What is a Derivative Lawsuit?
In derivative class action lawsuits, individual shareholders are allowed to “stand in the shoes” of a corporation, to sue any internal officers who breach their fiduciary duty through actions that jeopardize the present or future value of the corporation. The United States is America’s original corporation, and thus has legal standing to sue and be sued. Without its incorporation, no other U.S. corporation would have legal standing to exist; it is the original juridical entity and sets the boundaries for the mythical world where property rights, money, and corporate personhood are legitimized.
“We the People of the United States” is the full name of this corporation, of which each U.S. taxpayer is a part-owner and shareholding member; through derivative suits, any shareholder may challenge officers who breach their sworn duty to faithfully support and defend—in both spirit and letter—our original corporate charter, the Constitution of the United States.
What is this Lawsuit About?
This derivative class action suit has been filed to declare that a breach of contract has occurred as it pertains to money creation. The United States no longer uses the unified U.S. currency created by the Constitution; it was replaced (in 1832) with a privately created debt-based form of money first used by Southern slaveowners.
As the last of the original founders was passing, and the spirit of their original vision was weakened, Andrew Jackson, with the help of Roger B. Taney, began a quest to turn North America back into a loose confederation of slave states. To do it, they needed funding, which the federal government never would have provided, so together they boldly eliminated the nation’s original Central Bank, robbed it of its money, then placed the money in private "pet" banks that kickstarted Jackson’s personal campaign to conquer western territory and expand slavery into it.
To acquire more money, Jackson would have to create it himself, but to pass it off as U.S. currency, he first had to overturn previous Supreme Court rulings that outlawed this practice among the states. Jackson packed the Supreme Court with Taney and other Confederates in an attempt to legalize a) state-chartered banks creating U.S. currency (in Taney's Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky), as well as b) the continued enslavement of an “inferior class of beings” who would forever remain “subjugated by the dominant race" (in Taney's Dred Scott Decision) These states’ rights rulings, which ultimately forced a Civil War, were never officially struck down after the war, which allowed opportunists a chance to find other avenues through which to prosper.
Utilizing the Fourteenth Amendment—meant to provide equal protection of the law to newly freed slaves—corporate lawyers found this avenue when a post-Civil War Court acknowledged that a “suspect class” of juridical persons not only existed, but were entitled to the same equal protection granted natural persons. These juridically born persons communicated in the equally-mythical language of privately created money; their "free speech" proved very persuasive to officers of Congress, who readily pushed through Wall Street’s version of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, legitimizing privately created debt-based money, backed by absolutely no Constitutional Article, Amendment, Statute, or Interpretation. In effect, the Fed became Wall Street's intermediary, able to convert their juridically created debt-based money into real world wealth, backed by the full faith and credit of the American taxpayer.
​
Privately created debt-based money is discriminatory, coercive, inflationary, fraudulently deceptive, but above all else, it is unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve is nothing like the Supreme Court approved First Bank of the United States in its capacity, structure, or implementation: the First Bank held all federal and state debt, collected all taxes, held public deposits, made commercial loans, and paid all the government's bills. To ensure the creation of a unified United States currency, the founders set strict rules, clearly enumerated in the Constitution, that forbid money being randomly created by anyone else.
​The legal arguments are simple: Juridical concepts like money, property rights, and corporate personhood can only exist under the umbrella of the supreme juridical being, The United States. The United States is clearly founded on intelligible principles like the general Welfare, Common Defense, and Equal Protection, so any person, whether naturally or juridically created, must exist under these "house rules."
When states, who are also juridical entities, attempted to flex their states' rights muscles and skirt these rules, a Civil War erupted, confirming, once again, that United States "house rules" still reigned supreme. Among these rules is a Congressional limit to only spend taxpayer money toward the general Welfare; if Congress spends taxpayer money to protect one group, causing a similarly situated group to face even further harm, it opens Congress up to violations of Equal Protection, for which equivalent compensation may be awarded.
Because juridical persons were monetarily protected using taxpayer money in the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, while leaving a similarly situated group of natural persons to face severe and ongoing harm, this lawsuit seeks an equal protection settlement. The extreme monetary size of this settlement should signal to all officers of the United States that something in our economic system is extremely broken, and that something is our system of money creation.
