Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
- Section V
- The Financial Crisis of 2007-2008
- Money Powers and the Supreme Court
- 1. Allow Congress to Settle ‘Out of Court.’
- 2. Constitutional Challenge: Private Money Creation is not Tied to the Congressional Money Powers
- 3. Civil Lawsuit: Federally Financed Institutions Must Provide Equal Protection
- 4. Parallel Litigation: Misuse of Congressional Spending Clause
- 5. Constitutional Challenge: Misuse of Taxpayer Money Toward ‘Common Defense’ and ‘General Welfare’
- 6. Case Against the Federal Reserve: Failure to Meet its Objectives
- 7. Equal Protection of Federal Government Employees
- 8. Application for an Equal Opportunity Grant:
The Financial Crisis of 2007-2008
- In the 1970s, both government and banks ‘redline’ neighborhoods to segregate people by income; meanwhile, realtors use ‘blockbusting’ and ‘steering’ tactics to segregate homeowners based on race. Through this, separate but unequal living arrangements were created.
- In 1977, government changed its tune, and passed the Community Reinvestment Act, but it was ineffective until the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989 put the lending power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac behind it; FIRREA regulators now publicly ranked banks based on how well they ‘greenlined’ loans to underserved communities, while Fannie and Freddie let banks know that they would “securitize these subprime loans.”
- In 2000, the dot.com bubble burst, as many start-ups had burned through their venture capital but failed to turn a profit. With the financial sector in disarray, the Fed ran its usual playbook, and cut the fed funds rate to 1.25%, hoping to get people taking out personal loans from banks, and getting the money moving again.
- Enticed by these interest rates (and the fact that banks were welcoming in customers they normally shunned), home buying more than doubled within lower-income families, especially since 30-year loans came with ‘interest-only’ payments for as long as five to ten years (although the adjustable rates would be reset as early as every three years).
- In other words, banks were ‘greenlined’ to make loans that Fannie and Freddie would purchase from them, relieving banks of the risk, and supplying them with instant capital to make even more loans. The loans were bundled into mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and sold to investors, who then went to AIG or similar insurance companies and protected their investment with a credit default swap, where the investor paid AIG an insurance premium guaranteeing that AIG would cover the loss if the MBS went bad. Paywalls were set up between each step, so everybody got paid; (almost) no one thought twice about it, because the risk appeared to be dispersed equally among everyone.
- Fannie and Freddie still had loan standards that had to be met, but Wall Street had no standards, and wanted in on this expanding housing bubble. Investment firms like Bear Stearns, Citibank, and Lehman Brothers started funding banks to make even riskier loans so they could ride the housing-slash-securities-slash-credit default swap wave.
- Back in the real economy, 2005 hit and finally frantic housing construction caught up with demand. Supply was low when the craze started, which drove up housing prices, which got Wall Street risk-takers to jump on the wave, but the wave crashed when demand slowed, and supply was left hanging. A big reason demand slowed down was Alan Greenspan and the Fed.
- Because Greenspan’s job was to tend to inflation and not people, he ran the Fed playbook again and raised the fed funds rate up to 5.25% by the summer of 2006 (a jump of 4% from the low of 1.25% in 2002). A perfect storm ensued; thanks to the Fed, interest-only adjustable-rate loans reset to monthly payments many new homeowners could not afford; meanwhile, the price of their houses started dropping as demand fell off (mortgage payments were higher than the house was now worth, aka ‘upside down’ or ‘underwater’). For many, the best strategy was to walk away, as banks rarely asked for any money down anyway; in the end, ten million houses were lost to foreclosure.
- Here’s the kicker: with the government bailout money, or simply from sitting on higher ground when the financial tidal wave crashed, investors looked down at the wreckage and saw opportunity: six million houses were suddenly dirt cheap.
- During the period directly after the housing crisis, the IMF calculates that the private sector had issued credit equal to 184% of GDP (where reaching 80% is considered excessive). When there is too much money floating around in the economy, it actually drags economic growth down a couple percentage points, from a healthy 3-4%, to a “dismal 1% to 2%”, as recorded during that 2011-2014 period; why was Wall Street issuing so much credit directly after the housing fiasco they helped create? They were just doing what they always do: buy low and sell high, and especially buy big when the “blood in the streets” is their own. Wall Street investors swooped in, bought up 200,000 foreclosures, then turned them into “Wall Street Rentals,” earning them the title of 21st century “feudal landlords.”
2010 AD: TheDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was meant to address the financial industry behavior that led to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, and to protect the consumer and the taxpayer (“there will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts” was the promise). The Dodd-Frank Bill—a 2,300-page bill stuffed with over 400 new rules and mandates—is a testament to the ineffectiveness of governing from the top down versus the bottom up.
Rules are fixes for some unforeseen flaw in design or intention; 2,300 pages of rules indicates that government and Wall Street have completely opposite intentions, which turns out to be exactly the case. If the ‘spirit’ of the law is firmly grounded, the letter of the law—in theory—would have less latitude in which to deviate. The spirit of the Constitutional law, for example, is written in the mission statement—or Preamble—and only uses 52 words to get its point across. “To promote the General Welfare” is by itself an excellent five-word mission statement against which actions may be measured; there are likely some actions which would be ill-advised, even though they would technically promote the General Welfare, but in most cases, a goal to promote the General Welfare would set a solid foundation upon which to build something fair, inclusive, sustainable, peaceful, and thus cohesive (facilitating connection).
Seeking to maximize individual profit is an action which (of course) would never lead to promoting the General Welfare, and any attempt to use one to obtain the other would surely generate at least 2,300 pages of rules. Nonsensically—if one bothers to make sense of this arrangement—government legitimizes the value of money, yet leaves the creation of it to people who have no interest in promoting the General Welfare.
Through the power vested in money by the U.S. government, Wall Street dismantled Dodd-Frank by any financial means necessary. Legal tactics, lobbying, bullying, bribery—the onslaught was endless because Wall Street’s money supply is endless.
Dodd-Frank is important because it establishes—beyond any reasonable doubt—that regulating Wall Street is a waste of time; government must look for a different strategy.
Doing the Math
- In the final reckoning, ten million homes were lost to foreclosures during the period between 2006 to 2014, and $16 trillion in net worth was lost; nobody bailed those people out.
- Those who had to walk away from their homes have damaged credit ratings; an estimated two-thirds will not be able to own a home anymore.
- Another nine percent of Americans have houses that are underwater (five million homes) but have still managed to keep them for now.
- Between April 2006 and March 2011, the price of houses dropped an average of 33% (42% in California, 50% in Florida and Arizona, and 60% in Nevada); this is when Wall Street came around, with cash, outbid the asking price, and former owners were turned into a pool of new renters.
- Some of that cash was likely taxpayer money from the bailout, that ironically went to the people who needed it least.
- Statistics also show that banks turned away six million people during this post-crisis buying frenzy who would have qualified pre-crisis.
- Investors hid behind shell companies, so very few could see the pattern emerging; statistics show Wall Street money bought as many as 40% of the houses in certain areas, sometimes purchasing several houses on the same block. Because of these purchases—that were subsequently turned into rental homes—there are now housing shortages everywhere.
- Statistics now show that there are more renters than homeowners in half of America’s major cities.
- When banks were given $4 trillion to loan out, through quantitative easing, they sat on $2.7 trillion of it; meanwhile, Wall Street was ‘greenlighted.’
- Housing prices have since gone up 50%, making it even more difficult for families to purchase a home.
Some families are currently engaging in rent-to-own options, which force them to take on all the costs of owning a home while still running the risk of eviction, if they do not come up with the ‘rent.’ Rent is contingent on employment, and employment is contingent on people having enough money to spend to keep wage earners employed.
Economics in a closed-loop environment is circular; biological economics would advise we let the circle be unbroken. In the hierarchal economic scheme, a dollar earned in 2007 is only worth 69 cents today. Inflation happens for many reasons, but many economists would agree that it happens most when “too much money is chasing too few goods.”
- Since 2007, the Federal Reserve has injected $8.5 trillion extra dollars into the economy, through its Quantitative Easing programs. The Fed does this once it has set the fed funds rate as low as it can go.
- After the dot.com recession ended (November 2001), the Fed wanted to get money moving again and dropped the fed funds rate to 1% (November 2002); this is when banks ‘teased’ low-income earners into purchasing new homes with adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), with Fannie and Freddie hedging this bet.
- Once homebuying became all the rage, prices started rising, so the Fed decided to raise their rates throughout 2005-2006, topping out at 5.25% right around about the time new homeowners were renegotiating their new mortgage rates with banks.
- Once homes began to foreclose, the Fed lowered the rates again, to as low as 0% by December of 2008 (where it stayed until December 2015). This move did not help homeowners, who had already had their new loans in place; a cascade of foreclosures ensued, which continued through 2014 (banks were not interested in working with delinquent mortgage payments, probably because that income stream was going straight to Wall Street investors holding mortgage-backed securities; at this point, any smart investor would ‘hedge’ again and look to snatch up the falling houses that contained their investment money).
- Meanwhile, no banks were lending money, only accepting cash from Wall Street investors, removing these foreclosures off their books to stay solvent.
- The Fed came in, for no reason that makes sense, and started handing out free QE money, which the banks did not give to lower and middle income Americans; the only obvious thing it did was inflate prices (which represent property and business owners raising the ‘rent’ to siphon off this extra money) and raise stock prices (which only means more of this cash was being invested there, simply because there was nowhere else to put it while the ‘blood in the streets’ was still flowing).
- When the wealthy bought up the houses in the aftermath, many turned them over, inflating the housing market again; the Fed still had not learned anything from the last two crises, and began raising the fed funds rate again.
- The old QE had a nice low rate attached to it, but now that the Fed raised its rates, it put itself underwater, as the interest do not generate enough profit to cover the new rates. The Fed is solving this problem the traditional way: dump the QE into the National Debt and let the taxpayer deal with it.
- It is estimated the Fed will be paying the banks holding the QE debt swap around $150 billion. There is $5.7 billion of QE that is piled onto the National Debt, costing taxpayers another $100 billion.
