Friday, December 29, 2017

Bundy Trial Prosecution Proven to be Persecution of Misconduct and Lawbreaking Itself

Bundy Trial Weekly Update
Prosecution Found Guilty

by Terry Noonkester

The last days of the Bundy trial were no longer about the protest between the ranchers and BLM over grazing rights.  The courts attention was drawn to how the prosecution and the agency’s they represented have disregarded the Constitutional rights of the accused.

On December 20th, 2017, Judge Navarro presided over a hearing for the USA v Cliven Bundy trial to give her decision on the defense’s motions for dismissal due to prosecutorial misconduct.  The prosecutors committed Brady violations when they failed to turn over evidence favorable to the defense.

Judge Navarro spent nearly two hours detailing six Brady violations made by the prosecution team.  The team is comprised of Acting U.S. Attorney, Steven Myhre, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Daniel Schiess and Nadia Ahmed.  Myhre had been a federal prosecutor for more than 25 years. Navarro said the evidence withheld was “material” to the defense case and that each of the prosecution’s six “willful” violations resulted in due process violations.

One prosecution violation was in regard to the surveillance camera or cameras that captured images, and possibly audio, of the Bundy home, and at other times, surveillance of two other locations.  The defense had repeatedly asked for any documentation regarding the surveillance, but the prosecution denied the existence of these camera’s until a government witness, U.S. Park Service Chief Investigator, Mary Hinson, testified to their existence.

Another violation was about the existence of sniperspositioned around the Bundy home.  The defense needed the FBI reports on these snipers to rebut the governments charges that claimed the Bundy’s and Ryan Payne made false claims that snipers were surrounding the Bundy home.

These FBI reports on snipers were denied and suppressed.  The records now show there were at least 197 paramilitary personnel at the Bundy Ranch in April 2014. There were pictures of snippers on the high ground near the ranch.  The paramilitary personnel were from the Las Angeles SWAT, The Las Vegas Metro SWAT and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team along with the BLM law enforcement and their ‘contract cowboys’.

There were several threat assessment reports made by the FBI throughout an extended timeframe of several years.  The prosecution claimed the Bundy family was assessed as being dangerous, but failed to make the reports available to the defense.  The Bundy’s and several supporters were denied bail because of these assessments until the prosecution’s witness, Mary Jo Rugwell, former head of  the BLM district office in southern Nevada, testified that the reports classified the Bundy’s as not a threat or as a low threat.  These assessments were then released to Judge Navarro, who then ruled that the defendants could be released from prison, to be monitored with ankle bracelets at host homes in Las Vegas.  The defendants may have spent 20 months in prison because of false statements made by the prosecution.

There was also a BLM assessment that grazing had not harmed the desert tortoise.  This refutes the governments claims that the cattle roundup was done to protect the tortoise.

Navarro repeatedly referred to the date that production of the evidence was required as October 1st, 2017; the discovery date for this trial.  Although the withheld evidence was also needed by the defense in the first two Cliven Bundy et al trials, violations for those trials are not covered by violations confirmed in this trial.

Navarro declared a mistrial because of the government’s “willful failure to disclose information” to the defense. She said; “A fair trial at this point is impossible.”

Ryan Bundy asked the Judge if that meant all the defendants would be released.  She told him that he would have to go through Pre-trial Services to  get any modification of his release.  Ryan asked if Todd Engel, and Greg Burleson would be released.  She said that was not up to her, a jury had convicted them.  She made it clear that the first two Bundy Trials in Las Vegas were not covered by this mistrial.

The jury was then brought into the courtroom for the first time in 9 days,  Judge Navarro told them that there had been a lot of new evidence in the trial; 3,300 pages of new evidence.  The attorneys would need a lot of extra time to go through all the new evidence so the trial had to be declared a mistrial because it was going to take too long.  She thanked them for their services and sacrifices several times and dismissed them as jurors.  She never mentioned that the prosecution was the party late with the evidence, nor did she say anything about Brady violations.