​​
The separation of powers among government branches can only be effective if all branches participate in the process. For over 180 years, the Supreme Court has sat on its hands while the Constitutional Money Powers were systematically and unconstitutionally privatized. Each Supreme Court justice swore an oath to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich." The misappropriation of United States Money Powers is the direct source of wealth inequality in this country; it has now become a problem only officers of the Supreme Court can fix, through its future rulings and interpretations. For this, the plaintiff prays for the "good behavior" of Supreme Court officers to faithfully support and defend the Constitution. Their actions will go a long way to help determine the People's next actions.
Why is This Lawsuit Important?
America does not have a political problem, it has an economics problem, and if nothing else, this lawsuit hopes to make Americans aware of it.
It took more than two billion years for eukaryotic cells to engineer every visible life form on the planet, including the human species. The process they used—economics—helped them continually devise solutions to overcome uncertainty (aka homeostatic imbalance). What scientists call evolution is simply the economic growth of the single cell over time. Eukaryotes discovered that mutual economic relationships achieved the best results; their strategies involved promoting the general Welfare, providing for the common Defense, insuring domestic Tranquility, etc. These mutual economic principles were the same ones cited by enlightened philosophers when they reasoned about a "Natural Law" that preceded the economics of hierarchal religious oppression, which then became the principles that America’s founders embraced as they attempted to break away from its 5,000-year-old chokehold. What no one defined correctly was that a) both mutualism and hierarchal religious oppression are economic strategies, and b) governments are instituted among people to manage a country's chosen strategy at the macroeconomic level. Although the founders clearly enumerated a mutual form of economics in their Constitutional charter, once the founders died, modern oppressors successfully wrestled away control over United States economics through the gradual privatization of the People's Congressional Money Powers.
The parasitic economics of hierarchal oppression began 5,000 years ago, when the first oppressors entered religious temples and claimed an intermediary role between the people and their gods. Essentially a protection racket, religious oppression utilized the constant threat of violence to slowly condition people to accept a hierarchal role as a slave. Many generations of this conditioning allowed the violence to retreat slightly into the shadows and be replaced by various forms of debt slavery; now, only a debt-based form of money remains, which can adequately leverage the labor of the many through a self-perpetuating inflation / debt spiral that only becomes obvious when looking at its natural byproducts: wealth inequality, inflation, debt, pollution, ecosystem collapse, war, homicide, suicide, crime, incarceration, political division, poor mental and physical health, addiction, homelessness, or poverty. All are naturally occurring byproducts of the unnatural economics of Religious Oppression; for these "negative externalities" to ever dissipate, people would have to go back to their original economic strategy: mutualism.
This lawsuit seeks to move people back in this direction, by using the United States Constitution—which clearly laid down the economic foundation for a mutual economic society—to legally achieve this result.​
How You Could Help
The Washington Post claims that "Democracy Dies in Darkness," though currently, it seems to be getting butchered in broad daylight. Before this condition becomes irreversible, it would be helpful for people to communicate with each other about the existence of this lawsuit, to hopefully make it harder for officers of the United States to be monetarily persuaded to dismiss it.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The plaintiff, a current taxpaying shareholder in good standing within the widely held corporation known as The United States, bring this complaint derivatively in the right and for the benefit of all current taxpayers of The United States (hereinafter referred to as “The People,” “shareholders,” or “natural persons”). The Defendants—officers of the United States—breached a duty of care and loyalty to natural persons in contravention to the general Welfare (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.) and Equal Protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2) during the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, when both their actions and failures to act facilitated the wealth transfer of $21.4 trillion from the paychecks of natural persons to the trust accounts of juridical persons, as well as the ongoing wealth transfer of $2.5 trillion a year since these crimes occurred. Aiding and abetting these initial crimes necessarily places officers of the United States