Federal Reserve Bank is ILLEGAL?

http://feustel.mixi.net/GOV/DEPTS/fedres.html

Most list members would be very interested in the above link.

Instead of reading the rabid nonsense referred to in the previous post in
this thread, try

http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm

wherein it is revealed that (gasp!) the Federal Reserve is an independent
federal agency, but that (private) federal reserve banks have five of the
twelve votes (the rest belong to government officials) on the Open Market
Committee, an important policy-setting body that has an influence over the
money supply.  Incidentally, this practice was upheld in Melcher v.
Federal Open Mkt. Comm., 644 F. Supp. 510 (D.D.C. 1986). 

My article discusses the tangled legality of letting private parties
exercise goverment powers -- a practice that, like it or not, is as old as
the Republic.  (Documentation for that claim appears at 
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm#ENDNOTE9  )
and thus about as clearly within the original intent as anything gets.
Incidentally, the practice of giving private parties partial or full
control over seemingly public functions affects a very large number
of bodies, not just the Open Market Committee.


On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Doug Renner wrote:

[pointer to rabid nonsense]


A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Instead of reading the rabid nonsense referred to in the previous post in
> this thread, try
> 
> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm

[snip]

Michael you make some outstanding points in your article!  One that struck 
me was:

  "Today more federal corporations exist than ever before in 
peacetime, and the number keeps growing. While toiling in obscurity, they
manage communication satellites, museums, railroads, and power 
generation.  They provide specialized credit and insurance for housing and
agriculture.  They exist as accounting devices to hide the true size of 
the budget deficit, as nonprofit organizations, and as highly profitable 
and highly leveraged economic colossi. The most profitable corporations, 
which provided a total of about $5 trillion in credit and insurance in 
1995, also have approximately $1.5 trillion in securities and other debt 
outstanding.  These organizations are capable of squirreling away $2 
billion for a rainy day, while pleading poverty to Congress.{10} "

Michael, clearly your article is much more professionally written and 
well organized, and it addresses some primary issues raised in the previous 
article nearly head-on.  However is it true that what you are saying is 
that two fundamental premises in the article you refer to as "rabid" are 
incorrect?  Namely:

"ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE
THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.

"IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP. (Reference 22, P. 168)

Are these not correct?  Anyway, there were issues other than mere legality 
discussed, including history & practicality.  Specifically, the quotes from 
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Rothschild, references to 
Congressional Record, etc. were what had impressed me in the link 
below.

> On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Doug Renner wrote:

http://feustel.mixi.net/GOV/DEPTS/fedres.html

Is it an accurate statement that we are effectively paying the Fed 
interest on the currency we carry?

> 
> A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
> Associate Professor of Law |
> U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
> P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
> Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. 
> 

Or am I just making that common but incorrect assumption that 
unconstitutionality entails illegality?

Thanks for responding to this thread, Michael.  Your input is very much 
valued.

Regards,
IAJAT (just a taxpayer)
Doug

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Doug Renner wrote:

> article nearly head-on.  However is it true that what you are saying is 
> that two fundamental premises in the article you refer to as "rabid" are 
> incorrect?  Namely:
> 
> "ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE
> THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.

The above is a true statement.  Note however that "congress" cannot
operate the mint.  It must -- **MUST** -- delegate this duty to the
executive branch (or someone outside the legislative branch, cf. Chadha
v. U.S.) if it wants it done. Congress is free to select the type
of agent it wants to do this.  Indeed, if Congress chose to license
private mints, that would, IMHO be legal.  The point here is that the
states don't have the power to coin money.

> 
> "IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
> DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP. (Reference 22, P. 168)
> 

The above is so oversimplified as to be meaningless; anyway it's almost
certainly (mostly) wrong. It refers to a case that has never been followed
since.  There are many cases since that supply the necessary context.  I
discuss some of them in my article.  I discuss others in my student note
and in other articles availble from my homepage.

> Are these not correct?  Anyway, there were issues other than mere legality 
> discussed, including history & practicality.  Specifically, the quotes from 
> Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Rothschild, references to 
> Congressional Record, etc. were what had impressed me in the link 
> below.

Bah. "Mere legallity" indeed. 

> Is it an accurate statement that we are effectively paying the Fed 
> interest on the currency we carry?

No.  Unless by "effectively" you mean "during periods of inflation".  But
the currency can deflate too... e.g. in a depression. 

> Or am I just making that common but incorrect assumption that 
> unconstitutionality entails illegality?

No, I'm afraid you are making the common but incorrect assumption that
reading some part of one court case from the dustbin of history out of
context makes you a constitutional expert. 
> 
> Thanks for responding to this thread, Michael.  Your input is very much 
> valued.

You may feel differently as I get grumpier...

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | Great weather here.

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Doug Renner wrote:
> 
> > Are these not correct?  Anyway, there were issues other than mere
> > legality discussed, including history & practicality.  Specifically,
> > the quotes from Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Rothschild,
> > references to Congressional Record, etc. were what had impressed
> > me in the link below.
> 
> Bah. "Mere legallity" indeed.