The procedure to be followed now is for lawyers for the defense and the prosecution to file briefs explaining to Judge Navarro how they think the trial should be concluded.  The prosecution would normally try to convince the judge that the case should be retried. The defense wants the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice; meaning all charges would be dropped and the prosecution would be barred from trying the case again.  December 29th is the deadline for the lawyers to file their arguments regarding how the trial should end.  Navarro has set the date for her decision as January 8th, 2018 at the courthouse.

At the end of the hearing on December 20th, Navarro instructed the prosecution to go through all the evidence that was covered by a protective order and remove any evidence that does not need to be under such a restrictive court order.  The judge also requested that any unnecessary redactions be removed.  The only sanctions imposed on the prosecution from Navarro’s court will be the mistrial or dismissal of the case.  Navarro has also followed court protocol to set a “calendar call” for February 15th,  and a new trial date for February 26th, 2018; but these dates are not expected to be needed.

After the courtroom was adjourned, the defendants were able to visit with the jurors.  Ammon said all the jurors he talked to were friendly and some wished to visit the ranch.  Some jurors said that if they had gone into deliberation at that point, the verdict would have been ‘not guilty’, one saying that he could see what the government was doing to them.  The Bundy’s, their defense team, supporters and even a few jurors met outside the courthouse main entrance.  The jurors had been impressed by Ryan Bundy’s representation of himself, one of the jurors calling it ‘awesome’.

Bret Whipple, the attorney for Ammon Bundy said; “All we need to do is point out her findings that the evidence was ‘material,’ and the violations were ‘willful,’ and attach the Chapman case. In my mind that seals the deal…I’m confident we’ll get a mistrial with prejudice. One step at a time. We’re getting close.”  The Chapman case, like the Bundy case, was headed by Steven Myhre and ended in a mistrial due to the prosecutions failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.

Judge Navarro has not considered the new allegations about prosecutorial misconduct that were made public in an email leaked to Washington State Representative Matt Shea on December 14, 2017.  The email was written by the former lead investigator of the Bundy case within the BLM, Agent Larry Wooten.  Wooten wrote of cooperation between his supervisor and prosecutor Steven Myhre to withhold evidence and his own dismissal as case investigator after his own failed efforts to supply evidence to Myhre.

Larry Klayman, a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, sent a message to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on December 21, 2017. “In the last week, through an ethically troubled BLM whistleblower who came forward as a matter of conscience, Larry “Clint” Wooten, it was also disclosed that BLM and the FBI had put the Bundys on a “kill list,” mocked and disparaged their Mormon faith, and bragged about assaulting and waging a violent invasion of their land, as well as harming them.

To make matters ethically and legally worse, Myhre and his staff also suppressed this whistleblower report documenting BLM and FBI gross misconduct and indeed criminal behavior. In short, your prosecutors in Nevada not just condoned the hiding and destruction of evidence that could lead to my client’s acquittal, but they themselves engaged in obstruction of justice through a cover-up. Importantly, Myhre and his staff committed crimes in furtherance of attempting to falsely convict Cliven Bundy. Incredibly, if convicted on all counts, Cliven and his sons would be sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.”

Klayman’s letter continued; “…it is incumbent that you also direct the Department’s OPR and the IG to now conduct an ethics investigation and mete out appropriate strong disciplinary sanctions against Myhre and his staff, as well as the involved complicit FBI agents”.  Klayman has requested an investigation of the Bundy prosecution several times in the last year, and filed formal complaints against Sessions, the Inspector General (IG), and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) when an investigation was not conducted in a timely manner.

Spokesman for the United States Justice Department, Ian Prior, said Jeff Sessions takes this issue very seriously and has personally directed a review and report of the case against Cliven Bundy.  When a judge makes a finding of misconduct by a prosecutor, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigates and determines if discipline is warranted. That can range from a reprimand to a suspension.  At this point, it is even possible for the government to call an end to the case.  It is disturbing that Sessions used the phrase “review and report” rather than investigation.