The Constitution gave the Money Powers to the government, which is a puppet government if the Federal Reserve is allowed to reach into the government’s pockets and pull out whatever cash it needs, then replace it with IOUs that the taxpayer must reimburse.
Hierarchal Economics in 2020
In 2020, U.S. GDP was $20.89. trillion. The U.S. spent approximately $794.5 million a day on five ongoing conflicts: the Somali Civil War, War in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, and the remaining time in Afghanistan, for a grand cost of around $290 billion in 2020. The entire cost of incarcerating U.S. citizens in 2020 was $87.5 billion. As reported earlier, the cost of theft and fraud to business was $119 billion.  Although it is counted as profit on U.S. GDP, the cost of drug abuse—alcohol, tobacco, opioids, and illicit drug use—totaled $232 billion in healthcare costs alone. The healthcare costs of climate change and fossil fuel pollution was recently estimated at $880 billion for 2020. Again, profits from sales of gas and gas-powered vehicles, (not to mention the sales from the meat industry, which accounts for 14.5% of climate pollution), were counted as a positive in the GDP tally. Adding up the cost of all motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. in 2020 (6.1 million accidents that cause 38,824 deaths), the estimated cost was $435.2 billion. Because the U.S. must have guns to run its version of economics, it is important to note that gun accidents and deaths cost the U.S. economy $557 billion in 2020. Finally, The federal budget for 2020 was $6.6 trillion, $3.1 trillion over budget.
It is important to understand that the cost of government is an indication of the failure of the economy, not the failure of government, which is charged to protect the economy, so it can protect its people, which it has utterly failed to do. The above assessment is lenient; it only includes the external violence that we can eliminate at any time if we simply choose to do so. Internal suffering—such as cancer ($208.9 billion in 2020) or cardiovascular disease (another $320 billion)—is exacerbated by factors whose causation is more difficult to correlate (ongoing transgenerational trauma, workplace stress, or proximity to known carcinogens, for example), though violence and disconnection is most assuredly at the root of all of it.
Economics is the medium through which life is communicated; it is the process of human (or any organism’s) existence. Simply judging by the above numbers, the goal of hierarchal economics is violence; further statistical analysis would show it is excellent at perpetuating inequality, by maintaining the illusion of liberty (through consumer choices) and equality (through not being denied access to guns, consumer products, employment, education, money, etc.),
Money Powers and the Supreme Court
When chronologically looking at Supreme Court rulings on money, the trajectory is clear: Congress was given the power to coin money; the states were given no money power. Congress was given the power to create a National Bank as a vehicle to disperse this money; money created by state banks was deemed unconstitutional, therefore the federal government would not endorse it (in the only anomalous ruling—Briscoe v Bank of Kentucky—state-created banks were seen as private corporations, and thus outside the control of government, which absolved government from protecting its people from the vagaries of private money creation, but still did not make private money constitutional—this ruling is discussed in detail below).
When Congress issued paper currency (Lincoln’s ‘greenbacks’) as ‘legal tender,’ the courts allowed it, seeing it as an extension of the money powers given to Congress, and because the Constitution only forbade the states from creating it. As paper currency became the new U.S. form of money, the Court ruled that a prohibitive tax could legally be placed on any paper currency created by states (or municipal corporations, aka local governments), to restrain its circulation.
The news, therefore, is hopeful: although private entities currently control money creation, they do not control the People’s Money Powers. This also represents the best argument why government never protects its citizens in times of financial crisis, because the money being created is not the government’s money. Congress gave the Federal Reserve the unconstitutional authority to create money, and even helps them do it, but unless Congress amends Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution, A) the money the Fed creates is not backed by the constitution, and B) the People can at any time—through Congress—assert their Money Powers again.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution gave Congress the money power. Paper money had always proved a disastrous undertaking among the colonies, so at the time, only coined money (or specie) was authorized.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 prohibited the states from any money power; paper money (“bills of credit”) was specifically mentioned to ensure no state would be allowed to circulate it again.
Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819) and Houston v. Moore (1820) confirmed that Congress held the exclusive power to coin money.
McCulloch v Maryland (1819) made it clear that Congress had the power to incorporate a bank to do anything “made in pursuance of the Constitution.” Thus, the Supreme Court effectively authorized Congress to regulate every phase of U.S. currency.
- “If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.”
- “The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power…of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect…powers which are sovereign.
- “The Bank of the United States has, constitutionally, a right to establish its branches or offices of discount and deposit within any state.”
- “The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.”
Craig v Missouri (1830) attempted to establish what comprised “bills of credit,” which the states were not allowed to circulate, according to the Constitution; according to Chief Justice Marshall, the “mischief to be prevented, which we know from the history of our country,” was that allowing money into circulation from too many sources lowers the value of all money. Many could already see—even Jefferson and Jackson—that one source of money—through government, not banks—was the only way to manage the amount of money in circulation, though how to do this was still unclear.
Briscoe v Bank of Kentucky (1837) is seen as a reversal of Craig v Missouri, but it is not a reversal, it is a workaround to circumvent Constitutional Law.
- The Kentucky Legislature passed an act to establish “The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky…in the name and [on] behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky,” then declared the bank to be exclusively the property of the commonwealth of Kentucky, then placed it under the supervision of a president and twelve directors chosen by the legislature. All corporations are afforded a barrier between them and the entity who established them, and it is on this technicality that the new court declared that the currency the Kentucky bank issued was not state-issued money.
- “To constitute a bill of credit within the Constitution, it must be issued by a State, on the faith of the State, and be designed to circulate as money. It must be a paper which circulates on the credit of the State, and is so received and used in the ordinary business of life…The individuals or committee who issue the bill must have the power to bind the State: they must act as agents, and of course do not incur any personal responsibility, nor impart, as individuals, any credit to the paper. These are the leading characteristics of a bill of credit, which a State cannot emit.”
- The Court basically asserted that if the Bank went under, the state was not liable to recoup the people’s money, therefore, the Bank of Kentucky was not a state bank, therefore the money could not be considered a ‘bill of credit.’
- “To constitute a bill of credit within the Constitution, it must be issued by a State, on the faith of the State, and be designed to circulate as money. It must be a paper which circulates on the credit of the State, and is so received and used in the ordinary business of life…The individuals or committee who issue the bill must have the power to bind the State: they must act as agents, and of course do not incur any personal responsibility, nor impart, as individuals, any credit to the paper. These are the leading characteristics of a bill of credit, which a State cannot emit.”
- This decision represents the beginning of a new generation of governance without the leadership of those who founded the country; the founders held the spirit of the laws within them, because they were the ones who wrote the laws. The next generations—disconnected from the people and circumstances of early America—only had the letter of the law, which—as we can see now—is open to wild interpretation. In the sphere of money powers, this ruling—built on a technicality, and not on principle—set a precedent for U.S. law that has tainted it ever since:
- When laws are used merely to assign blame, people will naturally dissect them letter by letter, attempting to reassemble them toward their exculpation.
- When laws are used as guidelines, the spirit of the law is invoked, and actions are more likely to move in some mutually agreed upon direction.
- This becomes the most crucial battle for Americans to regain possession of their government: the Preamble, which embodies the spirit of the law, must not be severed from the laws originally written to its specifications; once the law become unhinged from the original guidelines, those laws will become, as they already have become, the property of those who hold a ‘controlling interest.’
Veazie Bank v Fenno (1866) upheld that Congress, “in the exercise of undisputed constitutional power,” has the authority to impose a 10% tax on the use of all state bank notes to restrain their further circulation, so that people might begin to embrace the constitutionally backed currency we now know as the U.S. dollar.
- This ruling confirms that when Congress is willing to assert its Constitutional authority, neither the courts nor the people will stand in its way. The law is clear, but it was written as a guideline, so is useless until that guideline is applied.
Legal Tender Cases (1871) bothconfirmed that when Congress authorized paper currency (greenbacks) to serve as ‘legal tender,’ this action was constitutional; Congress imbued it with value equal to coins (specie) in payment of services or debts.
- Again, the Supreme Court will not stand in the way of Congress if it chooses to assert its Money Powers; the Courts have also stated that they will not bail the people out if they choose poor Congressional representatives who assert their Money Powers in ill-advised ways.
National Bank v United States (1879) resolutely asserted that a state or municipality “has no right to put its notes in circulation as money…that is, made use of as a circulating medium. Such a use is against the policy of the United States.”
- Translation: privately created money is out there, but if someone challenges its constitutionality, the Supreme Court cannot deny that it is without a legal foundation.
Juilliard v. Greenman (1884) was another ruling where the power “of making the notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts” was confirmed to be “included in the power to borrow money and to provide a national currency.” Chief Justice Horace Gray upheld the right of the federal government to make paper money legal tender for the payment of private debt even in times of peace (previously, it was considered an emergency war measure).
- “By the constitution of the United States, the several states are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from this to deny to Congress either of these powers.”
Understanding Hierarchal Law Principles
Political Question Doctrine (Justiciability)
- In Baker v Carr (1962), the Court ruled that it should not hear cases which the Constitution designates as the sole responsibility of the Executive and / or Legislative Branches. Courts may invoke the political question doctrine to avoid hearing cases that are politically charged.
- A “balancing test” is subjective; the court must weigh whose interests are more important, when the two conflict (for example, is Wall Street more important to save than the American people).
- [See Wilkinson v. Austin (2005)]
- The Supremacy Clause is contained within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and designates that when the laws of the federal government are in conflict with the laws of a state government, federal law will supersede state law.
- Federal courts only have the constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes; the plaintiff must have suffered actual harm by a defendant, and that harm must be redressable. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) established a three-part test to determine whether a party has ‘standing’ to sue: 1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” (concrete and particularized and actual or imminent) 2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court, and 3) it must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.
- A claim is ‘ripe’ when harm or controversy has already occurred, and ‘not ripe’ if harm has yet to occur.
- A claim is ‘moot’ if the relevant issues have already been resolved.
