Ron Paul: End the Gov't Money Monopoly

This article was picked up from the Liberator Online.

Leave it to Ron Paul! He shocked the Establishment when his bill to audit the Federal Reserve System won majority support in the U.S. House. (Now it's winning substantial Senate support as well.)

He further made abolishing the Fed a major political issue with a bestselling book on the topic and legislation to accomplish that goal.

Now Paul is once again pushing the envelope on monetary policy -- by introducing the boldest and most libertarian monetary reform possible.

On December 9, Paul introduced HR 4248, the Free Competition in Currency Act. This bill would end the government's monopoly on the creation of money. It would allow the private sector to create alternative currencies to compete head-on with the government dollar.

Says Paul: "Allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of people turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies should provide incentive for Congress to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral.

"Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system."

The First National Bank - John Marshall, Hidden Motives and The Necessary and Proper Clause

Chief Justice John Marshall is undoubtedly the most influential man to have ever sat upon The Supreme Court's bench. As first Chief Justice, Marshall established many principles of constitutional interpretation which are followed to this very day. His most infamous, or most legendary depending on where one stands, was his first application of the neccesary and proper clause to the always controversial issue of the national bank.

Article One, section 8, clause 18 states, "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

In applying this clause to the issue of whether a national bank was authorized by the Constitution, Marshall argued in McCulloch v. Maryland that since "necessary" does not usually mean necessary as the dictionary defines it, i.e. required, but rather is often used as merely "convenient" or appropriate, the federal Government was in fact authorized to charter a national bank regardless of whether the constitution expressly authorized this power or not.

This is of course common history to any one familiar with the law - but what is not as familiar to most is Chief Justice Marshall's personal ties with the National Bank - Marshall, prior to the case, was a private shareholder in the bank and thus held a vested interest in the case's outcome. But rather than excuse himself from the decision he chose to transfer his shares in the bank to his two sons and proceed with preciding over the matter that would dictate the size and scope of the federal of government for centuries to come.

The question thus arises whether the entire contemporary system of Constitutional law is tainted with the poisons of prejudice. Is it possible that the federal government's perpetual growth and corruption finds its roots in corrupt men seeking profit through government power? Furthermore, could such corruption have been avoided by simply interpreting the word necessary as actually defined, i.e. absolutely essential? Has the Constitution been lost, not to an ideology, but to corrupt men willing to bend the law to their benefit? And if so, how has this corruption managed to secure the degree of legitimacy which men such as Marshall possess? These are the questions which must be addressed if American law is to ever be Constitutional again.

NAFTA Tribunals and Federal District Court Review

Since its enactment in the early 1990s, The North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") has been subject to strict criicisms from various political camps, including the left, the right and the liberatarians. Whether it is its alleged intention of circumenventing American soveriegnty, its negative effects on the American labor market, or its restrict effect on state governments, the NAFTA is despised by most anyone who considers themselves a political skeptic. And such criticisms are not without good reason as the NAFTA's stated purpose and legal effect, if actually obeyed by its members, is to restrict the governments involved to thus facilitate a system of free markets and "hands off" government policies. Of course, since neither nation truly endorses capitalism as a governing system, the NAFTA includes plenty of provisions that allow for government intervention, but nonetheless, such exceptions have not stopped NAFTA secret tribunals from bringing about legal remedies to those companies damaged by unreasonable interventionist policies of member governments.

Cases abound in which governments have been ordered by NAFTA tribunals to pay millions of dollars in damages to corporations. Many people reject this as an evil not to be tolerated, but is it any less more evil than protections against eminent domain? Of course not - at least on its face.

But people's main concern over the NAFTA is the subversive effect that the NAFTA may have on their nations' sovereignty. And if history is an accurate guide, then it is likely that in the name of trade facilitation local sovereignty will be forced to stand down in accordance with centralizing authority. See the United States. However, it is also true that without a crisis such as war, economic collapse, or, the new alleged crisis, global warming, it is unlikely that any sovereign power will lose their power without a fight. Nonetheless, it is clear that it is not the war, but the legal developments which precede war that decide a sovereign people's destiny. Such is the basis for why every tyrant, regardless of his tenor or specific brand of tyranny, has gone through the trouble of adopting a philosophical and legal rationale for his actions, for without this intellectual foundation his cause would be seen as a mere force of arms, an evil to be rebelled against. Thus, it is the legal developments and philosophical principles being laid down now that must be watched in order to fully appreciate where it is that we as a people are going.

One such development is a recent piece of litigation featuring a Canadian company, Apotex, who brought suit in U.S. Federal District Court seeking a declaratory judgment in regards to a pending patent. Unfortunately for Apotex, neither the District Court not the Circuit Court believed Apotex to have claim and thus both courts refused to hear their case. Apotex then appealed to the Supreme Court who then denied cert.

In response, Apotex brought action under the NAFTA, challenging all three court decisions as a misapplication of U.S. law, NAFTA expropriation, discrimination and a
violation of its NAFTA rights to a “minimum standard of treatment.” Effectively, what this amounts to is that Apotex is requesting that the NAFTA require the United States government to pay money damages for the Federal Court's refusal to interpret American law properly. Thus, for NAFTA to grant such a ruling, not only will it have to hold the Federal Government to have breached NAFTA, but also tht Federal Courts failed to interpret America law properly. If the NAFTA tribunal was to make such a ruling this would amount to nothing short of a new highest court in the United States, one that is appointed by a secret and non-elected organization of men. Luckily, the Federal Government has assured the public that it will defend this case vigorously, thereby protecting the sanctity of the American judicial process.