But Professor Froomkin, you are igNORING the inFLUENCE of the ILLUMINATI 
and the BILDERBERGERS. The same source that supplied this imPORTANT 
information about the FED tells us the TRUTH in an earlier missive. Mere 
"legality" and mere "facts" are NOT at issue here.

http://www.hevanet.com/nitehawk/nwo4.html

|ADAM WISEHOPHF, Professor at Germany's Ingolstadt University, founded 
|The Order of the Illuminati on May 1, 1776. This man designed the very
|plan of world domination that is still in use today to enslave the 
|world's masses. Here, upon establishing his "Order of the Illuminati", 
|he smugly reflects on his "conning" the gullible Christians of his day,
|saying: 
|
|"The most wonderful thing of all is that the distinguished Lutheran and 
|Calvinist theologians who belong to our order really believe that they 
|see in it (Illuminati) the true and genuine sense of Christian 
|Religion. Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to 
|believe?" 
|
|Evidently not! And a high percentage of Christians today are still 
|being conned in the same way. One prime example of this are the 
|millions of Christians, and most church denominations, who have fallen 
|for the NWO plan of a "One World RELIGION", being spearheaded by the 
|United Nations' National and World Counsel of Churches, behind the 
|battle cry of ecumenicalism. 
|
|Watch the future and we will see only small groups of spiritual Ameri- 
|cans, who will resist following the millions of "religious" lambs to 
|the slaughter. The Lord of the Bible always warned His people to never 
|follow the MULTITUDE. 

As everyone on cypherPUNKS KNOWS, to every conspiracy theory there IS a 
grain of TRUTH. We as a people MUST understand the TRUTH and fulfill our 
DESTINY. FREE AMERICA! http://www.nswpp.org/

> > Or am I just making that common but incorrect assumption that
> > unconstitutionality entails illegality?
> 
> No, I'm afraid you are making the common but incorrect assumption that
> reading some part of one court case from the dustbin of history out of
> context makes you a constitutional expert.

I seriously doubt he believes that. Or anything else he's spouting off 
about.

> > Thanks for responding to this thread, Michael.  Your input is very
> > much valued.
> 
> You may feel differently as I get grumpier...

Believe me, you're being far too kind.

-rich

Actually, I have always had a soft spot for the Bavarian Illuminati.

Those wanting to know more should find a good university library and look
at:

Vernon Stauffer, New England and the Bavarian Illuminati (published in
1918 -- you won't find this in your bookstore....)

Amazingly, the whole original Bavarian Illuminati panic was set off in
1798 in a single sermon given by Reverend Jedeidiah Morse on May 9, 1798,
based on his reading of John Robison's 1797 book, Proofs of a Conspiracy
Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe.

It's really an incredible piece of US social history and I think tells us
a lot about the national temper then and now.

The national panic over this early "reds under the beds" lasted almost two
years!  No one ever found any Illuminati in the US...

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Rich Graves McElwained thusly:

> But Professor Froomkin, you are igNORING the inFLUENCE of the ILLUMINATI 
> and the BILDERBERGERS. The same source that supplied this imPORTANT 
> information about the FED tells us the TRUTH in an earlier missive. Mere 
> "legality" and mere "facts" are NOT at issue here.
> 
> http://www.hevanet.com/nitehawk/nwo4.html
> 
> |ADAM WISEHOPHF, Professor at Germany's Ingolstadt University, founded 
> |The Order of the Illuminati on May 1, 1776. This man designed the very
> |plan of world domination that is still in use today to enslave the 
> |world's masses. Here, upon establishing his "Order of the Illuminati", 
> |he smugly reflects on his "conning" the gullible Christians of his day,
> |saying: 
> |
> |"The most wonderful thing of all is that the distinguished Lutheran and 
> |Calvinist theologians who belong to our order really believe that they 
> |see in it (Illuminati) the true and genuine sense of Christian 
> |Religion. Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to 
> |believe?" 
> |
> |Evidently not! And a high percentage of Christians today are still 
> |being conned in the same way. One prime example of this are the 
> |millions of Christians, and most church denominations, who have fallen 
> |for the NWO plan of a "One World RELIGION", being spearheaded by the 
> |United Nations' National and World Counsel of Churches, behind the 
> |battle cry of ecumenicalism. 
> |
> |Watch the future and we will see only small groups of spiritual Ameri- 
> |cans, who will resist following the millions of "religious" lambs to 
> |the slaughter. The Lord of the Bible always warned His people to never 
> |follow the MULTITUDE. 
> 
> As everyone on cypherPUNKS KNOWS, to every conspiracy theory there IS a 
> grain of TRUTH. We as a people MUST understand the TRUTH and fulfill our 
> DESTINY. FREE AMERICA! http://www.nswpp.org/
> 
> > > Or am I just making that common but incorrect assumption that
> > > unconstitutionality entails illegality?
> > 
> > No, I'm afraid you are making the common but incorrect assumption that
> > reading some part of one court case from the dustbin of history out of
> > context makes you a constitutional expert.
> 
> I seriously doubt he believes that. Or anything else he's spouting off 
> about.
> 
> > > Thanks for responding to this thread, Michael.  Your input is very
> > > much valued.
> > 
> > You may feel differently as I get grumpier...
> 
> Believe me, you're being far too kind.
> 
> -rich
> 

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | Great weather here.

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> Instead of reading the rabid nonsense referred to in the previous post in
> this thread, try
> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm
> wherein it is revealed that (gasp!) the Federal Reserve is an independent
> federal agency, but that (private) federal reserve banks have five of the
> twelve votes (the rest belong to government officials) on the Open Market
> Committee, an important policy-setting body that has an influence over the
> money supply.  Incidentally, this practice was upheld in Melcher v.
> Federal Open Mkt. Comm., 644 F. Supp. 510 (D.D.C. 1986).

[snip]

Are the other 7 votes really "government officials" in the strictest sense,
with no significant ties to the banks?