It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1913 Federal Reserve Act was Illegal. Here is proof. What legal recourse do we have?

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

teamcommander
reply to post by Leonidas
 


It is true what you suggest has not been done before but the circumstances for what I suggest have not been in place before now.
I don't think we should pass-up the opportunity to take advantage of the animosity which currently exists in the federal government at this point in time.


Just for clarification, I am not defending the Fed.

I am saying that the American economy is so interwoven with the rest of the developed world that to quit the Federal Reserve system "cold turkey" would demolish the economy of the country.

A better system has to be identified and a long term plan to convert to it over time to avoid the destruction of the world our children and grandchildren would have to live through.

A frontal attack in the courts would either fail and nothing changes, or it succeeds and the system collapses.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


I understand and agree in large part with what you are saying.
I am simply trying, in my own humble way, to point out the quickest way to bring the legal stand point in question into the public arena for discussion.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

teamcommander

From there it will go to any of several congressional oversite committies and I have no doubt there are several members of congress which will work to bring about court actions to get the whole mess straightened out.

Really quite simple if you think about it.


Yes, it's simple, because the lawsuit would be dismissed immediately.

The Sherman Antitrust act is a law, and subsequent laws can, in effect, modify it. If US Congress passes a law creating a quasi-governmental agency it is assumed that it is legal. Only a constitutional violation could thwart the legislature.

By the similar (specious) reasoning as the Fed being subject to anti-trust, somebody could accuse say NASA, EPA, or AirForce or any other US government agency created after the antitrust act as being illegal.

It's very obvious that a regulatory agency (which is what the Fed is) is nothing like a monopolistic commercial violator. It's the Fed and the OCC (part of Treasury dep't) which restrains the private sector banks from being excessively obnoxious.
edit on 7-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

mbkennel

teamcommander

From there it will go to any of several congressional oversite committies and I have no doubt there are several members of congress which will work to bring about court actions to get the whole mess straightened out.

Really quite simple if you think about it.


Yes, it's simple, because the lawsuit would be dismissed immediately.

The Sherman Antitrust act is a law, and subsequent laws can, in effect, modify it. If US Congress passes a law creating a quasi-governmental agency it is assumed that it is legal. Only a constitutional violation could thwart the legislature.

By the similar (specious) reasoning as the Fed being subject to anti-trust, somebody could accuse say NASA, EPA, or AirForce or any other US government agency created after the antitrust act as being illegal.

It's very obvious that a regulatory agency (which is what the Fed is) is nothing like a monopolistic commercial violator. It's the Fed and the OCC (part of Treasury dep't) which restrains the private sector banks from being excessively obnoxious.
edit on 7-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


The Pujo committee thought otherwise. The Federal Reserve is precisely what is meant in section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It is a trust of private banks.

info.publicintelligence.net...
edit on 7-4-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

mrphilosophias
The Pujo committee thought otherwise. The Federal Reserve is precisely what is meant in section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It is a trust of private banks.


No, not really. The activities of the Federal Reserve are not that similar to what a collection of entirely private profit-maximizing banks would do for economic collusion. Just read a contemporary business newspaper/site. The Fed is imposing capital requirements on banks in concert with the Fed's "stress test" for soundness. These requirements are the opposite of profit maximizing (in the short run), they cost the banks return on equity, executive bonuses, and limit their ability to grow and consolidate. They do serve a governmental and public interest, however.

There is always the problem of regulatory capture---but abolishing the regulatory authority is not the answer!

And it doesn't matter---if Congress passes a law setting up a government institution, then it is legal, regardless of previous laws other than the US Constitution. And yes, in practice the Federal Reserve is mostly government. Private banks do have representatives in the Fed---as the Fed has regulators at the banks---but the overall policy is set by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President, and are accountable by law to Congress. And all profits of the Fed are sent to the U.S. Treasury, not any private owners. So by management control and economic benefit, the Fed is a US Government institution as everybody understands.
edit on 7-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


I'm kinda new to this topic, but how the heck did Lincoln try to abolish something that was created 43 years after his death?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I have often offered my opinion on ATS regarding the fact that the US people have no rights in practice, only in name. Part of what I mean by this is that your only recourse to fix the system is through the system itself. The only factor that has any bearing on success or failure, assuming everything else has been accounted for, is the corruption of those involved on the political end, when one attempts to pursue something this large. There will be many people who would fight tooth and nail, albeit mostly from the shadows, using their influence, because the Federal Reserve makes them so much money. It allows them to basically control the monetary system of the United States.

It is no secret that the FRA was instituted by private enterprise, for their greater good, not the greater good of the people. How modern politicians continue to ignore this is an important question, and the fact that they do ignore suggests either ignorance or complicity in my honest opinion. There are politicians who simply would not want to take on fighting the super wealthy, either because they are somehow tied to these people, or because they know winning would be difficult. If at any point in their career a politician has done something illegal or immoral, such as taking money from certain groups, etc., I would not doubt that this information would be used to blackmail them and prevent them from seeking the truth and correcting the wrongs you mention.