Writ of Coram Nobis
- The writ of coram nobis is used to call attention to facts that would have changed a court’s final judgment if they had been known at the time of the original decision.
- “The Tucker Act permits three kinds of claims against the government: (1) contractual claims, (2) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff seeks the return of money paid to the government and (3) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to payment by the government.”
- In civil cases, damages represent monetary compensation meant to remedy a harmed party for violation of a right or breech of a contract. The sum of money awarded may only consist of “actual (or ‘compensatory’) damages,” or may include additional ‘punitive’ damages intended to punish the wrongdoer.
- In tort cases, injured parties are allowed compensatory damages from all direct losses, such as medical care, property damage, lost wages, etc., as well as indirect compensation for ‘pain and suffering,’ or even ‘inconveniences;’ punitive damages can be added on top of these when harm is particularly egregious.
Writ of Certiorari
- A writ the Supreme Court issues to a lower court when it wants to review a ruling, to make sure there was no legal error made.
Fifth Amendment Due Process
- The Due Process Clause requires U.S. government to always practice Equal Protection. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires all states to do the same. Unequal treatment encroaches on areas of civil rights; thus Equal Protection has been expanded through time to include many forms of unequal treatment. The plaintiff must prove there was actual discrimination, whereupon the court will scrutinize the government action by applying legal precedent and three levels of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, or rational basis scrutiny) to determine a verdict.
Natural Law asserts that biological economics—or the constitution of nature—is the only agreement we need to make with each other; it will serve well as a constitution of society, and of government. Natural Law is already conveniently housed within the Constitution of United States government; all that is needed is a firm grasp of its main principles, combined with the will of the American people to embrace those principles.
As ’rights’ can only be secured through violence—which aggravates all attempts to minimize uncertainty and disconnection—the proposed solution is to convert rights (which cannot be reasonably defended) into more tangible reciprocal ‘investments’ in our planet and in each other; this will incentivize connection toward mutual (and interdependent) relationships, which are the only relationships that can secure Life, Liberty, and Happiness for every person.
Per Natural Law, people need to retain a stakeholder’s share of the economic means and mediums of their connection, which are currently paid for through taxation, meaning they are already collectively owned by the people; because they are currently overseen by the people’s government, through executive departments, the government ‘infrastructure’ is already in place to manage these ‘investments.’ Meanwhile:
- Congress only has power to tax and spend for the General Welfare and the Common Defense.
- The only areas where the people’s General Welfare intersects is around essential needs; the infrastructure to provide these needs is also the source of our connection to each other, so co-ownership of these means and mediums of connection would fit a societal-level model of biological economics.
- Money, Transportation, Energy, Communication, Water / Sewer, Government, Education, Food, and Housing.
- Healthcare and Social Security can be thought of as providing for the “Common Defense”—insurance against internal forms of violence.
- Only a National Public Bank has been deemed constitutional. The First and Second Banks of the United States were the original banks; they perfectly embodied the Congressional Money Power to tax and spend (i.e., collect the nation’s taxes, consolidate its debt, and through the “necessary and proper” clause, “provide for the Common Defense” and “promote the General Welfare”). In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court reconfirmed their original ruling: Hamilton’s two National Public Banks—and no other banks—were constitutionally legitimate.
- In accordance with Constitutional law (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled—in Craig v. Missouri (1830)—that privately created money was unconstitutional. Between 1830 and 1837, Andrew Jackson attempted to replace all of Marshall’s Court; Upon Marshall’s death, the Jacksonian Court quickly moved to overturn Marshall’s ruling through a separate case—Briscoe V Kentucky (1837)—but the ruling only managed to assert that the federal government could not regulate privately-created money because it was not federally created; it was upon this shaky ground that the Federal Reserve was built, but Supreme Court interpretations have only confirmed that Congress never gave away its Money Powers, and thus may exercise its Liberty to reinstate this power at any time.
- Only taxed money has any real (‘positive’) value because it is directly derived from labor (private money is unconstitutional and of no value until labor is exerted to pay it back).
- Therefore, putting taxed money into a National Bank to build the essential needs infrastructure not only promotes the General Welfare—because the means and mediums of connection are essential to all people—it does not add to a ‘National’ Debt but instead allows a ‘National Credit’ to accumulate.
- Credit would accumulate as people pay the monthly bills associated with these essential needs.
- The bank would curb inflation by capping the cost of essential needs. It would create continual employment in these crucial areas. It would control the interest rate (fixed at 4%) because the bank is publicly owned, so therefore must apply the Equal Protection Clause to eliminate any form of discriminatory lending.
- To A) control inflation, B) maximize employment, and C) control long-term interest rates are the intended goals of the Federal Reserve, which it has absolutely failed to accomplish. Because the Fed is not a constitutional entity, and the money its private banks create is not constitutionally backed, the People are not beholden to employ either if a better solution presents itself.
- Therefore, putting taxed money into a National Bank to build the essential needs infrastructure not only promotes the General Welfare—because the means and mediums of connection are essential to all people—it does not add to a ‘National’ Debt but instead allows a ‘National Credit’ to accumulate.
The necessary first step in the ‘great re-transformation’ of U.S. economics is for Congress to reassert its Money Powers.
If A) money can only exist through our shared belief in it, and B) beliefs are the property of each person (through the Life and Liberty granted them by the United States Constitution), then C) only through a single medium (or source) that is owned collectively by all citizens could this shared belief be properly protected and disseminated. Further, D) no private institution could be allowed to garner any interest from the sale or rent of the people’s money, because this interest could only be the property of the people who share the belief in its value. Finally, E) since the federal government is the only institution with sovereign money powers, we cannot afford to believe in any money that is not created by a government bank (a government-created bank is the only bank ever deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court).
The proposed solution would look like this:
- House a National Public Bank within the U.S. Treasury, where federal taxes are traditionally collected.
- Instead of a federal income tax, collect 10% of gross revenue (positive ‘labor’ value) from all U.S. residents as a ‘mandatory investment.’ This could be implemented like the payroll tax, since the payroll tax would no longer be needed, either (as the 10% investment would cover social security, Medicare, and all other General Welfare).
- Divide the total amount collected into equal ‘shares’ among all U.S. residents and deposit these monetary ‘shares’ into a ‘local’ public bank branch (Congressional districts typically have a population of approximately 763,000 people; ideally, there should be a bank ‘branch’ in each community of approximately 109,000 people).
- Each community would be mandated to invest its allotted monetary shares (109,000) in new infrastructure: green energy, regenerative and vertical farming, clean and safe transportation, high speed fiber optic communication, HDPE water / sewer, walkable city centers, affordable housing, new educational and healthcare facilities, etc.
- All this new infrastructure would be paid back through utility bills, registration fees, purchases, etc., but only needs to cover cost plus 4% interest on the National Bank loan (so-called ‘self-liquidating’ loans). Once infrastructure projects are underway, leftover money could be used for home loans, small businesses, or commercial buildings; after that, investment money could be used to pay down the National Debt.
- While loans are paid back and fill individual ‘share’ accounts, new investments would continue to be made; unlike private bank deposits, no shareholders could withdraw these investment ‘dividends’ until retirement age, whereupon they would receive a steady income stream still being enhanced by the return of money from annual investments.
- While this income stream may (or may not) be modest, the investment in infrastructure would bring the cost of living down to under $1200 a month (it is currently $5,111 a month), because the cost of all essential needs would have been lowered (through economies of scale, elimination of profit, economic rent, hierarchal ‘middlemen,’ etc.).
- This proposal would more correctly capture overall positive labor value, and realistically reward people for their collective efforts.
- Essential needs infrastructurerepresents our economic mediums and means of connection; they would now be the property of the people and bring in a substantial ROI, while lowering the cost of living and creating a more stable version of social security for future generations.
- Money, disseminated this way, would allow 1) everyone access to it (facilitating ‘equality of opportunity’), 2) overachievers to retain 90% of their efforts (facilitating ‘Liberty’), 3) everyone to share in the country’s overall economic success, through their contribution as laborer and consumer (facilitating biological ‘connection’), and 4) the value of money to remain stable (it is through the ‘inelastic demand’ of essential needs that inflation grows more rapidly).
The benefits of this simple plan are numerous:
- Natural Law sees any payment to a private entity for the use of one’s mediums and means of connection as a form of taxation; this solution would turn taxation into an investment to secure each person’s economic means and mediums of connection (essential needs infrastructure), which is set up to pay dividends that provide for a Common Defense later in life. Thus, a circular economic use of taxation would allow everyone to benefit from the full value of their labor.
- To provide people’s essential needs ‘at cost’ puts a cap on the cost of living, which makes wages livable without having to raise them, benefitting both employer and employee; it also solves the problem of ‘inelastic demand,’ which is the main cause of personal debt spirals.
- With the proposed solution, the price of federal government would also drop from the current cost of $6.55 trillion in 2020 to under $1 trillion (half of that representing the interest-only payments on the National Debt, which this solution intends to pay off and eliminate, further dropping the cost of government to $500 billion annually).
- Further, the overall percentage of taxation would be lessened, as people currently lose at least 35% of their income to various taxes; this solution consolidates these taxes into one 10% lump sum.
- Rebuilding infrastructure allows for ‘greener’ solutions to be implemented, helping to sustain the longevity of the planet and thus ourselves.
- The hope is that with the reduction of disconnection, the ensuing balance will lessen the internal and external violence of the previous system and thus the cost associated with it (statistically recorded in the cost of government, health care, national and international defense, incarceration rates, murder and suicide rates, etc.)
There is no viable political pathway to transition from hierarchal to biological economics; the path is blocked from the outside by a giant wall of privately created money. Legal avenues for change are frustratingly narrow as well, fraught with obstacles of judiciability, jurisdiction, standing, mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like. Strangely, while the whole of hierarchal economics may be unconstitutional, to get the Court to rule on this would require a specific ‘plaintiff’ to have incurred real injury through some government action that A) intersected hierarchal economics and B) violated Constitutional law, thus C) opening the door for a change in government’s future relationship with hierarchal economics.