Not included in the violations committed by the prosecution are any issues that had not “ripened” when Judge Navarro declared a mistrial.  The ripeness refers to the readiness for litigation; “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or not occur at all”.  Although the ‘Wooten materials’ make many allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, there must be an investigation and possibly litigation before there can be sanctions or other punishments.

Also not covered is another violation in regards to testimony given by Mary Jo Rugwell regarding the Bundy’s water rights.  It seems Rugwell has perjured herself when she testified that she knew nothing about the Bundy’s water rights, but evidence was found that she had previously tried to have those water rights cancelled.

Defense lawyers said the violations in this Bundy trial are more extensive, involving thousands of pages of documents deliberately withheld.

At a roundtable discussion later in the day of the hearing, Ammon Bundy described how the prosecution of the Hammond family in Oregon paralleled the Bundy case in Nevada.  Ammon said the Hammonds did not have the benefit of a good defense team, so they are in prison.  He continued by saying that we need to act to get the Hammonds out of prison now.

Cliven Bundy is still ‘resisting release’ by not accepting an ankle bracelet monitoring device and a halfway house as a condition of release, and he is also insisting that all the men that came to his ranch in his defense be freed before him.

This article is offered to all other media under the Creative Commons License, when proper credit is given to Terry Noonkester, The Roseburg Beacon and Redoubt News.


Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

Please go to Redoubt News and share and spread their information. And donate to them to support the hard work they do. We commend them !


Monday, December 25, 2017


This very well may be one of the strongest presentations of evidence illustrating why the courts often threaten people who mention the Constitution in their courts, ever presented. Please do not pass this by. make the time to listen to it fully without dismissing it as just another presentation. They altered the oath that Judges take to uphold the Constitution.

A federal government which does not derive its lawful and limited authority from the Constitution of the United States is by definition an occupation government and criminal regime.  Its authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey it.
–Donald L. Cline

We The People, in order to bring forward the solution to Constitutional usurpation, must realize that #ItMattersHowYouStand      -   Thomas Lacovara-Stewart

Sunday, December 24, 2017


The Bombshells Keep on Coming as Bunkerville Trial Gets Underway

Federal Prosecutors are being exposed for their underhanded tactics and entrapment setup of the Bunkerville defendants.
During a recent evidentiary hearing, Daniel Love (the Special Agent in Charge of the 2014 Bundy cattle roundup operation) called out Daniel Bogden, then-US Attorney for Nevada, as being the decision maker for the release of the cattle. Love has no problem naming names these days as he is visibly angry over being fired this past summer due to his misconduct identified by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Inspector General.
The jury in the Bundy case was selected more than a week ago, but the courtroom has been occupied with evidentiary and detention issues.  On Monday, November 13, the audience spent most of the day in the hallway as Judge Navarro held “sealed” hearings with the defendants, their lawyers, and the prosecutors.
Such secret motions and proceedings have taken up an increasing proportion of the Bundy case in the past weeks.  There are more questions than answers regarding these secret motions and hearings, including: are they even legal?
Every day brings new startling revelations.  It has recently come to light that there are photos in the discovery which show the prosecutors in the case near the scene of the 2014 standoff, prior to the first escalation of events.
The photos were apparently taken on April 3, 2014. This was 3 days before Dave Bundy’s arrest and well before any protesters arrived.  The photos show Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed (now one of the prosecutors of the Bundys) as well as U.S. Magistrate Judge Ferenbach at the impound site.  Also present, apparently, are other members of the U.S. Attorneys office, including possibly even then-US Attorney Daniel Bogden.
The fact that this photo is part of the sealed discovery goes to show the importance the government places on their back-door dealings which led up to the prosecutions. Why must everything be hidden from the citizens?

Friday, December 22, 2017


In this video you will clearly hear the BLM order to defy the County Sheriff when
he tells them to keep their "long guns back".  He says "they aren't needed.
It appears it was the Sheriff and not BLM AGENT Dan Love (fired) that was trying to 
de-escalate the situation caused by what has now been revealed the 
heavy handed militarized intimidation on the Bundy Ranch.