There are so few politicians in Congress compared to the entire population, that their positions are very important. To think that interest groups haven't already gotten to them, or tried to get to them, is absurd. These groups cannot afford to just leave these politicians alone, because as I said, there are not too many of them. I would estimate that the majority of politicians are not straight-laced, because it takes a certain type of person to seek out that power in the first place, and such drive is rarely coupled with compassion and an unfailing urge to do the right thing.

But I do think that exposure is your ally. Getting the word out is the first step, and making people realize how they've been swindled. The point is to build a support base, which will be needed later. I've done similar research regarding what would be necessary for the people to rise up against a tyrannical government and seize power, and this is the first step I came up with. Without pressure applied from the people, nothing so large can succeed. The same is true when attempting to change something that has been a fundamental part of our society for decades, even though it doesn't actually help the people.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


It doesn't matter if its private or public. Each dollar that is loaned from the Federal Reserve is loaned at interest, meaning, every dollar that it created has a piece of debt attached to it. This is why the trillions of dollars of debt can never be reduced. It will continue to climb until you go back to what Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy wanted.

A system where there is no middle man, where there is no borrowing from a Central Bank that's never been audited by the US Government since it's creation.

The main reason why Central Banks were started were to fund wars. Without the endless supply of fiat money, Leaders could not finance their wars. This is why they borrow from Central Banks. And when they do, they put their own country in a unrecoverable amount of debt that will act like a cancer to the country.

Central Banking has been responsible for the millions of deaths of people over hundreds of years. It is a disease strangling the World that has to be wiped out.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

mbkennel

mrphilosophias
The Pujo committee thought otherwise. The Federal Reserve is precisely what is meant in section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It is a trust of private banks.


No, not really. The activities of the Federal Reserve are not that similar to what a collection of entirely private profit-maximizing banks would do for economic collusion. Just read a contemporary business newspaper/site. The Fed is imposing capital requirements on banks in concert with the Fed's "stress test" for soundness. These requirements are the opposite of profit maximizing (in the short run), they cost the banks return on equity, executive bonuses, and limit their ability to grow and consolidate. They do serve a governmental and public interest, however.


Correct me if I am wrong. It has been a while since I took macroeconomics.

The only cost to the banks turn on equity is that the banks can not lend out 100% of their demand deposits and that they are committed, in a minimal sense, to investments which yield smaller, yet more sure, returns in the form of US Treasury notes. They are still, literally, making money, and in a sense that would certainly fall in line with the value principle of the US Supreme Court ruling of Dodge vs Ford Motor Corp, for a company to act in the interests of its shareholders.

One of the ways that the Federal Reserve in collusion with the US Treasury creates money is by purchasing United States Treasury Bonds in what is called open market operations. These bonds earn interest at a percentage rate that is contingent upon prevailing interest returns that are determined by the Federal Reserve. This interest is guaranteed as it is backed by faith and trust on the good credit of the United States. Who profits from these interest bearing securities? Shareholders of the Federal Reserve. Who are the shareholders of the federal reserve? The private banking institutions that comprise the member banks of the federal reserve. While the explicit mission statement and purpose of the Federal Reserve isn't to make profit it is the inevitable result of the structure of the Federal Reserve system that its unique relationship yields significant profits!

Another way that the Federal Reserve system makes money is through the reserve requirement in conjunction with the principle of fractional reserve banking. Again it is the Federal Reserve that decides the reserve requirement, which you claim is against their bottom line, in practice and principle. This couldn't be further from the truth. This principle states that the member banks (who own stock in the federal reserve system) vicariously through their board of privately elected directors, can decide how much money these very same member banks, as a matter of law, must keep on hand in relationship to the total amount of money that they loan out. It is my understanding that this percentage is approximately 10% of the total deposits the bank holds. This means banks can lend out 90% of the money deposited, even though none of it is theirs. While 90% of the money is loaned out the bank is still responsible for paying out 100% of the deposits if demanded.


mbkennel
There is always the problem of regulatory capture---but abolishing the regulatory authority is not the answer!


Whose bright idea was it to put foxes in charge of the hen house? The foxes! This is a matter of history. Senator Aldrich, John Rockefeller Jr.'s Father in law made it happen by creating the National Monetary Commission in response to the Banking Panic of 1907. The very bankers who stood to profit from teh Federal Reserve Act were the very bankers that caused the panic! Eerily similar to the events that caused the Bank run of 1933 and the great depression. This panic was caused by some spurious copper investments reminiscent of the schemes of Atlas Shruggeds' fictional Francisco d'Anconia, that may be traced back to Rothschilds involvement with the Anaconda Copper company. This may seem an unsubstantiated claim, and controversial, but it is not without merit as my own research suggests. I'd be happy to share this information if you PM me.


mbkennel
And it doesn't matter---if Congress passes a law setting up a government institution, then it is legal, regardless of previous laws other than the US Constitution. And yes, in practice the Federal Reserve is mostly government. Private banks do have representatives in the Fed---as the Fed has regulators at the banks---but the overall policy is set by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President, and are accountable by law to Congress. And all profits of the Fed are sent to the U.S. Treasury, not any private owners. So by management control and economic benefit, the Fed is a US Government institution as everybody understands.
edit on 7-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


It doesn't matter? It does! Congress does not have the authority to transfer it's enumerated powers to a private company, especially because the power to issue currency has explicitly been placed under the care and protection of congress! The Federal Reserve is not mostly government, quite the opposite I would argue. The Board of Governors may be nominated and confirmed by the executive and legislative branch respectively, but modern campaign financing and lobbying laws render any checks and balances impotent. The largest banks, year after year, are the largest campaign contributors in politics, and hold significant lobbying power.