in a principal role (18 U.S. Code § 2), for which the plaintiff respectfully seeks declaratory relief, but it is through the following actions, also in contravention to the general Welfare and equal protection afforded all United States “shareholders” who invest with their tax dollars, that the plaintiff seeks compensatory injunctive relief: a) $635 billion in taxpayer relief to help only juridical persons (from Defendant Congress), b) an estimated $29 trillion in secret revolving loans to help only juridical persons (from Defendant Federal Reserve), c) the transfer of 200,000 foreclosures to help only juridical persons (from the Defendants FNMA and FHLMC), d) the transfer of $11.144 trillion in juridically created debt onto the pile of debt earmarked for the American taxpayer, e) no convictions out of the myriad of initial charges of fraud, deception, and misconduct by juridical persons (from Defendant Justice Department), and f) no attempt to shut down the one-way financial conduit created to facilitate the continuing $2.5 trillion a year transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street since the Crisis, which includes exchanging Wall Street’s initial strategy of mortgage-backed securities—that brought the world to its knees—with their new strategy of rental income-backed securities. This latest strategy has now pushed rent prices up 230% in just over ten years, while the 9.4 million Americans made homeless by the Crisis continue to create enough demand to force compliance with these unfair methods of competition, simply because private banks were given unparalleled immunity for their “unfair [and] deceptive acts” (15 U.S. Code § 45).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
On Count I, judgment against the United States Private Banking Industry, for Embezzlement of Public Funds includes: 1) a minimum of $4 billion in False Claims made by the defendant Banks in violation of HUD, FHA, and MHA agreements; 2) $78 billion in a hidden taxpayer subsidy; 3) $5.4 billion in TARP allocations given over to individual employee bonuses in violation of the TARP agreement; 4) $22.64 billion in money extracted from former homeowners using $18.3 billion in TARP subsidies given to eight Investment Trusts; 5) $227billion in TARP taxpayer money quietly given to 84 separate banks, mortgage services, and state housing organizations, with no intention of paying back the money (covering this fact through citing other TARP investments that allegedly reaped profits for some unknown recipient is irrelevant); 6) $270 billion in taxpayer money for the government takeover and rescue of IndyMac, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and AIG, which did not serve the People’s Equal Protection or general Welfare, as all government foreclosures were sold off to the private sector and no “profits” were used to pay down the People’s National Debt (the overall addition to the National Debt was over $385 billion); a minimum of $10 billion in “kickbacks” to the five Defendant Banks charged in the United States et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al. settlement. Together, these embezzled funds represent $997.6 billion added onto the National Debt, for which taxpayers must pay $32.84 billion a year in perpetuity.
On Count II, judgment against the United States, for Violations of Equal Protection includes: 1) $635 billion in taxpayer money given to one class of protected juridical persons at the expense of a similarly situated, unprotected class of natural persons, then permanently added to the People’s National Debt; 2) $3.6 trillion in Federal Reserve Quantitative Easing to rescue one class of protected juridical persons at the expense of a similarly situated, unprotected class of natural persons, also directly added to the National Debt; 3) an overall jump in the National Debt of $25.62 trillion from the scarring effects of the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis, that has added $913 billion a year in perpetual interest payments by the unprotected class of natural persons. The plaintiff respectfully asks for $635 billion in taxpayer money to be similarly placed in a Congressionally created public bank through the U.S. Treasury, where it can offer fixed rate low interest home loans to distressed communities within each state, in compliance with Congressional Taxing and Spending Powers. Further, the plaintiff respectfully asks for the return of no less than $139.4 billion a year from either corporate taxation or Federal Reserve-created money (unattached to the National Debt), to compensate for interest payments added to the Debt from 1) and 2).
On Count III, judgment against the United States Congress for violations of its Taxing and Spending Powers includes: 1) all monies collected through the transfer of 200,000 homes from the American people to juridical REITs (fair market value at that time was $170k, or approximately $34 billion overall); 2) $6.3 billion a year in profits earned by GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (equivalent to the taxpayer’s annual and perpetual National Debt interest payment on the $191.5 billion needed to bail them out).
