Xode

Welcome!

Hello, Xode, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! . I would encourage a read through of these so you get an idea of what Wikipedia is looking for. That way you'll be able to contribute a lot more productively and with less stress. Have fun. - Taxman ^Talk 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Federal Reserve System

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The following text was removed on 22 January 2006:

At this point, it is important to note that the legality of the Federal Reserve system has been disputed and that many of those arguments make sense. Please see the criticism section below for details.

First, the "legality" of the Federal reserve system is not disputed in the text under "Criticisms" -- at least not as currently written in the article. Famspear

This is correct, but the article text needs to be changed to point out that the legality of the Federal Reserve is in dispute because of the legal evidence at http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm Xode

All the criticisms seem to relate to other topics (opacity, etc). Second, whether "those [legal] arguments" make sense is not verifiable, since no legal arguments have been made in the article. Famspear

I added a reference to http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm in the external links section of the article. The evidence there directly challenges the legality of the Federal Reserve system. Xode

Third, the "legality" of the Federal Reserve System (or anything else in the United States) can be tested in only one place: a court of law. Famspear

The legality of the courts in this country is also disputed by http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm Consider this: the United States and every state in the United States are required by the Constitution to be a republic. Yet the courts in this country are controlled by the various state bar associations and the American Bar Association, which are closed private clubs. That makes the courts in this country aristocracies. An aristocracy can't control any part of the government in this country because then the government in this country would not be the republic that it is required to be. I can provide details proving each and every one of these points whenever you want. Xode

Any coherent discussion of the "legality" of the Fed would probably have to include an analysis of the state of the case law, if any, on the subject. The article as currently written contains none. Famspear

The document at http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm gives exactly what you are asking for here (i.e. an analysis of the state of the case law, if any, on the subject) and then some. Please read it and let me know what your thoughts are regarding it. Xode

Fourth, placing the statement -- that the "legality" of the Fed has been "disputed" -- near the beginning of the article arguably gives the misleading impression that there is some serious problem facing the Fed in the legal system. Famspear

There is a serious problem regarding the Federal Reserve system and regarding the legal system in this country, and both problems are totally connected. That point needs to be made clear in the Federal Reserve article. I would really appreciate your assistance in getting these points added to the Federal Reserve article. Xode

Without backup to support that point of view in the article, placing that statement in the article, especially at the introduction, is both non-neutral point of view and not verifiable. Yours, Famspear 22:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is backup for that point of view. Read http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm Xode

Speaking of the criticisms in the article, here is a replay of some of them:

Problems relating to "inflation and fractional reserve banking"

Problems regarding the "chairmanship of Alan Greenspan, specifically, that the Fed’s credibility is based on a cult of personality around him"

Criticisms of the "Fed’s expansionary monetary policy in the 1920’s, allowing misallocations of capital resources and supporting a massive stock price bubble"

Criticism "that the Fed then deepened the resulting Great Depression by contracting the money supply at the very moment that markets needed liquidity"

Criticism "that the current Fed over-emphasizes consumer spending, and has thus not been aggressive enough in reducing US dependence on oil and energy-intensive capital goods"

Criticism "that the Fed’s concentration on GDP or other aggregate indicators risks ignoring important changes in regional economies, and is an unsuitable proxy as an indicator of well-being"

Criticism "that the Fed’s focus on reducing national inflation made it unable to adequately respond to the economic problems in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina"

Criticism "that the Fed places too much emphasis on GDP as a measure of well-being"

Criticism that the Fed is "notoriously tight-lipped about the measures and metrics which are used to make its decisions" and that "there is no support in the released transcripts"

Criticism that "it is shrouded in secrecy"

Criticism that there is a "lag in the release of FOMC transcripts, as well as the extremely limited and carefully worded minutes and statement"

None of the above question the legality of the Fed. Famspear 22:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm does challenge the legality of the Federal Reserve. Xode

Suggested approach to talking about "legality" of the Fed

Dear Xode:

I have briefly reviewed the document at the web page you cited above. For the benefit of other readers who might not bother to click on the link, the material appears to be written by someone named John B. Nelson. The material is addressed to "The American National People" and "The People Of The State Of Colorado, U.S.A." The material is entitled "DECLARATION OF CAUSE AND NECESSITY TO ABOLISH AND DECLARATION OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION."

The Nelson material contains one reference to "Federal Reserve Bank System," three references to "Federal Reserve Note" (or "Federal Reserve Notes"), one reference to "Federal Reserve Act," one reference to "Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago," and one reference to "Federal Reserve."

As printed on my Hewlett Packard laser jet printer, the material comes to 12 and half pages. It's also reproduced at various other web sites. At this time I'm not yet going to comment too much further on the "substance" of the Nelson material, as other Wikipedia editors can easily look at it themselves and see what it is.

Here's what I suggest:

First, I suggest that you summarize, in your own words below, on this talk page, exactly what is meant by the phrase "the legality of the Federal Reserve system has been disputed". What exactly is meant by "legality"? What exactly is it that you believe is being "disputed"?

Second, as you may know, for purposes of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article a "dispute" needs to be something more substantial than say, "John B. Nelson" and "Xode" contend the Federal Reserve is somehow illegal. Two people, or ten people, or arguably even ten thousand people may dispute something or believe it is illegal -- but that fact alone does not necessarily merit mention in an encyclopedia article. For example, in some areas of law the issues that are most well settled in the law are the ones that are litigated the most frequently. This may sound strange, but it is true. In fact, the more often certain points are litigated, the more settled the law may become. The more settled the law on a particular point, the less likely it is to be validly characterized as being "in dispute" in an encyclopedia article. Ironically of course, if a particular point has not been litigated at all, that fact also generally means that there is no serious dispute. A rough rule of thumb might be: do the courts themselves (not just you and I or even ten thousand private citizens) actually disagree on this or that point of law?

Third, any discussion of "legality" should probably include references to what is known as "primary authority." In American law, primary authority generally means the actual verbatim texts of constitutions, statutes, treaties, court decisions, court rules, administrative regulations, etc.

Fourth, before you get into this too deeply you should recognize that you should not cite a primary authority (such as a court decision or statute) unless you yourself have studied the actual verbatim text of the authority itself. At least one Wikipedia editor recently made the mistake of copying and pasting several "doctored" and, in some cases, outright phony "quotes" from "authorities." He was very quickly humiliated. In the Nelson materials I saw one false quote right away -- without even having to look it up. Nearly all the people who put these kinds of materials on web pages are not legal scholars. They do not understand that although it's very easy to falsify a quote, it's also stunningly easy to get caught at it when you post it on the internet. There are just too many people with access to the actual texts of primary authorities, and especially too many people who have actually studied the primary authorities.

Fifth, most material found on most web pages is not primary authority. While even courts occasionally cite material that is not primary authority, we need to be very careful about citing material from the internet.

Sixth, to be blunt, from a legal standpoint the John B. Nelson material on the web page you cited really does not qualify as any kind of legal authority. The Nelson material makes numerous references to sources that could be legal authority for something but, for technical reasons I don't want to go into yet, the Nelson material is pretty useless for purposes of making any kind of coherent argument about the legality of anything. This statement is not meant to be pejorative (although it obviously has a pejorative connotation); it's just that for technical reasons the Nelson material is legally insignificant.

Seventh, you are to be commended for not making the mistake that some other Wikipedia users have made: the mistake of trying to copy and paste, directly into Wikipedia articles, large chunks of commentary from other web sites, or even the entire texts from other web pages.

Good luck, Famspear 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Add topic