0 votes

The Federal Reserve Is Holding A Conference On Jekyll Island

To Celebrate 100 Years Of Dominating America:

A Return to Jekyll Island: The Origins, History, and Future of the Federal Reserve

It will be held on November 5th and 6th in the exact same building where the original 1910 meeting occurred. In November 1910, the original gathering at Jekyll Island included U.S. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department A.P. Andrews and many representatives from the upper crust of the U.S. banking establishment. That meeting was held in an environment of absolute and total secrecy. 100 years later, Federal Reserve bureaucrats will return to Jekyll Island once again to "celebrate" the history and the future of the Federal Reserve.

More information at the Economic Collapse Blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Federal Reserve Bank 11-06-10 Live from Jekyll Island

Session 9—Panel Discussion

Watch the Live Webcast

Panelists will share personal insights and perspectives on the purpose, structure, and functions of the Federal Reserve System.

Panelist: Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Panelist: Alan Greenspan, Former Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Panelist: Gerald Corrigan, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs, and Former President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Moderator: Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance, University of Chica


Hey Ryan...and the other "the jews are not the problem" ers...

I'm sure that there are no Jews here at this meeting right...ha...ha...ha.

Discover Costa Rica

Here on Jekyll Island (repeat), (to Fibber Island 's tune)

printing all day long

money's not worth a song

ever since we came along

Here on Jekyll Island (repeat)

we steal from one and all

and we just have a ball

as we watch the dollar fall

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


Once more with feeling....


But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


The Fed and the Central Banking Cabal

Are giving the U.S. the finger and daring the people to do something about it.

They want to show one another how big their balls are.

100 Years Of Screwing The World!!!

If someone there had some real balls they'd ask the question "what if we are wrong?"

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

this is weird . . .

why is 'everyone' leaving D.C. this weekend?

TOO strange!!!


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Most Popular Articles # 1 Ron Paul vows renewed Fed audit!

Reuters News... Most Popular Article:
Ron Paul vows renewed Fed audit push next year

# 1 * Ron Paul vows renewed Fed audit push next year

Get it while it is hot! Comments are hot. Overwhelmingly pro Ron Paul!

The Fed is Under-whelming. Debt-Based-Legal-Tender is like-wise... Under-whelming.

Dr Ron Paul is just plain folk from Texas: Doctor, honest, & wise.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Saturday at 10:45

10:45 Saturday
Session 9—Panel Discussion

Watch the Live Webcast

Panelists will share personal insights and perspectives on the purpose, structure, and functions of the Federal Reserve System.

Panelist: Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Panelist: Alan Greenspan, Former Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Panelist: Gerald Corrigan, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs, and Former President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Moderator: Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance, University of Chicago

They Should All Be Arrested For The Biggest Fraud In History!

And for "Not" following the Supreme "Law" of the land on money matters.


yes, yes, YES!

But since we know that won't happen, I just hope they get indigestion from the rich food they will eat there--

or . . .

that the mattresses are prickly or something--

just enough to annoy them.

This sounds very immature on my part, but these people seem untouchable--

*I* am not going to touch them--

someday they will be stopped.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The Judicial Aspect

By Shelly Waxman, J.D. for Zenger News Service
November 4, 1996


1670—William Penn (the younger)—In England on September 1st, this famous person, 25 years old at the time, was put on trial with a co-defendant, William Mead. Penn is called “the younger” because he had a famous father of the same name (known as “the elder”—wouldn’t you know it). King James II named the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania after the father, who was Admiral of the Fleet under Cromwell. The younger was an uncompromising and vocal convert to the Quaker faith. He was also legally trained, having studied at the Lincoln Inns.

The charges against Penn and Mead were that they were involved in an illegal conspiracy. The indictment was one of the most convoluted known to legal jurisprudence. One sentence contained 250 words. The gist of it was that:
“William Penn, gentleman, and William Mead, linen-draper, the fifteenth of August, with force and arms unlawfully and tumultuously did assemble, and the aforesaid William Penn by agreement between him and William Mead before made, then and there in the open street did take upon himself to preach and speak, by reason whereof a great concourse and tumult of people in the street, a long time did remain and continue in contempt of the Lord the King and of his law, to the great disturbance of his peace and to the great terror of many of his liege subjects.”

The Court was comprised of ten judges. As has been said, “Altogether they were about as arrogant, puffing, choleric, muddleheaded, prejudiced a lot of judges as one could find anywhere.”The jury was comprised of twelve average citizens. Among them were:Edward Bushell and Thomas Veer was the foreman.