Sunday, December 17, 2017

The ExtraJudicial Plot to Kill Bundy Protesters EXPOSED Now Undeniable

The Extra Judicial Plot to Kill Bundy Protesters EXPOSED - Now Undeniable - 
Where is the Main Stream Media Coverage of this?
Whistleblower Reveals The Kill Book
SAC Dan Love, Bunkerville Stadoff 2014 (photo by Shannon Bushman, used with permission)The Kill Book

The president, a politician, Republican or Democrat, should never get to decide someone’s death by flipping through some flash cards and saying, ‘You want to kill him? Yeah, let’s go ahead and kill him’.” — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), on CNN’s “State Of The Union,” Feb. 10.
The recently released 17 page report by whistleblower and lead investigator, Larry Wooten, details wide ranging misconduct by prosecutors and by BLM and other government actors. Among the accusations made by Wooten, was reference to a “kill book” kept by SAC Dan Love in which he bragged about causing the suicides of different individuals including Dr. Redd.
Beyond the suicides, it is unclear to what extent the “kill book” identified other people, including the Bundys and their supporters, as targets for assassination. There have been claims that, once all the discovery is released, not just the Wooten report, that more evidence will show that the Bundys and others were targeted for assassination.
One thing that has been confirmed is the use of snipers and the implied intent to assassinate. We already know how “trigger happy” the FBI was in shooting Vicky Weaver, while holding an infant child in her arms, at Ruby Ridge. There is probable cause to believe that the snipers, seen at the Bundy ranch, could have easily killed somebody associated with the Bundy cause.
Additionally, there is mounting evidence that a FBI sharpshooter fired at LaVoy Finicum and/or his passengers in an attempt to “execute extreme prejudice” and rid themselves of the problem that was growing like a virus. US Senator Ron Wyden, comparing the Malheur standoff to a virus, said that it was, “a situation where the virus was spreading,” and action needed to be taken.
One normally deals with a spreading virus by killing it. Were the assassination of Finicum, the attempted assassination of his passengers and the use of snipers at Bunkerville, all part of a government remedy to eradicate the virus through orders to kill?
Ammon Bundy, in a recent video, talks about some of the contents of the whistleblower report and how the FBI and the BLM put “x’s” through the pictures of Cliven Bundy and showed a disrespect for life.
A common practice by government is to label something with words that make them a euphemism, meaning to downplay the seriousness of something by giving it a better sounding name. A euphemism for assassination or kill orders is to “execute extreme prejudice”.
This term is used in reference to the government policy of assassinating enemies of the state, foreign or domestic.
The point I want to make is that, accusations and claims being made in the case of Bundy, Finicum and their supporters, regarding kill books or kill lists are not far fetched , nor are they a product of wacko conspiracy nuts, but fit a much bigger and far reaching policy by the US government to use assassination (murder) as a way to deal with people that they, a small group of decision makers, may consider “terrorists” or “virus”.
Senator Dennis Kucinich said that, “It doesn’t take too much of a stretch” to believe that the government policy to terminate terrorists in other parts of the world could also happen on US soil and against US citizens. (at 4:00 minutes)
We have heard Senator Harry Reid refer to the Bundys and supporters as “domestic terrorists”.
Once the term “terrorist” attaches to someone, whether foreign or domestic, it seems to give the government added justification to “reach out and touch someone” in the form of a drone missile or sniper bullet or some other form of “extreme prejudice”.
The above referenced video with Kucinich discusses how the constitutional rights to due process are being denied as the government seeks and destroys what they deem to be enemies of the state and then terminates them. The enormous injustice that is being perpetrated, not only against US citizens, is also against other human beings who don’t happen to be US citizens.
Our founders talked about inalienable and natural rights, rights that come to us for the simple fact of being human. The constitution was meant to not only protect people with US citizenship, but it was a model of conduct towards all mankind.
Denial of due process means that there are no checks and balances, none of the protections found in the Bill of Rights. Instead, somebody, often the POTUS, makes a unilateral decision to take somebody out, to take their life without a trial, without witnesses and cross examination and all the protections that we are supposed to have in a court of law. All that is bypassed with a drone missile or a sniper bullet.
The advantages and convenience of assassination are huge. By taking someone out, the government and their agencies are spared all the publicity, energy, expense and messiness of trials and investigations. The benefit of an assassination far outweighs its risk.
Quoted from article by Gary Hunt - 
In an undated email from Larry Wooten to Andrew D. Goldsmith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, National Criminal Discovery Coordinator, Wooten writes of many misdeeds in the entire Gold Butte Impound Operation, that being the operation that unfolded near Bunkerville, Nevada, back in early April 2014.
In a cover email, the eighteenth page, to Steven Myhre, United States Attorney for the Nevada District, in a forwarded email, the 17 page emails is included for a total of 18 pages. Wooten explains in the cover email that his superiors, his chain of command, would not deal with what he had presented to them. I’m not quite sure why he sent it to Myhre, since Myhre is implicated in the information, along with any others.
As I read the email, I realized that this was going to be a rather lengthy article. There were, Wooten’s own words, “Law Enforcement Supervisory Misconduct and Associated Cover-ups as well as Potential Unethical Actions, Malfeasance and Misfeasance by United States Attorney’s Office”, that I decided that I could only cover the more significant ones, and then provide the entire email for those that wanted to know more.