Whether the profits of the Fed end up in the Treasury is a matter of oversight that needs to be confirmed. The 2008 derivatives crisis is proof of how dubious this claim truly is.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

InvisibleOwl
reply to post by buster2010
 


I'm kinda new to this topic, but how the heck did Lincoln try to abolish something that was created 43 years after his death?


great question. The U.S. has been in a constant tug of war between the central banking cartel since it's inception. It is a very complex topic, but very fascinating for students of history and economics. It is certainly a thread which weaves itself throughout American History. Consider looking into Alexander Hamilton and the First Bank of the United States, and the Presidents and congressmen who opposed him.

My own research suggests his connections to Lafayette, Morris, Calonne, and the Rothschild dynasty bring into question whether central banking in the US threatens our national sovereignty.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

mbkennel
And it doesn't matter---if Congress passes a law setting up a government institution, then it is legal, regardless of previous laws other than the US Constitution.


I'm no lawyer so I can't say with certainty but I am pretty sure this is not true with Federal law. I think first congress would need to amend the Sherman Act. This was the contention of the Pujo Committee.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Good luck with legal recourse, who do you think controls the courts?

Buy as much silver as you can, hold it physically, and convince everyone else you know to do the same.

Why? The power of the Federal Reserve lies in the power to print fiat money, money backed by nothing physically. Throughout the ages people have known when the price of gold goes up, it is not truly the price of gold going up but just a decrease in the value or perceived value of the current fiat money. The real price of gold in kept in check by massive naked illegal short selling, the same happens to the price of silver, but this is harder to do with silver as much of the silver mined is used up, unlike gold. So when the inevitable silver shortage occurs, the price of gold will go up as well - and it will be the signal to the world that the dominant currency is near death - which will hurt the Federal Reserve. To cut them off at the knees the next world reserve currency must be backed by silver and gold and maybe other resources. Just my two cents.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Good luck with legal recourse, who do you think controls the courts?

Buy as much silver as you can, hold it physically, and convince everyone else you know to do the same.

Why? The power of the Federal Reserve lies in the power to print fiat money, money backed by nothing physically. Throughout the ages people have known when the price of gold goes up, it is not truly the price of gold going up but just a decrease in the value or perceived value of the current fiat money. The real price of gold in kept in check by massive naked illegal short selling, the same happens to the price of silver, but this is harder to do with silver as much of the silver mined is used up, unlike gold. So when the inevitable silver shortage occurs, the price of gold will go up as well - and it will be the signal to the world that the dominant currency is near death - which will hurt the Federal Reserve. To cut them off at the knees the next world reserve currency must be backed by silver and gold and maybe other resources. Just my two cents.





lol thanks but I can't even afford food, can't find work, so silver is out of the question.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


The system is going to collapse anyway. Just a matter of when.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
made it to the front page! that's a first for me! To celebrate this occasion I will write my congressman!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

InvisibleOwl
reply to post by buster2010
 


I'm kinda new to this topic, but how the heck did Lincoln try to abolish something that was created 43 years after his death?

The same way Congress made the Federal Reserve illegal 23 years before they created it. Time travel, fueled by the poor quality of civics education in American high schools.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Speak all the law you want. They are literally too big to fail unless the whole of America stands and unites against them at once and America will not. The own the law. It's been this way since..well, 1913. Like we can change it now, America is all divided, brainwashed and scared of it's own shadows. America fears the government like a child fears a monster under it's bed.
edit on 7-4-2014 by Illuminawty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Illuminawty
 


Spot on





Speak all the law you want. They are literally too big to fail unless the whole of America stands and unites against them at once and America will not. The own the law. It's been this way since..well, 1913. Like we can change it now, America is all divided, brainwashed and scared of it's own shadows. America fears the government like a child fears a monster under it's bed.




Your comment remind me of the movie monsters Inc.

The monsters need the fear of children to power their world!
Like a mirror of government today, we are unable to govern ourselves so we think and government use fear to keep themselves in power.

The movie industry is a very good way of disclosure without giving up the truth directly.

Wake up people!



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

NthOther
Why worry about "legal" recourse?

They're not following their own rules so I see no reason why the rest of us should.

We're not going to win playing by their rules. Throw legality out. It's useless.


This is correct and you get a cookie!

The only way is for thousands of people to enforce the arrests of those involved. Go after them one by one and have public trials. Completely disband the federal reserve and then go after wall street. Scum deserves no respect or honor.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


I could live with a collapse and I am sure something better would rise from the ashes. Its my opinion that we do not need the bankers but they need us to support their corrupt system. People will still grow food and I think more people will work together then go all mad Max during a collapse. I have always been an optimist though.




top topics



 
42
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join