Much of the morning was taken up with legal matters and the defendants desired the Court to throw out the indictment because, among others: 1) the date of the event was wrong; 2) no force of arms was involved; 3) the defendants had never met each other before the meeting and, therefore, could not have agreed to anything before the event.

In the afternoon, instead of continuing on with the trial after the judges had refused to throw out the indictment, the court heard other cases. This was, according to the commentator of the trial, “both to affront and to tire them (the jury).”After the other cases had been heard the court adjourned to the day after next. The jury spent their time waiting at the infamous Newgate prison.

As the jurors and the defendants were led into the court one of the court officers took off the jurors’ hats. One of the judges bellowed for the hats to be put back on. The court then fined each of them forty marks for contempt of court. This was an enormous sum for these people, equivalent to twenty six Pounds Sterling at that time. The average yearly income at that time was twenty marks.

In response to this outrage, and to give you some insight into the kind of man Penn was, he stated: “I desire it may be observed that we came into court with our hats off, and if they have been put on since, it was by order from the Bench, and therefore not we, but the Bench, should be fined.”

Well, things went rapidly worse from that point. After a witness had inconclusively testified that indeed Penn had been present at that time and had addressed the crowd, Penn stated, “I desire you would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment.” The Recorder of London said, “The common law.” “What is that common law?” said Penn.

“The question is whether you are guilty of this indictment,” said the Recorder. “The question is not whether I am guilty of this indictment, but whether the indictment be legal,” said Penn. “If I should suffer you to ask questions till tomorrow morning, you would never be the wiser,” said the Recorder. “That is according as the answers are,” retorted Penn.

The judges turned purple with rage and ordered that Penn be taken to the bale-dock, a place where the proceedings could not be seen nor heard. Mead was also taken away after he stood his ground and required the court to define “riot.”

Penn yelled, loudly, “I appeal to the jury who are my judges!” He added that he had not been heard in his own defense. “I say these are barbarous and unjust proceedings!” At that point Penn and Mead were consigned to a dungeon in the basement of the courthouse. The jury deliberated the case.

After an hour and a half, eight of the jurors returned to the court but four, who disagreed, stayed behind. The four were brought into court and were scolded and threatened by the court. They were all sent back to deliberate further.

Finally, they reached a unanimous conclusion and the defendants were brought into court to hear it. Their written verdict was that, “We do find William Penn to be guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly met together in Gracechurch Street, the fourteenth of August last, 1670, and that William Mead is not guilty of the said indictment.

”Well, unless the jury found that Penn was speaking to an unlawful assembly, there was nothing unlawfully done and the verdict was tantamount to an acquittal. The Recorder stated, “Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict the court will accept; and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, or by the help of God, you shall starve for it.”

Penn said, “My jury, who are my judges, ought not to be thus menaced. Their verdict should be free and not compelled. The bench ought to wait upon them but not forestall them.” Not listening, the judges had the jury returned to their place of deliberation and the defendants to the dungeon.

The next day the jury was again brought in and read the verdict, “William Penn is guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street.” One of the judges said, “To an unlawful assembly?” “No, my lord,” said Edward Bushell, now the leader of the jury, “we give no other verdict than what we gave last night; we have no other verdict to give.”

One of the judges said, “I will have a positive verdict, or you will starve for it.” Penn asked did the court accept the not guilty verdict of William Mead. The Recorder said, “It cannot be a verdict because you are indicted for a conspiracy; and one being found guilty and not the other, it could not be a verdict.” “If William Mead be not guilty, it consequently follows that I am clear, since you have indicted us of a conspiracy, and I could not possibly conspire alone,” said Penn.

The court did not accept this logic and again the jury and the defendants were consigned to their prisons. For a third time the same verdict was read and the statement made that it was the only verdict the jury could render. Penn said, “It is intolerable that my jury should be thus menaced. Is this according to the fundamental law? Are they not my proper judges by the great charter of England? What hope is there of ever having justice done, when juries are threatened and their verdicts rejected?”

The Recorder, to his own undoing, said, “Till now, I never understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards in suffering the Inquisition among them. And certainly it will never be well with us till something like the Spanish Inquisition be in England.”This was a dreadful thing to say at the time. The Spanish Inquisition was still fresh in the mind and the English hated the Pope.

The jury again ordered back. They refused to leave and they were forcibly removed. The next day they returned and stated that William Penn was not guilty and added that William Mead was also not guilty.

