cases of a criminal nature can be a criminal a t itself.

The problem becomes when the President appoints and then directs the leadership of the various Regulatory agencies to stand down and not pursue criminal activities of a class of people or for specific institutional activities. That is a criminal act but the Agencies designed to Regulate work for the President.

Congress could in investigate themselves and direct action by the Administrative Branch, or they could do Impeachment hearings and expose criminal activity that was done in Watergate eventually resulting in the President stepping down and key White House Staff going to prison. But, it appears Congress has elected to go down the Criminal Road also, thereby negating the checks and balances, Fed regulation, Fed statutes, Agency Directives including those that are extensively written on the duties, responsibilities of those engaged and entrusted performing duties as "Prosecutors"

intentionally and negligently performing your duties as an elected or appointed official is clearly defined.

However the highest levels of leadership have chosen to criminally perform their duties of public office and the Rest of the Criminals work for those leaders and chose to maintain their criminal support of their bosses rather than destroy their carreers.

Mar 13, 2016 - 10:39am


Above typed on phone.

Mar 13, 2016 - 11:22am

A hypothetical win??

Since we're imagining the machinations of suing the makers of imaginary money - I thought it would be fun to imagine winning a law suit against them. Would the judge be forced to make the Fed pay out in real or imaginary money. Receiving imaginary fiat that the Fed can just conjure into existence is somewhat self defeating. Alternatively, receiving the winnings in gold is essentially receiving stolen goods. I don't really know where I'm going with this, however, Geoffrey Robertson QC used to host an entertaining legal hypothetical TV show. I'm sure that this hypothetical case would have provided excellent material for entertaining the audience. Furthermore digressing - I might just watch a YouTube show of his to refresh my memory of it.

Thanks Cal - I enjoyed your post and definitely wouldn't enjoy you being an adversary in a court room - yikes.

Mar 13, 2016 - 2:56pm


Should such a case be won, the penalty would be all of the physical gold held in JPM's account. Haha!

november4 Doctor J
Mar 14, 2016 - 3:22pm


Vote for Bernie. He's the only present candidate with a demonstrated record of opposing the FRS.

Fred Hayek
Mar 14, 2016 - 6:35pm

Bernie voted against Ron Paul's audit bill

Before you go thinking that Bernie's really against the Fed, ask why he would vote against Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed if he was. Socialism absolutely requires fiat currency.

november4 Fred Hayek
Mar 14, 2016 - 7:23pm

fred hayek

As a matter record, according to the NY Times this morning, Bernie "shared (Ron Paul's) zeal for monitoring the Federal Reserve."

James Crighton november4
Mar 15, 2016 - 2:08am

November4 - Bernie and The Fed

Well, November 4, you clearly were not aware that Bernie Saunders voted against auditing The Fed. Any person who voted thus (i.e. against auditing The Fed) is either a profound fool or dishonest.



Donate Shop

Get Your Subscriber Benefits

Exclusive discount for silver purchases, and a private iTunes feed for TF Metals Report podcasts!

Key Economic Events Week of 4/22

4/22 10:00 ET Existing Home Sales
4/23 10:00 ET New Home Sales
4/25 8:30 ET Durable Goods
4/26 8:30 ET Q1 GDP first guess

Key Economic Events Week of 4/15

4/16 9:15 ET Cap Util and Ind Prod
4/17 8:30 ET Trade Deficit (Feb)
4/17 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories
4/18 8:30 ET Retail Sales (March)
4/18 8:30 ET Philly Fed
4/18 10:00 ET Business Inventories (Feb)
4/19 8:30 ET Housing Starts and Building Permits

Key Economic Events Week of 4/1

4/1 8:30 ET Retail Sales (Feb)
4/1 9:45 ET Markit & ISM Manu PMIs
4/1 10:00 ET Construction Spending (Feb)
4/1 10:00 ET Business Inventories (Jan)
4/2 8:30 ET Durable Goods (Feb)
4/3 9:45 ET Markit & ISM Services PMIs
4/5 8:30 ET BLSBS