Building a Case: The People v Intraspecific Hierarchal Economics
Constitution of the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: “[The Congress shall have Power…] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…”
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: “[No State shall…] coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”
The Constitutional language is clear: Congress has the sole power to create the currency of the United States; no private or state entity was given this authority. Equally clear is that Congress can only tax and spend toward the nation’s General Welfare and Common Defense.
When Wall Street fashioned the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and got it pushed through Congress, Woodrow Wilson naively attempted to legitimize the Act by linking it to the Federal Government, for which there is no constitutional precedent. The decision did nothing to stop the failure of private banking, it merely provided it a financial safety net; ever since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, taxpayer money has been parasitically drained to promote the limited welfare of private banking at the expense of the people’s General Welfare; the National Debt total (now at $31.8 trillion), as well as the Fed’s ‘reserve balances’ (currently $8.5 trillion) represent the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of our private banking system, for which the American taxpayer must suffer. Congressman Wright Patman, who attempted to nationalize the Federal Reserve throughout the 1960s (to turn it into a Central Public Bank again), harassed the Fed relentlessly (and even audited them) until they finally began giving some of the profits back from their open market operations, because the interest accrued was all from taxpayer money (the Fed creates their money through buying Federal debt).
Bank panics are historically telling; the first one, in 1819, caused the nation to bring back Hamilton’s Bank (the Second Bank of the U.S.). The panic in 1837 happened once the Second Bank was vetoed out of existence by Jackson. The panic in 1907 kickstarted Wall Street’s Federal Reserve, to block the attempt for Congress to take back its Money Powers. The Great Depression of 1929 should have dissolved the Federal Reserve, but in another unprecedented and ‘non’ constitutional act (the McFadden Act of 1927) the Federal Reserve was re-chartered in perpetuity (all prior bank charters needed to be renewed every 20 years).
Once the Depression hit, private banks did not rebound until WWII (war is predictably profitable within hierarchal economics); the country rebounded sooner than private banks because Congress asserted its Money Powers and passed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act in 1932, which ran through the Treasury, and did the job of a National Public Bank while the private banks floundered. After the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was dismantled in 1957, private banks struggled in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s; in 2000, the ‘dot.com’ bubble burst. In 2007, the financial crisis hit. Covid caused a panic in 2020, and there have been bank failures in 2023 as well. The frivolous injections of supply side money creation have raised the rate of inflation 1066% since the RFC was shut down (as previously stated, housing has increased sixfold during that same period).
The Federal Reserve Act is ‘non-constitutional’ because there is no amendment to the Constitution allowing private banks to create money; Briscoe v. Kentucky makes this plain. The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are ‘independent’ the same way capitalists are independent: they retain all their winnings and pass off all their losses to the American taxpayer.
Meanwhile, ten million homeowners were not bailed out by the mistakes of these ‘independent entities.’ Biological economics would assert that independence does not exist in closed loop environments; per Natural Law, the Supreme Court has established a clear precedent: if any entity receiving financial assistance from the federal government favors one group of people over another, it is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, for which monetary damages can be assessed. An equally clear precedent has been established regarding the Spending Clause, which holds Congress accountable if it fails to spend for the General Welfare or Common Defense of all citizens.
Wall Street and the Fed have immunity from prosecution for the damages to our housing market—even though they are almost entirely to blame—because these ‘independent’ agencies are not constitutionally bound to promote the General Welfare or provide for the Common Defense of the American people; that is the job of our federal government. The mistake the federal government made was to bail out these institutions instead of the American people, who pay the government (with their taxed labor value) to take care of their Life, Liberty, and Happiness. Per the Equal Protection Clause—and in conjunction with corporate personhood (banks are people, too)—when government bails out banks and other ‘artificial people’ (corporations) to the tune of $700 billion, the government is accountable—per the mandate to spend toward the General Welfare—to ‘similarly’ invest $700 billion in ‘similarly’ associated groups of people.
Although Congress unconstitutionally disconnected the people from their ‘Money Powers’, the people, through their labor, ironically remain the only source of money’s true power; money has no value without it.
- Forget the gold standard, or any money conjured up by the Federal Reserve or its system of private banks; the only legitimate money inside private sector banks is the monetary deposits of its customers, who invest in each bank with their hard-earned labor value. Until recently, banks could only rent out their imaginary debt money if it was backed by a sufficient percentage of labor money.
- Homeowners similarly put their labor money down as collateral to borrow the imaginary debt money, then proceed to fill the remaining hole with their labor. Home equity loans must be similarly backed, not by the home itself, but by the amount of legitimate labor money that has been already sunk into it.
- Biological economics asserts that a relationship is necessarily formed between borrower and lender during these economic connections. Liberty can only be attained through mutual relationships; parasitic relationships—a sign of hierarchal disconnection within intraspecific exchanges—create inequality, for which the federal government has been instituted to intervene and remedy. When federal government action furthers the inequality, legal remediation becomes necessary.
- To infuse private banks with more lending power (deposits dwindle in economic downturns, of which there have been many), the Fed has attempted various money laundering techniques, flooding the economy with valueless fiat money, hoping that some legitimate labor value chooses to attach itself to it. Meanwhile, its purchases of treasury securities to inject money into the economy has dug a nine trillion-dollar hole (as of June 2022) that accounts for about 28.3% of our National Debt, therefore costing the American taxpayer almost $163 billion a year in added interest payments.
To make the People’s main case, it is important to understand the sequence of events during the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis:
- After the dot.com bubble burst and 9/11 shook the economy, the Fed dropped the fed funds rate to 1% from 2002 to 2004 to encourage banks to borrow money and thus add more of it into the economy.
- Why did the dot.com bubble burst? Ten years earlier, the Fed had also dropped the fed funds rate (1992-1994), which consequently injected too much imaginary (non-labor produced) money into circulation. Wall Street uses these fluctuations in the money supply to create alternating ‘bubbles’ in housing and secondary markets like the NASDQ; the money is flooded into a particular market, which gives the illusion that some value exists there. A shared belief begins to form, teasing the smaller ‘players’ to ante up their excess money and purchase assets at prices purposely inflated, whereupon the real players cash out (sell) and leave the game. This eventually bursts the bubble; the smaller players take the losses and the real players have laundered this imaginary money, now giving it the illusion of value, where it can be used to create a new bubble in a different market.
- All this extra money comes directly from the Fed, who floods the market with imaginary money that Wall Street investors systematically grab onto with mechanisms such as economic rent, inflationary pricing, speculative investments, etc.; mechanisms that only can be accessed by people who accumulate money without having to labor for it (which, by Natural Law, should render this debt money valueless).
- Meanwhile, Congress-created (and government-backed) home mortgage agencies Fannie Mae (1938) and Freddie Mac (1970) were also trying to kickstart home ownership by purchasing private bank mortgages (as they are purposed to do) to encourage private banks to ‘greenline’ (versus redline) affordable housing options to lower-paid Americans (per the Equal Protection Clause). While the government purpose is noble, per the 1913 arrangement, it must take care of the private banks first, so that the banks will be ‘incentivized’ to take care of the American people (an unnecessary and wasteful intermediary step); it must also trust private sector bank loan practices and Federal Reserve policies, neither of which it can intervene to control, and neither of which are beholden to the 77% of Americans who are burdened with debt and need their services.
- When it saw the next wave of financial opportunity beginning to swell in this low-income housing market, Wall Street decided to copy Fannie and Freddie and began buying up private bank mortgages as well, then bundle them into mortgage-backed securities and other debt instruments. The difference? Wall Street’s motive was not to help Americans own their first home; it was to turn a profit. Riding the long history of success from government-sponsored mortgage-backed securities, Wall Street greenlined much riskier homebuyers, bought up their much riskier loans, then packaged them with AAA ratings, which was likely based on the solid track record of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- The Fed did not need to inject more money into the economy, there was already too much of it sitting around from winners of the dot.com bubble heist. To soak up all this cash, Wall Street had to ‘scrape the bottom of the barrel’ to purchase enough sketchy mortgages to bundle up and sell to any smaller players willing to hop on this rising wave of shared belief.
- Wall Street supplies the pool (the market); the big players—with the debt money they have systematically squeezed out of the real economy—create waves of belief that become shared beliefs when smaller players choose to jump on and ride. The big players sell to the smaller players, take the extra money with them, and hop off the wave. The wave crashes down. The big players wait for the next wave.
- To draw more loans to bundle up and sell, banks offered homebuyers the lowest interest rates in 40 years (‘teaser rates’), plus promised interest-only payments for the first few years; the ‘catch’ was the adjustable rate (ARM), which could (and did) go up at the same time the mortgage switched to include payments on principle-plus-interest (if Congress were truly in charge of their Money Powers, they never would have given lower-paid Americans a variable interest-only loan).
- What really started the crisis was the Fed raising the fed funds rate from 1% to over 5% by mid-2006. Their excuse? the economy was doing ‘too well.’ Why? Because Wall Street had flooded the market with all these high-risk loans. Why did they do this? Because the Fed had previously flooded the market with too much imaginary (non-labor produced) money, that Wall Street investors had grabbed through creating then bursting inflationary bubbles. The private banks were willing to make enormous amounts of ‘risky’ loans because Wall Street was willing to buy them and likely worked with the banks to ensure a steady flow of mortgages were coming in.
- Too much money allowed to chase after too few essential goods (which suffer from inelastic demand) is the recipe for inflation, which makes the Fed criminally negligible for all the toxic effects inflation has wrought on the general population since the financial crisis. The Fed created the imaginary money that heated up the economy. They drove up the interest rates which forced 10 million home mortgages underwater. As owners walked away from their homes, they supplied Wall Street investment banks with the quantitative easing to buy up these delinquent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans; now Wall Street is inflating the overall price of rent by driving up rent prices all around them, creating a rent bubble that may drive low-wage workers to walk away from their states. Wall Street is even back in the business of packaging and selling off mortgages too risky for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take. A conspiracy? The effect was certainly conspiratorial, but from the people’s perspective, it is only important to make sure it never happens again.