Friday, December 15, 2017

AMMON BUNDY - AMERICAN PATRIOT SPEAKS - Washington Representative Shea Stands Up

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Matt Shea Exposes BLM Atrocities

In an exclusive video interview with Redoubt News, Washington State Representative Matt Shea read from a letter he received concerning a BLM whistle blower named Larry Wooten.
Wooten was the lead investigator for the Bureau of Land Management’s investigation into the Bunkerville/Gold Butte operation that went bad for them in April of 2014.
The letter outlines egregious violations and abuses committed by the Bureau of Land Management employees, lead by SAC Dan Love.
These heinous acts were discovered when Wooten was assigned to investigate the Bunkerville Standoff/Gold Butte operation that took place in April 2014.
Wooten was the lead investigator for nearly 3 years, digging into a multitude of issues. He states in the letter:
…the investigation revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical, and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff at the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.
He outlined specifics, such as very derogatory name calling, when he described the unprofessional behavior. Additionally, Wooten states that this behavior was committed “often by law enforcement supervisors who are potential witnesses and investigative team supervisors”.
Agent Wooten outlines in detail how Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Dan Love was known for his bad behavior and allowed to get away with it, as he was “the BLM OLES “Directors boy” and they indicated they were going to hide and protect him.”
But, the information that this courageous whistle blower reveals only gets worse from here.
Wooten goes on to outline that SAC Dan Love had what was called a “Kill Book as a trophy and in essence bragged about getting three individuals in Utah to commit suicide (see Operation CerberusAction out of Blanding, Utah and the death of Dr. Redd).”
The report also describes what appears to be additional people on the BLM hit list, this time, however, Wooten’s own supervisor was an accessory.
My supervisor even took photographs in the secure command post area of the Las Vegas FBI Headquarters and even after he was told that no photographs were allowed, he recklessly emailed out photographs of the “Arrest Tracking Wall” in which Eric Parker and Cliven Bundy had “X’s” through their face and body (indicating prejudice and bias).
The report that Representative Shea shared has multiple pages and is presented here for you to read for yourself.
Wooten Report
Some people might claim this is a disgruntled employee, and I would say they are probably not wrong. However, there are too many specifics included, and too many verifiable facts, to disregard the report. Any person that uncovered these abuses, and was fired for trying to report them, has every right to be disgruntled.
Wooten explains that in “February of 2017, it became clear to me that keeping quite became an unofficial condition of my future employment with the BLM, future awards, promotions, and a good future job reference.”
This report names several BLM agents and employees, but then it goes even further. The US Attorney’s office is also implicated in the cover-up:
When I asked [AUSA (First Assistant and Lead Prosecutor) Steven] Myhre if the former BLM SAC’s statements like “Go out there and kick Cliven Bundy in the mouth (or teeth) and take his cattle” and “I need you to get the troops fired up to go get those cows and not take any crap from anyone” would be exculpatory or if we would have to inform the defense counsel, he said something like “we do now,” or “it is now.”
Wooten took great risk upon himself to report the flagrant and vicious acts committed by these government representatives and the Acting US Attorney, Steven Myhre, had him fired from the investigation.
On February 18, 2017, I was removed from my position as the Case Agent Lead Investigator for the Cliven Bundy/Gold Butte Nevada Case
My supervisor told me that AUSA Steven Myhre “furiously demanded” that I be removed from the case and mentioned something about us (the BLM, specifically my supervisor) not turning over (or disclosing) discovery related material
We have previously reported on the blatant Brady violations the prosecution continues to commit. They have withheld evidence that would have easily exonerated these 19 men. The prosecution knew the Bundy family was not threat, as they have already referred to the “Threat Assessment Report” previously completed. These men should never have been incarcerated at all, let alone kept for nearly 2 years.