On Count IV, judgment against Defendant Banks, Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac (FHLMC), the Federal Reserve, and Congress for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States includes: 1) rerouting as much as the entire $1.14 trillion in taxpayer obligations on the National Debt, so that it might service the taxpayers instead of primary dealers of the debt, Wall Street hedge funds, the Federal Reserve, private banks, etc., who are allowed to profit from the National Debt they continue to create; 2) admonishment by the Court, under 5 U.S. Code Chapter 75 - ADVERSE ACTIONS - SUBCHAPTER II, to reduce the pay of every federal employee that worked for Congress, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury Department, HUD, the FHA, FNMA and FHLMC between 1999 and 2014, implicating them in ultimately securing the ongoing wealth transfer of $2.5 trillion each year from the bottom 90% to the top 1%, as well as directly precipitating the accelerated inflation caused by this transfer [defendants a) created a new protected juridical class of Wall Street landlords capitalized by the Fed and supplied housing by FNMA and FHLMC, that b) helped accelerate the rent of an unprotected tenant class by over 10% each year since the Crisis; meanwhile the Fed c) provided between $16 trillion and $29 trillion in secret revolving loans to private banks, presumably legitimized by holding $9 trillion of the National Debt on its balance sheet while collecting taxpayer money for it, then also d) created another $3.6 trillion in QE money that hyperinflated the money supply, as e) the FNMA and FHLMC continued to facilitate housing deals to Wall Street investors versus Americans in need of shelter; and do not forget f) the legalization of this wealth transfer using Acts of Congress in 1999, 2000, and 2008, creating the conduit through which this wealth transfer began, as well as g) the Fed lowering then raising then lowering the interest rates to perfectly facilitate Wall Street’s housing bait and switch].
On Count V, judgment against the Federal Reserve for misuse of Congressional Money Powers, the Plaintiff respectfully asks for either 1) a) an admission by the Federal Reserve that it is a publicly created entity, b) that as an agent of Congress and the United States it negligently protected one class of juridical persons at the expense of a similarly situated class of natural persons, in violation of the general Welfare and Equal Protection which it must extend without prejudice to all equally created persons, and therefore c) it must generate no less than $16 trillion in revolving loans to distressed communities in every state so that they might enjoy equivalent economic growth, OR 2) an admission by the Federal Reserve that it is a private money creation entity, in which case the plaintiff respectfully asks that $11.144 trillion currently on the National Debt be moved to the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve—who created it—along with the responsibility to pay for the interest payment on this debt (approximately $367 billion a year). If the Federal Reserve chooses to be a publicly created entity and therefore an agent of Congress, it would be allowed to utilize 12 U.S.C. § 371 to establish community banks in all underserved communities through which it could originate loans at a fixed fed funds rate for all working Americans. If the Federal Reserve chooses to be a privately created entity going forward, unattached to the Congressional Money Powers that Congress unlawfully extended to it in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, then the plaintiff respectfully asks that Congress utilize its Money Powers (that Constitutional Law bestowed upon them and no one else) to begin creating and regulating a legitimate United States currency through a public banking system that promotes the general Welfare and Equal Protection of all Americans, whether they are juridically or naturally created.
On Count VI, judgment against the Federal Reserve, HUD, the Justice Department, the Attorney General, and Congress for failure to perform their legal duties, the plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court 1) acknowledge that the People of the United States each represent shareholders in this incorporation of persons both juridical and natural, whose equal status is not measured financially or politically, but simply by their existence, and 2) acknowledge that the People of the United States have in place a strong and well drafted agreement—the United States Constitution—which clearly states that all people have an equal stake in how their government spends taxpayer money, meaning that every person is “similarly situated” as far as the spending of taxpayer money is concerned; this can establish a precedent for future litigation should any taxpayer money be spent to protect one person, but not another. Not only will this provide laborers, borrowers, tenants, and other financially unequal Americans an avenue to hold legislators accountable for any unequal protection under Constitutional Law, it can also empower legislators to reflect better on how proactive uses of taxpayer money can satisfy Equal Protection and general Welfare stipulations more efficiently and effectively than reactive measures.