- The government, meanwhile, was desperate enough to rid themselves of the failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwater homes under their care that they (unbelievably) sold them to Wall Street. They are also guilty of using $700 billion in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street instead of American homeowners; some of this bailout money was likely used by Wall Street to buy up the foreclosures they helped precipitate. Since We the People own the government, it is government that we must hold accountable, for their share in the unequal protection of the American citizen.
Think about this scenario from Wall Street’s perspective:
- Through one of their banks, Wall Street buys a lot of houses for a lot of lower income Americans. They make sure the borrowers can afford the initial loan; they buy the loan, then package it up and immediately sell it off to someone else, then also insure it through AIG. Meanwhile, their subsidiary local bank, that made the original loan, is collecting pure interest (perhaps they collected some initial money down on the principle as well);
- If the loan defaults, Wall Street already got paid when they sold off the MBS; they collected a few years of interest payments from the homebuyer, plus they now own the house, which they could resell, or as it turns out, could keep, and rent as an investment. In the end, the federal government even bought up most of these ‘bad loans’ with taxpayer money, adding it to the National Debt pile; Wall Street used the money to buy a couple hundred thousand more homes to rent out, many of which were offered by the federal government, who felt obligated to bail out Fannie and Freddie, but somehow did not feel obligated to those Americans who lost their homes through all of this. Perhaps this was the deal all along: the government buys the bad loans from Wall Street, then Wall Street gives the money back in exchange for the houses, which Wall Street can rent, thereby making the transaction look legitimate. Now Wall Street can inflate rents knowing that if one ‘investor’ walks away, another investor, desperate for shelter, would take their place. The benefits of inelastic demand.
- This scheme was always a win-win for Wall Street and a lose-lose (homeowner and taxpayer) for the American people; for the result to match the rational self-interest of one group so perfectly, the conclusion can only be that this group has firm control of the mechanisms underlying hierarchal economics: the banks, the government, and the government’s Money Powers. This, however, does not serve the General Welfare of all Americans, who—at least on paper—represent the major stakeholders in this United States government incorporation.
Ten million Americans had to foreclose on their homes; a court of law would not see this large of a number as a coincidence. $700 billion in taxpayer money was handed out to artificial people; three rounds of quantitative easing also injected $3.7 trillion dollars of debt into the economy, none of which went to these ten million homeowners, whose credit scores were destroyed. Private banks, even with all this new money, just sat on it; no lower income Americans could secure a loan, only Wall Street landlords. Un-Equal Protection of the law, which is enforceable IF federal financial assistance is involved. This represents a legal way into the hierarchal structure, where hopefully a seed can be planted to generate the correct practice of economics.
Although inflation has risen the cost of an average home to $406,000, it still only costs as little as $100 a square foot to build one. A loan of $700 billion to the American people could build 3.5 million homes across America; Congress owes the American people 10 million new homes, but if Americans were smart, they would not touch any debt money, though some $8.5 trillion of it is currently floating around from Federal Reserve quantitative easing.
Ten million homes, disseminated ‘generally’ and not “locally” throughout the United States—per Equal Protection and General Welfare—would amount to approximately 23,000 homes per Congressional District (of which there are 435), or 3,284 new homes per 109,000-resident community (there are seven of these communities per Congressional District, which typically averages 763,000 residents). Hopefully that puts in perspective just how devastating the Wall Street banking industry was to every American community.
The People’s case will ask for our hard-earned tax money to be put into a separate National Public Bank, to make fixed rate interest loans to ten million American families who were not afforded Equal Protection of the law. Because taxed money is labor money, it does not disappear once the loan is paid back. Once all ten million homes are paid back, the federal government would have loaned out $2 trillion, and gotten back $3.44 trillion; Congress might wish to rebuild the energy grid with this, with another self-liquidating loan (meaning Americans pay into the National Bank with their monthly energy bill). A $3.44 trillion loan, when paid back, would leave Congress with $5.9 trillion. Perhaps Congress could build Americans a high-speed fiber optic Communication Grid and completely new Water / Sewer infrastructure, for which Americans could pay off through low-cost monthly bills. Congress would have $10.2 trillion by that point, or around $30,000 for every American age 0 to 100. This is the power of a National Public Bank. Congress—and only Congress—has legal title to the Money Powers, though it can only disseminate money to promote the General Welfare. Currently, it performs neither of these functions; before charges of gross negligence or dereliction of duty are filed, the avenue of Equal Protection should be explored, as it may provide long term benefits such as the ones mentioned, versus some short-lived financial compensation that does nothing to fix the problem.
Natural Law requires connection, which at the societal level can only be achieved through a shared belief; Money is the shared belief that best encompasses all the economic issues Americans need to address, therefore the People must ultimately reclaim possession of the Money Powers for the Congress, so that it may more correctly tie our fates together through it.
1. Allow Congress to Settle ‘Out of Court.’
Purpose: to seekEqual Protection for homeowners, renters, and small businesses through the Congressional Money Powers.
- People own their labor, and thus the positive value created by their labor.
- Taxation is an extraction from the positive value of labor.
- Congress was granted the power to tax the value of labor (Sixteenth Amendment, est. 1909), but only has the power to spend it on promoting the “General Welfare.”
- The Spending Clause grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States.” The Supreme Court’s interpretation of this clause generally follows the Federalist (or “originalist”) view proposed by Alexander Hamilton, that “the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, must be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”
- To correct for any misuse of this power, the citizenry has the authority to invoke the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, est. 1868 (which chronologically takes precedence over the Sixteenth Amendment), to ensure that one group is not afforded protections or opportunities that other groups are not.
- Chronological precedent is a feature of the ‘common law’ embraced by hierarchy; to deny precedent under these findings would potentially abrogate many of the hierarchal laws that rely on precedent to exist, such as corporate personhood or money as free speech, for example.
- Importantly, precedent exists to seek Equal Protection based on discriminatory actions, though the laws surrounding those actions may be non-discriminatory in their wording.
- Further, Natural Law would assert that the “Common Defense” of multicellular existence is predicated on connection, to secure communication and thus enables homeostatic balance.
- Therefore, correct definition of the “Common Defense” is to tend to the emotional health of the people (health ‘care’) utilizing improved connection and communication, toward a goal of homeostatic balance.
- Violence seeks disconnection, which only creates a positive feedback loop of further disconnection, so is unacceptable as an intraspecific strategy among the human population; if violence or disconnection exists, it can no longer be the job of government to provide it, nor the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund it.
- Therefore, it is a misuse of funds to spend taxed labor value that does not promote General Welfare, or provide Common Defense; per each citizen’s Liberty, when their labor value is not being used for these purposes, the people have a right to refuse to be an accomplice in this misappropriation of funds.
We would ask Congress to fulfill its duties in a legal manner:
- If it must tax real value away from labor, then spend it to promote the General Welfare.
- Since people generate the shared belief in money, as well as provide all the collateral for facilitating this shared belief (through their private bank deposits, through borrowing, through interest payments on the National Debt, which is the source of the treasury securities that fund private bank money creation), the people should have an ownership stake in the institutions that represent these shared beliefs, namely government, money, and the banks that create this money.
- The founders of American government understood well enough the Money Powers they conferred upon themselves; they created a National Public Bank to disseminate the taxes they collected, where it became the only constitutionally legal instrument devised to promote the General Welfare and provide for the Common Defense.
- Natural Law posits that only through shared beliefs do people connect at the societal level of economics, which necessitates each person’s liberty choice to connect, making each person a stakeholder in maintaining the shared belief which secures the connection. For us to have a belief in government or money, we must also have a ‘share’ in them, as well as all the means and mediums of connection for which we are willing to forsake our labor and labor value to secure, per our belief in connection as the sole means of existence.
- Remove QE and other excess money from circulation.
- Commit taxpayer money to a housing fund, through a Public Bank, to either build affordable housing or provide mortgages for lower income Americans.
- Utilize economies of scale; do not use private contractors, only private labor, to control costs. Per the General Welfare, build ten million homes that can go to ten million homeowners who currently must rent.
- Reassert Congressional Money Powers, allow the Fed and Wall Street to continue operations, but disconnect their privately created money from public responsibility; the people can no longer be the safety net for money that is not Constitutional.
- Match subsidies for Energy, Agriculture, Aviation, or Motor Vehicles toward businesses in green energy, vertical and regenerative farming, electric planes, and cars, respectively. Through a National Public Bank, these funds can come in the form of loans, so that they are paid back with moderate interest, allowing for the money to be repurposed toward other small business ventures that promote the General Welfare in sustainable ways.
2. Constitutional Challenge: Private Money Creation is not Tied to the Congressional Money Powers
Purpose: Either the Federal Reserve is tied to the Congressional Money Powers through Congress, who created it (and thus is also tied to the Congressional Money parameters to spend and tax toward the General Welfare—or Equal Protection—of all citizens), or it is not (and thus the American taxpayer is not obligated to bail out privately created money if it fails). We need Supreme Court clarification on which it is.
1. Briscoe v. Kentucky (1837)
- Briscoe v. Kentucky (1837) remains the only ruling in favor of private money creation, deeming it a non-constitutional issue, as private money is clearly not authorized by the federal government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve Act did NOT transfer the Congressional Money Powers to the private sector, neither did it tie privately created money to the Congressional Money Powers.
- Briscoe v. Kentucky established that all corporations are afforded a barrier between them and the entity who established them, and it is on this technicality that the new court declared that the currency Kentucky banks issued was not state-issued money, but corporate money.
- Therefore, the Federal Government is under no legal obligation to use taxpayer money to stabilize the monetary mistakes of the Federal Reserve or its private banks; Congress has erroneously bailed out the private banking industry, when it has no obligation to do so.
- Meanwhile, Congress is obligated to spend toward the General Welfare of its citizenry.
We request a declaration that indeed no connection exists between private bank money creation and the Money Powers Congress has to tax and spend the real labor value of its citizens toward their General Welfare.
2. The National Currency Act of 1864
On June 20, 1874, a Senate resolution amended the National Currency Act of 1864 to instead be called the National Banking Act of 1864; here is the original title:
An Act to provide a National Currency, secured by a Pledge of United
States Bonds, and to provide for the Circulation and Redemption thereof.
