Political And Socioeconomic Inequality In The U.s.: Who Governs?

I did more than "attempt" to support my claims by court cases. I provided an extensive set of definitive higher court decisions establishing that neither Daly nor Judge Mahoney had a leg to stand on., and that Mahoney's ruling had no legal authority. I provided the legal citations. Did yoy check them out? Most likely the second case, if there was one, happened in a court not of record or in a Minnesota district court which did not publish the opinion. The latter would be more likely, since that is the usual course of appeal in a j.p. court. Maybe the information would be available from the court clerk, if we asked for it and knew the jurisdiction. I'm certainly ot going to go to the trouble, but be my guest. Your persistence in bringing this up is also "telling". The fact that you think this is important tells me that you don't know much about the law or the judicial system. In any event, the matter is irrelevant. The cases I cited show conclusively that the j.p. case was rejected with vigor. Do you think the cases leave any doubt that Judge Mahoney exceeded his authority? Do you think there's any doubt about the inability of a j.p. to make definitive pronouncements about the constitutionality of state and federal law?

 

Come now. I provided reference to the court case in question. You've offered no reference to prove your claim. Which makes me wonder why you would make the claim in the first place . . .

 

But you can provide nothing to substantiate the claim that the case was rejected. In that case, First National Bank of Montgomery must have prevailed. Did they get their money?

 

Not specifically. It authorized the Fed, delegated authority to it to carry out its functions and provided sufficient standards and procedural safeguards (via the Administrative Procedure Act) similar to those of other federal regulatory agencies.

 

You provided a reference to the original j.p. proceeding. The reference consisted of the name of the case--for good reason, because there was no "official" record from a court not of record. Duh.Judge Mahoney wrote up a memorandum supporting his judgment and reasoning, which is unusual in such a court. An appeal would probably be a summary de novo procedure--open and shut. Records of execution of judgement are hard to come by. So what exactly are you talking about? I've explained that we may not be able to track down whether or not the bank got its money. In this case, the sheriff would have executed foreclosure proceedings. Banks being what they are, I suspect they did, since the j.p.'s decision on the constitutional matters was rejected. It's possible that the fact the jury had already reached a general verdict on the matter was taken as sufficient to let the verdict stand. There may be no "official reference" since the j.p. court was not a court of record. If it was a district court decision, there may be a record, but someone (not me) would have to dig it up from the court clerk in Minnesota, because such trial court records aren't published in a law reprter. If Mr. Morgan is still alive and is available, someone might pry it out of him, but risk-aversive bankers might not give the information out. Why do you think it's relevant? Do you continue to think the j.p.'s ruling about money and the fed carried any legal weight? You've just put yourself into the "obnoxious" category, so I'm shutting the door permanently. I refuse to communicate with you further on anything. As I said at the outset, it's impossible to enter into a meaningful discussion with a true believer, a Jehovah's Witness or conspiracy nut.

 

Yes, most certainly not specifically. Congress can delegate one of its duties to a body, but where in the Constitution can we find that Congress can turn over its duty to create currency to another who is going to charge interest on the money it creates? Why the middle man?

There is about 1.5 trillion dollars in circulation today. Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $19 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? It will have to create the money necessary to pay the interest owed to it. This is a perpetual debt that can never be paid off, but only increased. Am I mistaken when I say that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof was transferred from Congress to a Private corporation, and that this country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest, and that the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of this country?

 

I'm sorry you can't find anything to support your claim that the verdict was overturned, which would have forced Daly to pay First National Bank of Montgomery. And now, your claim is that you suspect they did. I acknowledge your suspicion, but it falls short of proving your claim. My guess is that you had read it on the internet, and it therefore became a fact to you. It's impossible to enter into a meaningful discussion with someone who is a true believer that their suspicions are a good substitute for fact.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY8xz3Q7aig

 

I have tried myself to take on the idea of things being all black...that financial elite dictators made all the decisions, that voting is pointless and the system is completely rigged. I've found cynicism can be as much of a blinder as naivety. Ordinary people who feel thier power so heavily outweighed by that of financial elites tend toward views that paint them as complete victims of absolute plutocracy.