KrisAnne Hall on Federal Encroachment and Sovereignty to State Lawmakers

Tuesday, December 5, 2017


Ryan Bundy FREELY SPEAKS out! 


Resurrect the Republic 
RTR Truth Media 
hosts of the Radio Show
Investigative Journalists
Tom Lacovara-Stewart / Lorri Anderson 

Monday, December 4, 2017


The Creature from Jekyll Island G. Edward Griffin talked about his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, which is a history of the creation of the Federal Reserve System. He was interviewed while attending FreedomFest, the libertarian conference held July 11-14, 2012, in Bally’s Las Vegas Hotel and Casino.  To see that video please click -  HERE 

For a better understanding of fractional reserve banking let us look to the Mises Institute:

Fractional-Reserve Banking and Money Creation

According to traditional economics textbooks, the current monetary system amplifies initial monetary injections of money. The popular story goes as follows: if the central bank injects $1 billion into the economy, and banks have to hold 10% in reserve against their deposits, this will allow the first bank to lend 90% of this $1 billion. The $900 million in turn will end up with the second bank, which will lend 90% of the $900 million. The $810 million will end up with a third bank, which in turn will lend out 90% of $810 million, and so on.
Consequently the initial injection of $1 billion will become $10 billion, i.e., money supply will expand by a multiple of 10. Note that in this example the central bank has actively initiated monetary pumping of $1 billion, which in turn banks have expanded to $10 billion.
But in a world where central banks don't target money supply but rather set targets for the overnight interest rate (e.g. the federal funds rate in the United States and the call rate in Japan) does this continue to make sense? Additionally, in some economies like Australia banks are not even compelled to hold reserves against their deposits. Surely then the entire multiplier model in the economics textbooks must be suspect.
Indeed, economists from the post-Keynesian school of economics (PK) have expressed doubt about the validity of the popular framework.
It is argued that the key source of money expansion is the demand for loans together with the willingness of banks to lend.
The supply of loans, in this way of thinking, is never independent of demand — banks supply loans only because someone is willing to borrow bank money by issuing an IOU to a bank.
Accordingly, the driving force of bank credit expansion and thus money supply expansion is the increase in the demand for loans and neither the money multiplier nor the central bank. Bank lending is not constrained here by reserves that are injected by the central bank, but by the demand for loans.
Is this objection valid?