On Count VII, judgment against the Supreme Court, the plaintiff respectfully asks that 1) each officer recommit themselves to the principles of Natural Law, upon which the Constitution was founded and through which it remains a living document. The spirit of the law, embodied in the Constitution’s Preamble, must continue to drive the purpose behind every law; without it, the letter of the law will invariably be bent toward the rational self-interest of whoever is in power. Now that money has replaced violence as the new “power tool,” it will slowly erode the spirit of Constitutional law unless the Supreme Court steps up and keeps the United States anchored to its founding principles. If any Supreme Court Justice cannot, in good conscience, continue to support and defend the United States Constitution as it was originally written, the plaintiff respectfully encourages you to recuse yourself from all judicial review and step down, due to a conflict of interest, because whatever does not serve the general Welfare, Equal Protection, Life, Liberty, and Happiness of all natural persons will invariably serve some narrower interest that disqualifies them from the serious, nonpolitical, lifetime position with which they were originally entrusted. The plaintiff also respectfully asks officers of the Supreme Court to reread the Constitution as it pertains to the Money Powers, and with the same logic it utilized to overturn Roe v. Wade, declare that “The Constitution makes no reference to [private money creation], and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of [privately created money] now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution [chiefly “juridical personhood”], but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” [unless it has to do with slavery, which the Fourteenth Amendment abolished for states] and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” [which the money of oppressors is not]. [Privately created money] was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences...It is time to heed the Constitution;”
On Count VIII, derivative judgment against all officers of the United States for breach of their fiduciary duties to the American taxpayer as a shareholding member:
a) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Shareholder Oppression: The plaintiff respectfully asks for the United States to place $635 billion (equal to the amount loaned and / or gifted to juridical persons) in a Congressionally created “independent agency” to similarly loan out to distressed communities in accordance with the General Welfare and Equal Protection of all shareholders. The plaintiff also requests that $3.6 trillion in spontaneously created money from the Federal Reserve be placed in this public bank as well, to eliminate potential shareholder oppression charges against the Federal Reserve for loaning $3.6 trillion solely to the class of juridical persons, contrary to the general Welfare and Equal Protection of all persons, when its bylaws clearly gave it permission to initiate loans to both classes. This injection of money to the protected class of juridical persons has since inflated the cost of living for the unprotected class of natural persons, doubling the oppression; to satisfy "equal protection," the loans offered natural persons should come with the same fixed “fed funds rate” loans juridical persons received. Because the original loans to juridical entities kept their workers employed while over 10 million natural persons lost their jobs, their homes, or both, followed by massive inflation incongruous with the economic distress natural persons felt during the Crisis, the plaintiff respectfully asks that the $4.235 trillion requested a) be placed in a Congressionally established bank to b) create non-profit construction jobs within distressed communities to c) build new “at cost” homes and other essential infrastructure that in turn creates more jobs in essential needs fields that best serve the general Welfare and Equal Protection of these communities; this would protect “immunocompromised” communities from the devastating inflation caused by predatory private money creation, as well as compensate for the unequal protection of both homeowners and job holders.
b. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Negligence: The plaintiff respectfully asks for the United States to hasten the return of $245 billion in money borrowed by private juridical persons which has yet to be paid back; $227 billion of this, given out to 84 specific private corporations, represents a government subsidy in violation of Tax and Spending Powers granted to the United States Congress, as the money was never intended to be paid back or serve the Equal Protection of similarly situated natural persons. Once this money is repaid, the plaintiff respectfully asks that the money be placed into a Congressionally created “independent agency” to loan out to distressed communities in accordance with the general Welfare and Equal Protection of all shareholders. Because this money represents previously collected shareholder funds (versus spontaneously created money), it could be used in a series of “revolving loans” so that when natural persons pay off the original loans, the money can be made available again for a second round and third round of community investments, so that one day all American communities could thrive.
c. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Unjust Enrichment: The plaintiff respectfully asks for the United States to reimburse taxpayers for the $5.4 billion that Wall Street employees embezzled from TARP money presumably earmarked for the People’s general Welfare, as that is the only legal use of Congressional outlays. The People similarly ask to be reimbursed for the $78 billion that the United States Treasury overcharged the taxpayers to purchase Wall Street assets that were arguably worthless at the time. Finally, the People ask to be reimbursed for the $148.2 billion a year they are forced to pay private banks in interest payments because the Federal Reserve and officers of the Treasury allow these banks to hold $4.5 trillion of United States National Debt, which satisfies some illusion (or delusion) that holding National Debt legitimizes the creation of more unrelated privately created debt, which is ultimately laundered into “legal tender” by leveraging the American laborer.
d. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Corporate Waste: The plaintiff respectfully asks for the United States to take all federal income taxes over $1 trillion and place it in a Congressionally created “independent agency” to create loans to all communities, so they might build their own essential infrastructure, using a process of self-liquidating loans, meaning that all monies reimbursed—through the payment of utility bills, rent, purchases, etc.—remain in the community, to be reloaned toward any future general Welfare needs. In this way, the federal government will no longer need to collect or spend money toward these concerns, dropping the cost to fund federal government, as well as the tax obligation of American workers. In 2023, the IRS collected $4.7 trillion in federal income tax, meaning that the proposed “independent agency” would receive $3.7 trillion in initial funding, to be dispersed among all the general population, while $1 trillion would be left to run the federal government as it sees fit. Estimates show that in the future, government need only tax workers a 10% flat tax on gross income to pay for government and fund the economic growth and essential needs of every community in the United States.
e. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of Contract: The plaintiff respectfully asks that the $2.7 trillion borrowed from the People’s Social Security Trust Fund be immediately reimbursed and placed into a new independent agency within the U.S. Treasury, where it can only be borrowed by the People, to serve their general Welfare, using safe self-liquidating loans; all monies repaid—principal and interest—would only add to each person’s retirement fund and finally allow working Americans—who are the only real source of value generation—a chance to benefit from their combined efforts, instead of the benefits always falling to juridical entities. The plaintiff further requests that the $2.7 trillion not be created by “leveraging” more debt (aka leveraging the taxpayer) because the original money came from wages already made legal tender by working Americans; they should not be made to pay any more in taxation than the Social Security contract originally indicated. Finally, the plaintiff respectfully asks the Supreme Court to identify all “intragovernmental obligations” that are the responsibility of the private banking system, remove them from the People’s Debt, and transfer them to the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, so it can begin its own collection process (for example, $104 billion to cover FDIC Deposit Insurance and $67 billion to insure mortgage-backed securities represent two sunk costs listed as intragovernmental debt that should rightfully fall to the private banking system, not the People).
f. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Fraud in the Inducement: The plaintiff respectfully asks the Supreme Court to order the Federal Reserve to create between $2.18 trillion ($217,900 [median house price in 2007] X 10 million foreclosed homes) and $4.4 trillion ($440,000 [median house price in 2024] X 10 million foreclosed homes) to generate 10 million fixed “fed funds rate” home loans for deserving low-income working Americans deprived of the Equal Protection contractually promised them. If the Supreme Court determines that the Federal Reserve lies outside the contractual responsibility of the United States government, then the plaintiff respectfully asks that it assign Congress this task, as the principal who aided and abetted the laundering of U.S. currency through private juridical entities in breach of the United States Constitutional contract as it pertains to Congressional Money Powers, Taxing and Spending Powers, and Equal Protection laws.
g. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to rule on the breach of a contractual agreement between the People—who must give up a percentage of their hard-earned wages each year—and the officers of Congress—who in return are mandated by the Constitution to spend it toward their general Welfare and common Defense. Secondly, the plaintiff respectively asks the Supreme Court to put privately created U.S. currency on trial; the Supreme Court is the only place where Constitutional principles can be put on trial, and it is the sworn duty of the officers of the Supreme Court to serve as the guardians of these principles, so they cannot be bent toward the benefit of one group at the expense of another.
h. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Gross Negligence: The plaintiff respectfully asks the United States to a) detach commercial banking from investment banking, b) set up an independent agency within the Treasury, in the manner of the Federal Financing Bank [1973 (12 U.S.C. 2283)], c) deposit no less than $635 billion in debt-free money in this bank, then d) disseminate the general Welfare as it sees fit, not how private banks see it. The plaintiff humbly suggests that the most monetarily efficient and effective way to do this would be to a) clearly define those needs deemed essential to the People’s general Welfare (the establishment of various departments within the executive branch suggests that someone has already been reflecting on this), then b) loan out the money necessary for communities to produce these goods and services for themselves. To incentivize success for this plan, a) repurpose executive department officers to serve as the People’s “public investment managers” within communities to ensure that all work contracted is paid a fair wage, but no private intermediaries profit from this non-profit effort, b) let the community keep the money that they pay back to themselves through these “self-liquidating” essential needs infrastructure loans, to loan out for other needs the community deems essential in the future (including their retirement), and c) offer no other avenue for federal assistance—to anyone. Concurrently, the plaintiff respectfully seeks injunctive relief from any federal income tax obligation by U.S. taxpayers until this complaint is settled, so no more taxpayer money is used unconstitutionally, negligently, fraudulently, wastefully, unjustly, oppressively, or in breach of the contract between the People and the United States to serve the general Welfare and Equal Protection of all natural persons. The Money Powers fall within a small subset of enumerated powers and can no longer be compromised, privatized, or watered down by states’ rights, corporate personhood, or Wall Street investment strategies. For all other and further relief as the Court may deem just proper and equitable.