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

mrphilosophias

U.S. Code › Title 15 › Chapter 1 › § 1 15 U.S. Code § 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

or 15 U.S. Code Chapter 1 - MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

I'm not sure if the $100,000,000 would mean anything to the money printing press. But if you ever win the case, it would certainly help wake the world up from a long slumber and shall be forever remembered in history. Standing up for what is right in the sea of oblivion is never easy, but it certainly is an easier time now than during pre-internet era.
All the best.

"I killed the bank!" - Andrew Jackson.

mrphilosophias

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!

The nominal "shareholders" of the Federal Reserve do not enjoy the benefits of shareholdership of ordinary commercial corporations, because the Fed is a government affiliated agency and not a corporation.

In truth, the U.S. Treasury owns all profits of the Federal Reserve. The Fed regularly sends payment to Treasury from profits, and sends nothing to private member banks.

blogs.wsj.com...

The member banks representatives are there to provide input to the monetary and regulatory apparatus of the Fed.

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.

Well, but subject to approval of the Board of Governors. If it were entirely profit maximizing, they would choose "0", but they do not. Because they know the Fed is not intended be used that way.

And in practice, it is professional economists whose salary is not paid by any private bank who determine these parameters as a means to execute monetary policy.

People are looking for conspiracies where none exist. There are many significant economic problems---the structure of the Fed is not a big one. It is the facts of the private economy and labor market which are the problem.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Well this is one of those times I'm grateful that some bad asses took charge and did something big that could be construed as illegal. Without the federal reserve the internal strife in America and other nations we have heavy trade partnerships would have been doubled. So in the end appeasing the suckers with what's basically free stuff was the wisest thing to do because now the vast majority of the leverage has been taken by more responsible men. John D. Rockefeller and others like him didn't get to their position of extraordinary success by being irresponsible, they got there by taking big risks responsibly. These are the people that finance and organize progress. I love the USD! It's my favorite currency! I'm such a fan-boy when it comes to my USD!

reply to post by strawburry


The fed is what really did the bank in. They've had their throat on the banks and can choke it to death with one squeeze and there's nothing to do to stop it, attempts will just be vain sacrifices. You people gotta get down with the fed, the fed is the bomb! It's protecting the working class from the socially irresponsible elite!

On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

So in the end appeasing the suckers with what's basically free stuff was the wisest thing to do because now the vast majority of the leverage has been taken by more responsible men. John D. Rockefeller and others like him didn't get to their position of extraordinary success by being irresponsible, they got there by taking big risks responsibly. These are the people that finance and organize progress.

On7a7higher7plane

It's protecting the working class from the socially irresponsible elite!

Thank goodness the irresponsibly responsible elite are protecting the working class from the responsibly irresponsible elite!

reply to post by Leonidas


The only viable, conservative and responsible solution is to trick out the Fed and the financial system while developing and establishing a new constitution, government and economic regulatory system. Until then we are stuck with the current monstrosity. Otherwise we will get stuck with something worse or constant violent power upheavals. Or we can scrap the whole thing and impose a monarchy but that would require unnecessary sacrifice.... Communism is not the way out.

reply to post by Aldakoopa


Yeah because we don't want the monetary system compromised by the people that are responsible for being irresponsible. We want it held at the throat by the people who are not responsible for being responsible. We're on the same page right?

On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by Aldakoopa

 

Yeah because we don't want the monetary system compromised by the people that are responsible for being irresponsible. We want it held at the throat by the people who are not responsible for being responsible. We're on the same page right?

I really don't know if we are, I am confused beyond imagination right now.

reply to post by Aldakoopa


And I don't really know if that made any sense at all.

teamcommander
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.

I understand and agree with you. I certainly am not defending the Fed.

We need a new system and the discussion about ending the Fed should include some thought about what to do in it's place.

Before we tear it down, what is the vision.

I am sync with your thinking.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Read this book, it explains all the conspiracies.............samaritansentinel.com

buster2010

MALBOSIA
The only thing that can be done is elect a president that is willing to change it. I believe Andrew Jackson was the last one to do it and Kennedy was the last one to try.

Yes and what happened to the last two presidents Lincoln and Kennedy that tried to get rid of the Fed Reserve? They were assassinated. No president today has the balls to stand up to the Fed.