The original text reads as follows:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that there shall be established in the treasury department a separate bureau, which shall be charged with the execution of this and all other laws that may be passed by congress respecting the issue and regulation of a national currency secured by United States bonds. The chief officer of the said bureau shall be denominated the Comptroller of the Currency and shall be under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Here is the amended version (no date is provided for this amendment, or whether it was voted upon by either house of Congress; note that any reference to enactment by Congress has been removed):
“100. Sec. 324.—There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a bureau charged with the execution of all laws passed by Congress relating to the issue and regulation of a national currency secured by United States bonds and, under the general supervision of the Federal Reserve Board, of all Federal reserve notes, the chief officer of which bureau shall be called the Comptroller of the Currency and shall perform his duties under the general directions of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The text of this bill has been altered many times; many of the alterations occurred after the Federal Reserve Act was passed, so the purpose can only be to establish—however poorly—some legal precedent for a Private Central Bank.
The “National Currency Act” was established for the Federal Government to “issue and regulate a national currency secured by United States bonds [war bonds] …the name assumed by such association, [added 1959] which name shall include the word ‘national’ and be subject to the approval of the Comptroller [also added in 1959 then removed again in 1982].” Note: the Comptroller was removed from the Federal Board with the Banking Act of 1935; does federal government need 47 years to do its paperwork?
Thechanges are enough to abrogate the entire Banking Act of 1864, because the alteration changes the entire purpose of the bill, thus rendering the original bill “fully inoperative.”
There is no constitutional precedent for privately created money, thus The entire Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional;by altering the National Currency Act to become the National Banking Act of 1864, it superficially converted private state banks into ‘National Banks’ purely by naming them the “National Bank of [X,Y,Z].” Presumably, this would make National Banks somehow Constitutionally legitimate because McCulloch v Maryland ruled that National Banks are constitutional? The ruling was supposed to legitimize Congressionally created banks, not state or private banks.
- The original 1864 Act was not called “The National Bank Act,” it was called “An Act to provide a National Currency,” and nothing more.
- When reading the Act it becomes clear that the intention of it was only to peddle “United States [war] Bonds;” most importantly,
- The original Act never said that new banks needed to use the word “National” in their title; this provision was added in 1874.
Therefore, the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional for at least two reasons:
- The National Currency Act, designed to create a national currency through war bonds, was altered to create private banks, call them ‘national banks,’ and create the money themselves when they made bank loans to American citizens who believed the money had come by way of their Federal Government. The altering of this 1864 act effectively abrogates it, and thus abrogates any legislation upon which it is built.
- The creation of the FDIC, quantitative easing, government subsidies and Wall Street bailouts are therefore unconstitutional acts perpetrated on the American taxpayer, who was forced to foot the bill for bailing out money that was not publicly (constitutionally) legitimate.
In the case of We the People v. Hierarchal Economics, we would want the courts to confirm the following rulings:
- Bristoe v. Kentucky (1837): Congress has no power to forbid the creation of private bills of credit, as they are NOT under any federal jurisdiction; it does, however, retain it right to disseminate and regulate publicly created money toward the General Welfare.
- National Currency Act (1864): altering it from a currency act to legitimizing private banks if they are named National Banks essentially changes their entire purpose, therefore abrogating the entire act.
- Federal Reserve Act (1913): no act of Congress is a substitute for Constitutional articles or amendments; in other words, the Federal Reserve Act in no way relinquishes Congressional Money Powers to the Federal Reserve Bank
- The National Bank Act of 1935: once the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller were removed from the Federal Reserve Board, there is absolutely nothing tying the Federal Reserve to the Money Powers designated by Congress.
- If the Supreme Court rules that this is not so and ties any Money Powers to the Federal Reserve, it would also tie the Federal Reserve to the Spending Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, giving the People grounds to sue the Federal Reserve for not disseminating their Money Powers toward the equal opportunity of all citizens. It would also invoke the ‘separate is not equal’ ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which would provide grounds for reestablishing a National Public Bank, along with local subsidiary banks (which have shareholders and enjoy ‘corporate personhood’) to desegregate private banking and connect all the money together under one roof.
- Per Natural Law, only taxed labor value constitutes real money, so the hole known as the National Debt has, at best, a negative value and cannot be conjoined with the Congressional power to coin money and regulate its value.
- To corner both the Fed and the government, the lawsuit would likely need to name both as co-conspirators.
3. Civil Lawsuit: Federally Financed Institutions Must Provide Equal Protection
Purpose: Federally financed institutions must provide Equal Protection in regard to money allocation per the Fourteenth Amendment; the federal government bailed out Wall Street corporations (artificial people) through taxpayer money over failed home mortgages; therefore, it must similarly compensate A) people who suffered from failed home mortgages, as well as B) people affected by all rent payments above the inflation average (caused by Wall Street owning the foreclosed properties).
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (1868) has expanded its scope to help nearly every group except the one for which it was originally intended. As early as 1886, the 14th Amendment was widened to include Chinese immigrants (in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356) and corporate shareholders (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394).
Yick Wo v. Hopkins established an important precedent: even though laws are not discriminatory in their wording, if enforced in a discriminatory way, then the enforcement violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Takeaway: The law will judge discrimination by actions as well as words.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad established that “an aggregate of rights-bearing shareholders…[do] not forsake their constitutional rights” when they ‘incorporate,’ thus when a corporation—as an ‘artificial person’—feels “substantially burdened” by some tax, for instance, then equal protection implies that shareholders must feel similarly persecuted. The notion that a corporation is afforded the same equal protections as any person only exists because it is tied to the idea that an individual does not lose their constitutional rights when they become part of a group.
Takeaway: When Wall Street corporations are “substantially burdened,” then their “shareholders” must feel similarly persecuted; when banks are bailed out, then homeowners—as shareholders in the bank—must feel similarly persecuted through the foreclosure of their homes. Therefore, equal protection must be afforded corporations as well as shareholders, otherwise, individuals ARE forsaking their constitutional rights when they ‘incorporate.’
- The lawsuit must first establish the relationship between the borrower and the lender, such that the borrower should have Equal Protection under the law the same as the corporation whose ‘investors’ are its shareholders, whether they represent depositors, borrowers, or simply taxpayers footing the bill for the debt money banks are handing out.
Title IX (of the Civil Rights Act) (1972) established that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Takeaway: Again, being part of a group does not negate an individual’s constitutional right to equal protection of the law; thus, if males can receive financial ‘aid’ then females are due the same financial treatment, especially when the aid is federally granted.
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Equal Protection Clause was cited to correctly assert that ‘separate’ could never be ‘equal.’
Takeaway: Natural Law asserts that only through connection can homeostatic balance be achieved and maintained. A student living in a financially disadvantaged neighborhood will not receive the same educational opportunity as a student living in a financially advantaged community; the only assistance Constitutional law can give is to remove any artificial barriers to opportunity (disconnection) placed between citizens who are equal under Natural Law.
- Similarly, a bank in a financially disadvantaged community does not offer its residents the same opportunity as a bank in a financially advantaged community; separate private banks also do not provide equal protection.
In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the subject was interracial marriage. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) involved affirmative action. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) protected same-sex marriage. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex,’ which tied the Equal Protection Clause to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”
Through these rulings, Equal Protection has been afforded individuals tied together by ethnicity, financial investment, financial need, gender, citizenry, need of employment, similar social values, etc.— in other words, no group can be denied Equal Protection if its shared belief is strong enough to advocate for itself. The Equal Protection Clause is activated when similarly connected groups are not treated similarly under the law; protection has mostly centered around providing equal opportunity, which has encompassed education, finance, employment, and even marriage.
The 2007-2008 Financial Crisis centered around one connection: groups of people who invested in home mortgages. One group, citizens, invested in home mortgages and lost 10 million of them when the cost was arbitrarily raised by the Federal Reserve at the same time wealthy investors cashed out of their real estate speculations and Wall Street ran out of people wishing to buy homes at excessively inflated rates. The other group, Wall Street, encouraged then bought up the riskiest of these home loans, packaged them up in toxic asset-backed securities and sold them all over the world, falsely advertising their stability. In the end, it was this second group that the federal government chose to help.
Congress does not exercise its Money Powers through the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve exercises Money Powers it does not have by manipulating debt instruments the U.S. Treasury is instructed to leave unattended.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can authorize lawsuits that seek monetary damages against states “pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.” In The People v. Hierarchal Economics, homeowners will seek Equal Protection as a group seeking the same amount of taxpayer welfare that the banks who foreclosed on them received. The federal government and the people are no strangers to private sector bank failures; the people only wish to be treated similarly to past victims (through the precedent established in 1929).
- Data shows that 6% of loans sponsored by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were delinquent during the period from 2001 through 2008; Wall Street loans were delinquent on their payments 27% of the time (4.5 times more). Fannie and Freddie made no risky loans until Wall Street lowered the bar; by 2007, 42% of Wall Street’s loans went bust. Even then, only 5% of Fannie and Freddie loans were made to borrowers under the 620 FICO credit score cutoff signaling ‘subprime’ lending practices; Wall Street loans went under this bar 30% of the time. 
- In the end, only 2.2% of Fannie and Freddie-backed mortgages went into foreclosure, “compared to 13% of all subprime mortgages, 11.3 percent of all Alt-A mortgages, and 2.9 percent of all prime mortgages.” 
- Importantly, the last time homes were threatened with massive foreclosure was the Great Depression (1929); the government opted to create the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, a National Public Bank, which bought and refinanced 1 million defaulted home mortgages at lower rates; the government simply held the mortgages until they were all paid off.
- In 2016, the federal government’s new strategy was to auction off 95% of its ‘distressed mortgages’ to Wall Street Investors at rock-bottom prices with no stipulations concerning how Wall Street might handle this essential needs investment; private equity firms like Blackstone L.L.C. acquired more than 200,000 single-family homes, that it now rents at increasingly exorbitant prices under company names such as Strategic Property Management (Strategic Acquisitions), Colony American Homes (Colony Capital), Invitation Homes, or Starwood Waypoint. 
