2
1
1
To Free A Lender-Owned Nation
The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
Proverbs, 22:7
Part II. The Right to Petition v. Government Misrepresentations
This is the second of four articles writing
up a litigation I filed in federal court in San Francisco on December 28, 2011,
against the U.S. Treasury. Johnson
v. Department of the Treasury of the United States, et al. , case No. CV11
6684 (NJV). The suit alleges suppression of the great benefits
that would accrue to the government, if United States notes were to replace
Federal Reserve notes.
Part I introduces the issues.
Part II explains the scaffolding of facts and law that raises the issues
Part III details the "Treasury-Fed Coin-Swap Cover-Up."
Part IV will add context
1. My Deficit Reduction Proposal and the Treasury's
Misinformations
What
I tell you three times is true.
[Lewis Carroll, The
Hunting of the Snark ]
My complaint against the Treasury
alleges that its official and authoritative publications deceitfully deny every
advantage of United States notes, impairing my first amendment right to
petition the government for new issues of them. I cite two personal petitions; specify categorical and financial Treasury misinformations; attach an ignored demand for corrections; and ask the court to declare that the Treasury
publications are false and misleading, and repugnant to the constitution's reservation
of the powers to tax and to issue paper money, under Article 1, section 8.
Apart from the additions below, the substance of the lawsuit is explained
in two prior OpEd "American Crisis" articles, namely: A
Common Sense Deficit Reduction Proposal; and Deficit
Reduction Proposal Snags Treasury Misinformation. The former article presents a proposal
submitted to the deficit "Supercommittee," urging that a few hundred billion
dollars of automatic Social Security
payments be made with new issues of United States notes, thus fully paying and retiring that debt, instead of shaving
it or rolling it over at reset rates of compounding interest, with dealer fees et alia added.
Given the Fed's
extraordinarily bloated balance, this would not be inflationary, nor would it
impermissibly interfere with monetary policy.
As
Alan Greenspan observed in a June 30, 2011 CNBC
interview: "If it weren't for the psychological effects, we could
probably take a trillion dollars off the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve,
it would essentially be removing the double counting that is going on."