Fractional-Reserve Banking and Creation of Money

Let us say that an increase in the demand for loans has taken place. How is a bank going to accommodate this increased demand? One way is by borrowing in financial markets or by raising equity funds. Another way of funding this increase is by using part of deposited money.
Note that banks are legally permitted to use some of the money that is placed in demand deposits. Banks treat this type of money as if it were lent to them.
For instance, if John places $100 in demand deposit he doesn't relinquish his claim over the deposited $100. He has an unlimited claim against his $100. This demand deposit should be properly regarded as not different from money in a safe deposit box. Hence, when a bank uses the deposited money as if it were lent to him the bank generates another claim on this deposited money.
Let us say that a bank lends $50 to Mike. By lending Mike $50, the bank creates a deposit for $50 that Mike can now use.
This in turn means that John will continue to have a claim against $100 while Mike will have a claim against $50. This type of lending is what fractional reserve banking is all about. The bank has $100 in cash against claims, or deposits, of $150. The bank therefore holds 66.7% reserves against demand deposits. The bank has created $50 out of "thin air" since the $50 is not supported by any genuine money.
A case could be made, however, that people who place their money in demand deposits do not mind banks using their money. Notwithstanding all this, as long as people trade, there will always be a demand for money, which will be held either in cash or in bank demand deposits.
Consequently, regardless of people's attitudes, once banks use deposited money, an expansion of money that is not backed by ‘real’ money is set in motion.
Although the law allows this type of practice, from an economic point of view it produces a similar outcome to that achieved by the counterfeiter. It results in money out of "thin air" which leads to consumption that is not supported by production i.e. the dilution of the pool of real wealth.
On this Mises wrote,
It is usual to reckon the acceptance of a deposit which can be drawn upon at any time by means of notes or checks as a type of credit transaction and juristically this view is, of course, justified; but economically, the case is not one of a credit transaction ... A depositor of a sum of money who acquires in exchange for it a claim convertible into money at any time which will perform exactly the same service for him as the sum it refers to, has exchanged no present good for a future good. The claim that he has acquired by his deposit is also a present good for him. The depositing of money in no way means that he has renounced immediate disposal over the utility that it commands.1
Similarly, Rothbard argued,
In this sense, a demand deposit, while legally designated as credit, is actually a present good — a warehouse claim to a present good that is similar to a bailment transaction, in which the warehouse pledges to redeem the ticket at any time on demand.2

Why the Existence of a Central Bank Permits Fractional-Reserve Banking

Let us say that for whatever reason banks are experiencing an increase in the demand for loans. Also, let us assume that the supply of loanable funds is unchanged. According to PK, banks will facilitate this increase. The demand-deposit accounts of the new borrowers will now increase.
Obviously the new deposits are likely to be employed in various transactions. After some time elapses, banks will be required to clear their checks and this is where problems might occur.
Some banks will find that to clear checks they are forced either to sell assets or to borrow the money from other banks (remember the pool of loanable funds stays unchanged).
Obviously, all this will put an upward pressure on money market interest rates and in turn on the entire interest-rate structure. To prevent banks bankruptcy the central bank will be forced to pump money e.g. through open market purchases of securities. Once the central bank starts pumping money it in fact gives the green light to the money multiplier process (the creation of credit out of "thin air"). So the conceptual outcome as depicted by the multiplier model remains intact here. The only difference is that banks initiate the lending process, which is then accommodated by the central bank.
If the multiplier process requires the support of the central bank then one can infer that, in a free market without the central bank, the likelihood of such a process emerging is not very high.
In a free market, if a particular bank tries to expand credit without backup from a genuine lender — i.e., by practicing fractional-reserve banking — it runs the risk of not being able to honor its checks, which raises the risk of bankruptcy.
  • 1. Ludwig von Mises 1980, The Theory of Money and Credit. Indianopolis, Ind: Libery Classics( pp300-01).
  • 2.Murray N. Rothbard 1978, Austrian definitions of the supply of money, in New Directions in Austrian Economics p 148.
For more we at RTR highly recommend you go and frequent the site : 

Sunday, December 3, 2017

FUTURE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS & PARENTS - Guide to Avoid a Marxist Infused College

The wide spread of Neo-Marxist ideology has been completely destructive to the universities across the nation. Within this video is a breakdown of this, and a proposed guide in how to avoid placing yourselves in an indoctrination center.


Resurrect the Republic

Tom Lacovara-Stewart

Lorri Anderson