Are you being funny?

They would have needed to dig up Lincoln and shoot him again forty years after they shot him the first time.

Justacasualobserver
reply to post by Leonidas

 

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

So let's talk about a better alternative. Tearing down the Fed is one thing we can all get on board with, so rather than all just agreeing with each other on that, let's talk about what to do about it and what the better alternatives are.

Leonidas

Justacasualobserver
reply to post by Leonidas

 

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

So let's talk about a better alternative. Tearing down the Fed is one thing we can all get on board with, so rather than all just agreeing with each other on that, let's talk about what to do about it and what the better alternatives are.

Answer has already been given here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is all you have left!

P

mbkennel

mrphilosophias

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!

The nominal "shareholders" of the Federal Reserve do not enjoy the benefits of shareholdership of ordinary commercial corporations, because the Fed is a government affiliated agency and not a corporation.

In truth, the U.S. Treasury owns all profits of the Federal Reserve. The Fed regularly sends payment to Treasury from profits, and sends nothing to private member banks.

blogs.wsj.com...

The member banks representatives are there to provide input to the monetary and regulatory apparatus of the Fed.

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.

Well, but subject to approval of the Board of Governors. If it were entirely profit maximizing, they would choose "0", but they do not. Because they know the Fed is not intended be used that way.

And in practice, it is professional economists whose salary is not paid by any private bank who determine these parameters as a means to execute monetary policy.

People are looking for conspiracies where none exist. There are many significant economic problems---the structure of the Fed is not a big one. It is the facts of the private economy and labor market which are the problem.

edit on 8-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Source
After paying expenses, the Fed turns our profits over to the Treasury Department each year. We pay no income taxes. However, we pay real estate taxes, personnel related taxes such as unemployment insurance, workers compensation tax and social security withholding tax, etc.

So you don't think the Banks that are holding onto that $77 Billion in profit are making money off it 364 days a year? Maybe I'm just cynical.

There was definitely a conspiracy. Without a question. That was the finding of the Pujo Committee.

Leonidas

Justacasualobserver
reply to post by Leonidas

 

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

So let's talk about a better alternative. Tearing down the Fed is one thing we can all get on board with, so rather than all just agreeing with each other on that, let's talk about what to do about it and what the better alternatives are.

Andrew Jackson ended the Central Bank in the U.S. and paid off our debts by selling federal land. Perhaps we can pay off our debts by nationalizing our natural resources and renting them out to the record profit making oil companies.

I have another idea personally but unsure if it is viable.

It is a minimum standard of living.
You start with a price index of goods necessary for the fulfillment of needs: food, shelter, clothing, education, oil, medical care, taxes, etc.
You then take this index and divide by 40 (what congress has established as a full time work week)
What you arrive at is a minimum wage that is sure to meet the minimum needs.

This will mean minimum wage goes up, so how are business's who pay employees less then this msol wage supposed to make up the difference? Simple the Government issues it to them as a tax return. As long as the American workforce is self-sufficient and able to produce the goods and services necessary to meet the demand, there should be no increases in prices. Thoughts?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


This is re-distribution and it wouldn't really be a solution. It's like a broader version of our current system of corporate wellfare. When it comes to using re-distribution being a solution you have to think bigger otherwise it's just insignificant BS to the regular Joes in America. When it comes to your idea realize big corporate is more efficient than random bloaks x 300,000,000. How could you fix prices when the net effect is inflation?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your idea.

On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

This is re-distribution and it wouldn't really be a solution. It's like a broader version of our current system of corporate wellfare. When it comes to using re-distribution being a solution you have to think bigger otherwise it's just insignificant BS to the regular Joes in America. When it comes to your idea realize big corporate is more efficient than random bloaks x 300,000,000. How could you fix prices when the net effect is inflation?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your idea.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. I'll elaborate more in depth another time.

mrphilosophias
The penalty is right in the law $100,000,000 for corporations; $1,000,000 for individuals. Adjusted for inflation since 1913 it is approximately $2.3 Billion dollars per violation.

How ironic would that be if their fines were adjusted for inflation that they caused?

Sweetly ironic, I'd say.