Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Federal Reserve Act’

Federal Reserve BoardNote: This is based on this article I posted on April 21, 2012, with the exception that it was about the 99-year charter misinformation, and I have substituted 100-year, which is the alternative misinformation that some people were spreading in 2013 even after the 99-year charter claim had been shown to be false.

There was actually a commenter who alleged a coverup on the part of the Federal Reserve, saying they were lying about there not being a 99-year charter. This is unfortunately not uncommon in what passes for the alternative media these days. It’s not because the Federal Reserve’s website says there was originally a 20-year charter that I say there was a 20-year charter. It’s because there are a variety of historical sources that say so, some of which are non-governmental, and not supporters of the Fed.

The claim that the Federal Reserve was given a 100-year charter set to expire in 2013 isn’t the only myth surrounding its creation.

There is also the myth that the Federal Reserve Act was passed during the Christmas break when most members of Congress were away. That isn’t true, and there is the official record showing the final vote in the Senate was 54-32 on December 18, 1913.

According to Section 4, part 2 of the Federal Reserve Act, 1913, it says of each of the 12 privately owned Federal Reserve Banks:

“To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.“

Since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, their 20-year charter must have been extended.

A 20-year charter was also granted to the First and Second Banks of the United States, and both had their charter terminated. Yes, there was a time when privately owned central banks had time-limited charters, and for good reason, due to the havoc they caused.

12 U.S.C. § 341 : US Code – Section 341: General enumeration of powers shows:

“Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.“

Again, since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, this provision was either changed with some other time limit, or was never changed.

In fact, it was never changed, and, therefore, their charter doesn’t expire in 2013, and there was never a 100-year charter for the Federal Reserve.

Read Full Post »

Gary northIn his February 1, 2012 article, Ben Bernanke: The Official Counterfeiter, Gary North states:

There used to be a legal competitor issued by the U.S. Treasury. We read on Wikipedia:

A United States Note, also known as a Legal Tender Note, is a type of paper money that was issued from 1862 to 1971 in the U.S. Having been current for over 100 years, they were issued for longer than any other form of U.S. paper money. They were known popularly as “greenbacks” in their heyday, a name inherited from the Demand Notes that they replaced in 1862. Often called Legal Tender Notes, they were called United States Notes by the First Legal Tender Act, which authorized them as a form of fiat currency. On the back, they give notice that:

This Note is Legal Tender for All Debts Public and Private Except Duties On Imports And Interest On The Public Debt; And Is Redeemable In Payment Of All Loans Made To The United States.

North has been known to derisively refer to supporters of the interest-free paper money as “Greenbackers,” showing how out of touch he is in calling Ellen Brown a Greenbacker, considering she says the issuance of paper money at the federal level is unconstitutional.

Notice how he later focuses his readers’ attention on an insignificant difference between the two notes:

The Federal Reserve’s Notes looked very much like the Treasury’s greenbacks until the U.S. Notes were taken out of circulation.

As if the look of the two notes is at all significant compared to the fact that U.S. Notes are interest-free, and no interest was due — or ever will be due — on them.

For more on interest-free United States Notes, see my article, The Federal Reserve lies about United States Notes (Lincoln Greenbacks).

Read Full Post »

In 1935, Cret designed the Seal of the Board o...

The claim that the Federal Reserve was given a 99-year charter set to expire in 2012 isn’t the only myth surrounding its creation.

There is also the myth that the Federal Reserve Act was passed during the Christmas break when most members of Congress were away. That isn’t true, and there is the official record showing the final vote in the Senate was 54-32 on December 18, 1913.

According to Section 4, part 2 of the Federal Reserve Act, 1913, it says of each of the 12 privately owned Federal Reserve Banks:

To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.

Since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, their 20-year charter must have been extended.

A 20-year charter was also granted to the First and Second Banks of the United States, and both had their charter terminated. Yes, there was a time when privately owned central banks had time-limited charters, and for good reason, due to the havoc they caused.

12 U.S.C. § 341 : US Code – Section 341: General enumeration of powers shows:

Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

Again, since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, this provision was either changed with some other time limit, or was never changed.

In fact, it was never changed, and, therefore, their charter doesn’t expire in 2012, and there was never a 99-year charter for the Federal Reserve.

Read Full Post »

The Senate's side of the Capitol Building in DC.

If we do it, it's legal!

There is still talk about whether there was the constitutionally required quorum of members for passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

However, on December 19 of this year, the day the food bill was passed in the Senate, directly from the Congressional Record, it shows that in the next item of business, there was a successful request for unanimous consent to waive what is admitted to be “mandatory quorum.”

In the Senate’s own glossary of terms, they admit that 51 Senators is a constitutional requirement for quorum to do business, and even brazenly admit that often, fewer Senators are actually on the floor, but they say that quorum is presumed unless the contrary is shown by a quorum call or a roll call vote!

However, there are repeated examples from the Congressional Record of quorum calls being made where it was demonstrated that quorum wasn’t present at the time.

I feel that this regular flouting of a clearly defined constitutional requirement needs to be made aware to more Americans so they know a big reason why their government is as unrepresentative and unlawful as it has become today.

Read Full Post »