In some ways it's easier than facing the daunting task of trying to work with the system we have using what power we do have, to just say it's all an evil monolith of oppression that must somehow be overthrown completely or else it's all hopeless. That way we can just throw up our hands and wait for the big revolution.

But I'm convinced that the only effective revolution we will ever have is if we do face that daunting task because the picture really is not all black. A balanced view that sees black AND white is usually more accurate. I suppose I'm philosophizing a political debate, but still, that's more or less how I see it.

 

........ or wait for China to invade or the Zombie Apocalypse.

 

Yeah, they sent that poor clueless woman to take the heat. If you're going to help to back a scam, that's the price you pay.

 

Describe that power that we do have.

 

Most people who can see that the corporate oligarchy has become a monolith of oppression are still working within the system to try and change it. I don't think too many people have a problem with the system overall, at least not in its original intent. The Founding Fathers started this whole thing off on the right foot, I think.

But when we start calling corporations citizens and saying that them putting billions of dollars into the political process is free speech, then that system is failing. Their entitlement to this "free speech" effectively silences the voice of millions of Americans. Either the system is doing something illegal when it allows this to happen, or the system doesn't work and needs a rehaul. I personally think it's illegal to grant corporations personhood and entitle them to freedom of speech when it infringes upon the freedom of speech of real people.

 

Well, if you believe that the system is completely rigged and the non elite have no power at all, then all you have to do is mope around which is my point. If you see things in a more balanced perspective like okiefreak then you see a lot of potential power we still have. Bernie has been answering this question..talking about organizing and informing people. But that kind of work takes hopeful people to do it, not people who have given up.

I completely understand hopelessness...I feel hopeless myself a lot of the time, especially since the election, but I also know that I can't let hopelessness tell me that there really is no hope because that is a skewed version of reality shaped by despair more than fact.

 

Well, I agree about most of that and hope you are right about most people seeing a corporate monolith still working within the system to change it. What I have seen so far is a lot of people who see it that way who have given up. I feel very sad about that because I think part of the problem is that we buy into the oppression in a way because we underestimate the power we have.

 

Actually, I asked you to describe this power that you say we do have. Feel free to do so.

I think that as you develop, you'll stop characterizing discussion of the problem as moping.

 

If I were characterizing the discussion of the problem as instanced here, I would use positive words because discussion is a positive process. By "moping" I was referring to the way people in general do when they see themselves as powerless.

Now you want me to talk about all that power I say we have so you can debunk it all telling me it why doesn't work. So let's save some time and YOU can tell ME what can be a course of action that can give ordinary people a chance in an absolutely controlled environment created by a single minded ruling class bent on control and exploitation?

C what I mean? It's hope or mope. Now maybe you never said things are hopeless exactly but refresh my memory if you said anything in this thread that makes this scenario winnable for us.

 

Again, I asked you to describe this power that you say we do have. Feel free to do so.

I think that as you develop, you'll stop assuming how I will respond to your answer, and just answer the question.

 

The power I believe we do have is power you believe we don't have. So it just brings us back to the same debate about whether the system is hopelessly rigged or not hopelessly rigged, which is one I just watched someone a lot smarter than me argue better than I ever could. The only point I was trying to make was about how much easier it is to be hopeless because if it's hopeless, there's nothing to be done.

You don't have to go out and wave signs or write letters or sign petitions or even vote. You just put on your shades, sit back and talk about how naive people are who do such things. Now if that doesn't apply to you, I'm not saying it does, so you don't have to take it personally but I think it does apply to most people.

The reason I brought it up is that this dynamic is used by some to take away power by convincing people that they don't really have it. "It's all a waist of time." they say. "Resistance is futile". It works! Despair and apathy weaponized. If republicans convince enough dems that both parties are puppets of the same evil puppet master, they win the elections even though they are the minority.

 

Not true .......
You could start a terrorist organization and try to kill your oppressors, or if a peaceful type, move to another country.

PS. "waste of time" FFS!