- Another recent real estate grab bought up another $60 billion worth of properties, driving housing prices up but not home ownership; “fundamentally altering housing ecosystems in ways we’re only now beginning to understand.”  More easy to comprehend is that middle-income homeowners were driven out by foreclosures, so all the current gains (from the average home price of $250k to the 2023 price of $501k) have gone to Wall Street investment companies and their shareholders.
- There must be a shared belief in the value of money for it to exist; shared beliefs, as well as economics itself, necessarily creates relationships between all groups. The Constitution of the United States claims to secure Liberty; equal relationships are mutual relationships; it is government’s job to provide Equal Protection so that relationships do not turn parasitic.
- Banks base their credibility on 1) the labor value of its depositors, which allows 2) borrowers who promise to replace privately created debt with their labor value, thus increasing the assets of the bank. Finally, the private bank gets reserve funds from 3) the federal debt, where again the taxpayer’s labor value serves as the financial backing for the bank’s existence, as well as any bailout money for lenders (through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) or depositors (through the FDIC). The contention is that together, this proves that the American people are shareholders in the banks they fund, therefore if the artificial corporation, which is federally financed, receives welfare, then through the Equal Protection and General Spending Clauses, Congress needs to similarly provide for groups similarly inflicted.
- Since money was loaned and (mostly) paid back by Wall Street, the People’s stipulation would be to similarly use taxpayer money loaned out through the Constitutionally-approved National Public Bank within the U.S. Treasury, to extend home loans to Americans who lost their homes, or have been forced—by the ensuing inflation caused by the poor strategies implemented during the Financial Crisis—to face exorbitant rent prices from the encroachment of Wall Street landlords into their communities.
The overall message of Equal Protection is that everyone feels unprotected. In the area of housing, blacks have suffered redlining, blockbusting, eminent domain, gentrification, and have seen their houses devalued along with their social worth. Everyone else should be getting in line behind them, but this is not how society is currently organized. When the Fourteenth Amendment was first ratified, it wound up helping corporations more than any other group; the hope is that this litigation will reverse that trend.
4. Parallel Litigation: Misuse of Congressional Spending Clause
(Corporate Welfare is not the General Welfare)
Purpose: Through the Spending Clause, Congress has the power to tax and spend in aid of the General Welfare, but any federal grant of money cannot be given to one group at the expense of another. Again, Equal Protection hovers over all Congressional spending allocations, so the federal grant of American homes to Wall Street landlords would imply a similar grant of home be provided the American taxpayer.
When federal government subsidizes high-end corporations with taxpayer money (extracted from labor, rather than renting out privately created money that must be paid back with interest), it does so through the Congressional mechanism of promoting ‘the General Welfare.’ Some subsidies (given over to agriculture, energy, water, healthcare) create the illusion that consumer prices remain stable for these essential needs, but the industries ultimately receive the full asking price (exchange value) for their products; the illusion that inflation is being controlled is just an illusion. Some subsidies (like Amazon) provide tax incentives to large companies to locate in certain areas and bring jobs with them. Often, people in poorer areas are not the ones hired; instead, people end up commuting to these jobs, so again, the illusion that equal opportunity is being disseminated is an illusion (it is estimated that even state and local governments spend as much as $30 billion a year enticing businesses to their area). Some subsidies (Boeing, GM, Ford) are meant to encourage production of certain products, but basically serve to prop up industries that are in decline.
Government is instituted among people to manage the economics through which their Life, Liberty, and Happiness is realized. The United States Government has decided (for now) to use hierarchal economics as its operating system; the main tenet of creating ‘balance’ in a ‘free’ marketplace is competition. Therefore, the People will seek one of two options:
Be allowed to retain their taxed labor value to be pooled for small business loans, spent—per the Spending Clause—through a National Public Bank capable of disseminating it in a “general” versus “local” manner (designed for small farms, green energy, local food production, electric airplane alternatives, etc., that can compete in every local community and thus represent an overall feel of competition), or
Demand an equivalent amount, per the Spending Clause, to be disseminated toward green energy (fossil fuel gets $20 billion), agriculture (which received $50 billion in 2020), transportation (airlines got $14 billion in 2021, car companies received $81 billion overall), tech companies ($52 billion from the feds, $9.3 billion from states) and communication ($65 billion for new broadband).
On the above numbers alone, the People could sue (through the Tucker Act) for a minimum of $210 billion in taxpayer money, which could be dispersed through National Public Bank loans for essential needs businesses supplying competitive next generation products. Whatever is paid back from the loans represents the People’s investment in themselves (which makes everyone shareholders and fulfills the General Welfare requirement); instead of the money adding to the National Debt or becoming a sunk cost dumped onto the American taxpayer (the usual federal government model), this money will get paid back and can be reused for other projects.
5. Constitutional Challenge: Misuse of Taxpayer Money Toward ‘Common Defense’ and ‘General Welfare’
Purpose: The spirit of U.S. Constitutional Law is Natural Law, and it is important that Americans reestablish this original Law, to see that it is duly applied to current Supreme Court decisions. Once Natural Law is reestablished, it will render much of Congressional spending unconstitutional.
Natural Law asserts that violence is an emotional communication meant to signal a disconnection exists; when the disconnection is systemically generated, it will create an imbalance (because connection cannot disperse it) and drive a positive feedback loop of further violence, which manifests itself in internal and external disorders:
- Department of Defense: now at $1 trillion per year (three times the cost of any other country); $1.99 trillion is available through Congress. The United States has been at war for 225 of its 243 years).
- Gun Violence: guns kill 43,000 people a year and represent 71% of homicide deaths. 59% of gun deaths are suicides, however.
- Mass Incarceration: costs $182 billion to run, rises to $300 billion counting cost to police neighborhoods, and jumps to $1.2 trillion when including damages to society.
- National Debt: currently stands at $31.8 trillion.
- Environmental costs of pollution: estimated at $500 billion a year, with another $361 billion in health costs.
- Healthcare Costs: $4.8 trillion (#1 in cost in the world)
- Alcohol: costs $249 billion overall each year ($192 billion in direct health costs).
- Drug Abuse: a $152.4 billion cost per year.
- Smoking: more than $300 billion a year ($170 billion in direct healthcare cost alone).
- Cancer: over $200 billion in direct healthcare costs each year.
- Diabetes: $245 billion is spent each year; $175 billion represents direct healthcare costs.
The U.S. Constitution is based on Natural Law; where Natural Law is compromised, grounds for constitutional challenges to statutes exist. In common law, upon which early rulings were based, judicial precedent is binding. Because the Equal Protection of all people was not a precedent at the founding of the United States, the tenets of civil law have also been used, which are not as beholden to precedent, but founded upon legal codes, which become useful when precedent proves corrosive to civil liberty.
- Out of every taxpayer dollar, 29 cents is spent on healthcare costs ($1.6 trillion); 14 cents is spent on the military industrial complex ($877 billion in 2022). Nearly 8 cents out of every dollar is spent on environmental issues, and 3 cents is spent to incarcerate American citizens.
- Natural Law asserts that only through connection can homeostatic balance be achieved, and only through balance will external and internal manifestations of violence dissipate. Disconnection from each other drives uncertainty, which drives the toxic effects of stress that leads to many internal disorders. Past traumatic experience still resonates epigenetically, whether through the stress of war or discrimination. Wealth disparity drives imbalance and uncertainty, and leads to depression, suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, and many other manifestations of violence.
- Per Liberty, people own the value of their labor, therefore it is through the mechanism of Liberty that people have a choice to NOT have their taxpayer money used for purposes that are proven to be detrimental to the health of the people and the planet; this, in effect, makes them accomplices to traditions of hierarchal oppression and violence that will not dissipate until the systemic mechanisms of hierarchal disconnection are dismantled.
- Liberty is the mechanism of choice, which is driven by beliefs; the Constitution is protective of people’s beliefs. The belief that only labor can convert potential resources into value leads to the idea that taxation of one’s labor value diminishes a percentage of Liberty, as it limits choices. To not diminish the liberty of its citizens, yet still provide the means and mediums of connection necessary for the successful operation of economics, taxation should represent a share of these connections that facilitate economics and not diminish it.
6. Case Against the Federal Reserve: Failure to Meet its Objectives
Purpose: Independent ‘Government-Sponsored Enterprises’ (GSAs) like the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac do the work of Federal Government; they are simply the tools of government, created to serve a specific purpose. The tool of the Federal Reserve was created to maximize jobs, stabilize inflation, and keep interest rates moderate. During the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, the Fed not only failed to meet any of its objectives, but it actively caused unemployment, inflation, and interest rate hikes (which precipitated the foreclosures) through its policy choices. Therefore, it is incumbent upon government to rethink the mechanism through which it disseminates its Money Powers.
During the aftermath of the Financial Crisis, ten million people defaulted on their home loans, nine million people lost their jobs, and when the housing bubble burst, homes went back down to an average price of around $250,000. That was in 2012; by 2023, housing prices climbed back up over $500,000 (an average increase of 100%). The difference this time is that a large percentage of the homeowners are now Wall Street investors, who bought up the foreclosures—many of them from the federal government.
When the government wasn’t handing the houses directly over to Wall Street, to get them off Fannie and Freddie’s books, Wall Street types were showing up with cash to outbid residents, such that neighborhood dynamics would never be the same. The mechanics of inflation were exposed, however; ownership of essential goods and services by profit-seeking types ‘banks’ on inelastic demand to get whatever price they ask, meanwhile the general public soon joins the price gouging event. Thus, the mechanism that federal government uses to secure its Money Powers purposely drives inflation that serves the ‘limited welfare’ of Wall Street investors; taxpayers are asked to pay further nonreciprocal obligations (rent) to these landlords, which in no way facilitates the Equal Protection of both parties.
Jobs were lost. Inflation was not curbed. Interest rates were purposely ‘fluctuated’ by the Fed, which singlehandedly drove the foreclosures that caused the housing collapse.