But isn't it enough that NAFTA can review these matters at all? If today NAFTA rejects Apotex's claim, will it not already be established that private actors can seek judicial review of Federal Court decisions in a new international tribunal system?

APOTEX INC. v. PFIZER, INC.547 U.S. 1126 (2006)(cert. denied); Apotex Inc. v. United States of America (First Notice of Arbitration); DOMTAR INC. v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Relevnt documents can be found at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84142.pdf
and,
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/usa.aspx?lang=en

Excerpt from the "Real Lincoln" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"This expansion of state and local government provided for tax-funded government schooling, influenced heavily by the federal government. Consequently, genrations of southerners (and Northerners) have been taught a poltically correct version of history (and of many other subjects) in the federalized, government-run schools. This is one reason why most Americans are completely unaware of the long, distinguished history of the right of secession in America. To this day, the government-run school system reiterates Lincoln's "spectacular lie" that secession is an act of treason. Thousands of school districts in dozens of states require students to recite a pledge of allegiance to the central government, "one nation, indivisible..." (Interestingly, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the early-twentieth century writer Walter Bellamy, an avowed socialist and outspoken advocate of centralized government power.)"

"The biggest item on the agenda of the Republicans was government subsidies to the corporations that bankrolled the Republican Party. The Confederate Constitution outlawed such corporate welfare, but with the defeat of the Confederate armies there was no longer any opposition to it."

Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano‐Horoski

In the following case a N.Y. state Judge in Suffolk, Long Island rules that where a creditor attempts to enforce payment of a debt lawfully owed to him, he engages in conduct so offensive that the law of equity demands the debt be cancelled in its entirety.

In Indymac Bank F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, a New York State judge ordered a plaintiff/bank/creditor to partake in settlement discussions with the defendant, debtor, with the stated purpose of avoiding full foreclosure on the house. Unfortunately for the judge’s sense of self-righteousness, Plaintiff refused to renegotiate the mortgage, instead preferring to reclaim its lawfully owned house.

The opinion is so intriguing it should be allowed to speak for itself.

“The Court, over the course of some six substantive appearances in seven months, has been afforded more than ample opportunity to assess the demeanor, credibility and general state of relevant affairs of Defendant and Plaintiff. Although not actually relevant to the disposition of this matter, the Court is constrained to note that Defendant is afflicted with multiple health problems which outwardly manifest in her experiencing great difficulty in ambulation, necessitating the use of mechanical supports. Moreover, Defendant’s husband, Mr. Gregory Horoski, suffers from a myriad of serious medical conditions which greatly impede most aspects of his daily existence. Nonetheless, both of these persons, together with their adult daughter who resides with them and who is substantially and gainfully employed, receive income which they are more than willing to commit, in good faith, toward repayment of the debt to Plaintiff and indeed, despite their physical challenges, they have appeared at each and every scheduled conference before this Court. At each appearance, they have assiduously attempted to resolve this controversy in an amicable fashion, only to be callously and arbitrarily turned away by Plaintiff. This has been so even in spite of the Court’s continuing albeit futile endeavors at brokering a settlement.

As a relevant aside, the scenario presented here raises the specter of a much greater social problem, that of housing those persons whose homes are foreclosed and who are thereafter dispossessed. It is certainly no secret that Suffolk County is in the yawning abyss of a deep mortgage and housing crisis with foreclosure filings at a record high rate and a corresponding paucity of emergency housing. While foreclosure and its attendant eviction are clearly the inevitable (and in some cases, proper) result in a number of these situations, the Court is persuaded that this need not be the case here. In this matter, Defendant is plainly willing to make arrangements for repayment and both her husband and daughter are likewise willing to allocate their respective incomes in order to reach the same end. Were Plaintiff amenable, she would presumably continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value. Plaintiff would receive a regular income stream, albeit with a reduced rate of interest and without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area. In short, a loan modification would result in a proverbial “win‐win” for all parties involved. To do otherwise would result in virtually certain undomiciled status for two physically unhealthy persons and their daughter, leading to an additional level of problems, both for them and for society.”

“…However, it is true with equal force and effect that equity must not and cannot slavishly and blindly follow the law, Hedges v. Dixon County 150 US 182, 192 (1893). Moreover, as succinctly decreed by our Court of Appeals in the matter of Noyes v. [*5]Anderson 124 NY 175 (1890) “A party having a legal right shall not be permitted to avail himself of it for the purposes of injustice or oppression…” 124 NY at 179

“Thus, where a party acts in a manner that is offensive to good conscience and justice, he will be completely without recourse in a court of equity, regardless of what his legal rights may be, Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), York v. Searles 97 AD 331, 90 NYS 37 (2nd Dept. 1904), aff’d 189 NY 573, 82 NE 1134 (1907).”

The court then proceeds to cancel the debt owed on the basis that plaintiff came before the court without clean hands because he refused to waive his right to a debt owed to him. Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano‐Horoski is thus a great example of present day perception of natural rights.

As an aside, the internet show FREEDOM WATCH at Foxnews.com tipped off DiscoveringFreedomNow.com to the Indymac Bank F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski decision. Judge Napolitano, host of Freedom Watch, was of the opinion that this case will inevitably be reversed by an appellate court, but we'll follow the case just to be sure.