National Debt is created when the government pays out money, sometimes for labor, sometimes as pure economic rent, so that the private sector will not charge its inflated prices directly to the citizens (although the citizens pay for it anyway, through their taxes). Some debt covers economic infrastructure that aids the private sector, who then charges the taxpayer to use it. Once the money is paid out, and the National Debt sits in the Treasury, it is converted to ‘securities’ and placed in the banks of the primary dealers in these ‘debt instruments.’
Amherst Pierpont Securities LLC
ASL Capital Markets Inc.
Bank of Montreal, Chicago Branch
Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Barclays Capital Inc.
BofA Securities, Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch
Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
Mizuho Securities USA LLC
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
NatWest Markets Securities Inc.
Nomura Securities International, Inc.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
Societe Generale, New York Branch
TD Securities (USA) LLC
UBS Securities LLC.
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
The so-called ‘shadow banking’ division of Wall Street sees these holdings as assets through which to leverage many of their unregulated dealings, presumably with the confidence that if they fail, the government will bail them out, since they hold these assets hostage.
During the $9 trillion in Federal Reserve quantitative easing, the Fed removes $9 trillion worth of these securities from the primary dealerships, giving up newly created cash for it instead. This ‘cash’ is now moved out of the shadows and into the private banking system accessible by the general population. The shadow banking system is not necessarily pleased by this because it affords them less ‘leverage,’ but for quite a long time, even the private banks were holding onto the assets, preferring to use it as leverage, too.
Likely, the claims of poor Money Power management will simply be folded into the general case for Equal Protection, but the evidence shows that Wall Street certainly has leverage over the federal government and appears to have more leverage over the private banks than the Fed who supplies the banks with their debt money.
7. Equal Protection of Federal Government Employees
Purpose: To ensure future employees of the Federal Government—who received federal tax dollars—also receive Equal Protection, campaign laws need to be changed so that each viable candidate receives equal funding.
- It costs $24 million to buy a seat in the Senate; $3.4 million to sit in the House of Representatives.
- The average American does not have this kind of money, but Wall Street does, as well as the wealthy donors of the two current political parties; if any ‘average American’ wants to sit in one of those seats, they must become a paid marketer for Wall Street or whichever party hires them to sell their brand of politics (meanwhile, both now market capitalism).
- The Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) gave the private sector the right to financially support the candidate of their choice.
- As federal elections are financially aided by the federal government, Equal Protection of all Candidates (as a group) requires that it matches whatever campaign contributions are given to private sector candidates, otherwise one candidate is disadvantaged. Because elected officials receive financial assistance (salaries), all candidates deserve Equal Protection of the means to secure employment.
- It is through federal statutes that the idea of corporate personhood is legitimized, and through federal government that citizens are allowed to participate in government.
8. Application for an Equal Opportunity Grant:
Grant to Run a Beta Test Implementing Natural Law
Purpose: Biological Economics and the principles of Natural Law take precedence over the current systems being used; through implementation of these foundational laws, the negative externalities of hierarchal economics would soon disappear. The contention is that ‘nature’ is the ‘constant’ (C) and therefore the only way to solve societal issues is through establishing an ‘environment’ that nurtures the results Americans hope to achieve (current government mandates dictate a desire for Equal Protection, General Welfare, Common Defense, etc.). Natural Law posits that creating an environment specifically designed to dispense these concepts should theoretically ‘nudge’ people toward external and internal ‘economic’ health. To prove this theory, a Beta Test is needed.
Sources For Funding a Natural Law Beta Test
- Corporate Subsidies top $100 billion a year; the top ten corporations alone have received nearly $75 billion in taxpayer money; 70 different companies have received more than $1 billion each.
- The beta test looks to incorporate an entire community; the corporate entity is a public bank. The grant money would go into the bank, where it would rebuild the community and create jobs that render services; as the community pays for these services, payments would go back into the bank. The test is whether the community can flourish without inflation (i.e., extra money creation).
- Federal Government handed out $700 billion in bailouts for the Wall Street 2007-2008 financial crisis. Evidence shows this bailout money was spent on individual bonuses and was used as seed money to buy up several hundred thousand of the foreclosures The Fed and Wall Street helped cause.
- The test would be rendered in the poorest communities, to help ‘bail out’ this group of Americans who do not lose their individual rights to Equal Protection simply by being in this group; the Spending Clause would best be served by either A) choosing one community in each state to promote the General Welfare, or B) choosing the most impoverished communities to provide Equal Protection. In either case, communities would have to vote to be part of the pilot program; Liberty means that people are allowed to own—as well as take ownership of—their choices.
- The Federal Reserve has created debt money (“monetizing the debt”)—through quantitative easing—equal to nearly $9 trillion. The money has been used by private banks who do not equally protect American citizens. Meanwhile, 10 million individuals and families lost their homes (and 9 million people lost their jobs) between 2006 and 2014, raising the number living in poverty to 46.5 million. The U.S. National Deficit consequently rose from $9 trillion in 2007 to $31.8 trillion currently.
- If the federal government does not want to expend real (taxed labor) money to fund this project, it could repurpose some of the $9 trillion it already created, most of which sits in banks leaking value and further taxing the American laborer (through ever-increasing interest rates on the National Debt).
Communities Outside the Equal Protection of Federal Government
- New York Congressional District 15: 36.2% below poverty
- Michigan Congressional District 13: 29.6% below poverty
- Kentucky Congressional District 5: 29.1% below poverty
- Texas Congressional District 34: 27.8% below poverty
- Louisiana Congressional District 2: 27.1% below poverty
- California Congressional District 16: 26.7% below poverty
- Mississippi Congressional District 2: 26.2% below poverty
- Pennsylvania Congressional District 2: 26.0% below poverty
- Texas Congressional District 15: 25.7% below poverty
- Ohio Congressional District 11: 25.6% below poverty
- New York Congressional District 13: 25.4% below poverty
- Louisiana Congressional District 5: 25.1% below poverty
- Georgia Congressional District 2: 25.0% below poverty
- California Congressional District 21: 24.7% below poverty
- Alabama Congressional District 7: 24.6% below poverty
- Arizona Congressional District 7: 24.2% below poverty
- Texas Congressional District 29: 24.1% below poverty
- Tennessee Congressional District 9: 24.0% below poverty
- Pennsylvania Congressional District 1: 23.9% below poverty
- South Carolina Congressional District 6: 23.8% below poverty
- Texas Congressional District 28: 23.6% below poverty
- West Virginia Congressional District 3: 23.3% below poverty
- Louisiana Congressional District 4: 23.2% below poverty
- New York Congressional District 7: 23.0% below poverty
- California Congressional District 40: 22.6% below poverty
Children’s academic success is directly related to their poverty status; those who live below the poverty line have greater health issues and reduced ability to focus on school. Data also indicates that parents have a significant impact on the academic ambitions of their children; school spending seems less of a factor and more an indication that high-achieving parents live in wealthier neighborhoods, where the demand for educational spending and academic success combine with the emotional need for these neighborhoods to look and appear more prestigious.
1. Alabama: Chickasaw City Schools, Mobile County
In the Chickasaw district, 41.3% of school-age children live below the poverty line. School spending averages $9,400 a child; only 14% of residents in this country have attained a bachelor’s degree.
2. Alaska: Lower Kuskokwim School District, Bethel Census Area
37.5% of school-age children live in poverty here, despite spending more than $32,000 per child; only 13% of adults attain a bachelor’s degree in this area, which indicates that throwing money at this problem is not enough. Biologically, disconnection (from the whole) and connection (to fit into one’s surroundings) both play a part in the perpetuation of overall financial disparity.
3. Arizona: Window Rock Unified School District 8, Apache County
44.4% of children live in poverty. Children receive nearly $15,000 a year in school expenditures; 11% of adults end up with a bachelor’s degree.
4. Arkansas: Osceola School District, Mississippi County
40.1% of children live below the poverty line; per student spending is around $12,000, with only 9% of adults eventually attaining a bachelor’s degree (interestingly, children raised by parents with a college education will tend to follow their parents’ lead).
5. California: Mendota Unified School District, Fresno County
Students receive only $11,000 a year in school expenditures and only 2% of parents possess a bachelor’s degree, further illustrating the importance of parental guidance in academic attainment.
6. Colorado: Las Animas School District, Bent County
• Location: Bent County
Annual per student spending is only $7,000; 10% of adults earn a bachelor’s degree. The lower cost represents a lack of teachers in this district; class sizes average 40 students per teacher.
7. Connecticut: Hartford Public Schools, Hartford County
• With annual per student spending at nearly $20,000 but less than 17% going on to get a college degree, parental role modeling stands out as the more significant factor.
8. Delaware: Woodbridge School District, Sussex County
Although the country only expends $14,000 per child, again the percentage of adult with a bachelor’s degree—13% —is the more prominent factor.
9. Florida: Hamilton County School District, Hamilton County
The child poverty rate of 34.3%; student spending is less than $11,000 annually, and only 9% of adults earn a bachelor’s degree.
10. Georgia: Stewart County School District, Stewart County
While student spending is relatively high—$15,000 per child—only 11% of parents earn a bachelor’s degree.
Perhaps success should not be measured financially or academically, but economically; is the economic infrastructure in place to promote a healthy lifestyle (through physical and emotional connection, as well as the opportunity to exercise liberty and contribute through labor).
The Beta Test should not require more than $600 million per year for four years to achieve a measurable result, or $2.4 billion per community deposited into a local public bank. If the money used is federal tax dollars instead of federal debt, the incentive would be that residents could keep whatever value was produced through the bank. $2.4 billion, paid back at 4% interest over 30 years—would yield $4.12 billion for the community (or $41,000 per resident, deposited into each participant’s personal bank account).
If after the four years, residents are allowed to pay all their federal taxes through the bank, the jobs produced by the initial infusion of money would sustain the bank indefinitely, such that the community would run independently; it would not need the benefit (or burden) of state and local taxation, property or sales taxation, or any other sources of money beyond this publicly owned bank.