The court had no choice but to accept the verdict. The affair was not over, however. The jurors were fined forty marks with imprisonment until paid. Penn, also, was fined forty marks for refusing to take off his hat at the beginning of the trial with imprisonment until paid. They were all led away to the Newgate prison.

Finally, the jurors were released on bail after they applied for issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Bushell’s case, 84 Eng. Rep. 1123; 6 State Trials 999 (C.P. 1670). The King’s Bench Court with Justice Vaughn writing the opinion ruled in favor of the jurors, holding that no jury could be fined for its verdict. Later, Penn was also released and the contempt charge forgiven.

The cases are landmarks on many legal issues. In effect the jury nullified the law under which Penn was charged, although an argument can be made that there was no such law prohibiting the conduct alleged. Also, it established the inviolability of the jury’s verdict and the right to Freedom of Speech. Moreover, the validity of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was established.

We owe much to Penn and to the jury led by Mr. Bushell, an ordinary citizen, who stood against the King of England and the most corrupt judges who ever “served” on the Bench. They won for us.

1735—John Peter Zenger—A direct connection to the Penn/Bushell cases can be made to the famous Zenger trial in America for his alleged seditious libel against the colony’s royal governor, William Cosby. Although the case did not involve the issue of jury abuse, it did involve the issue of jury nullification, which was an element of the Penn trial.

In fact if not for the jury’s initial verdicts in Penn’s case that there was no “unlawful assembly,” the abuse leveled at Penn’s jury would never have happened.
Andrew Hamilton (no relation to the traitor who was President Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury) the brilliant and courageous Philadelphia lawyer, who defended Zenger, pleaded contrary to the court’s specific instructions that all that was necessary to convict was that the alleged statement had been made and that truth was not a defense to the seditious libel alleged. It was uncontested that the statement had been made.

Despite the Court’s specific instructions to the jury, Zenger was acquitted. The two cases taken together established in American jurisprudence that the jury could acquit for any reason it chose, including the nullification of the law under which the defendant was charged.

1996—Laura Kriho—Always there are little twists and turns when history repeats itself. In the case of Colorado v. Michelle Brannon in the First Judicial District of Colorado near Rollinsville in Gilpin County, a county with only 2,700 registered voters, juror, Laura Kriho, held out for a not guilty verdict on a marijuana possession charge. This was allegedly based on her belief that drug prohibition was wrong.

According to one of her fellow jurors, “She said, you could change the laws in the (jury) room.” The other jurors were unconvinced and in these days of vengeance and wrath in the name of the “drug war” they were going to stick it out for a conviction.

The jury was hung and a mistrial was declared in May, 1996. However, nearly 6 months later the old practices manifested by Penn/Bushell/Zenger reared their ugly heads.
The prosecutor, Jim Stanley, cries “anarchy.” Kriho is charged with perjury in not advising the court during her questioning for membership on the jury that she held a prejudice against drug cases and had a drug conviction fifteen years earlier (something which would not have disqualified her for jury service).

She is further charged with contempt of court for disregarding the judge’s instructions not to discuss Ms. Brannon’s possible punishment if the jury convicted her. Defense lawyer, Paul Grant says, “It tells the jurors if you get selected on a jury and you’re not convinced of the guilt and everybody else is, you’d better watch out. You hang the jury, and they’re going to turn around and investigate you and see if they can prove that you had some hidden agenda, see if you believed in something that you should have told them about but didn’t.”

The judge, Henry Nieto, says, “Defendant has the power but not the right to disregard the law. That is not the case here in Colorado.” In a rather desperate move, one of the twists and turns of history, the prosecutor promised that he would not recommend a punishment of more than six months, therefore, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kriho is not entitled to a jury trial.

The courts have been cutting back for years on the Rights to jury trials, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in criminal cases and Seventh Amendment in civil cases. Jury trials are obviously too messy, if the Penn case is any example.

Although there has been much jury tampering (anonymous jury’s and such), it is far easier to solve the problem by just removing it. No more jury trials but nobody will do more than six months—of course, at a time. Next year we will just say no juries, if punishment over one year, etc., etc.

Judge Nieto agrees and he will hear the evidence and decide the case himself. No possibility for jury nullification here says the Gilpin County judges.
Grant has alleged that there was collusion between the prosecutor and the judges to charge his client.

This is verified by the fact that Kriho had passed out some literature of an organization called, FIJA, The Fully Informed Jury Association, a libertarian group advocating the right of juries to nullify laws (http://nowscape.com/fija/fija_us.htm).

Kriho denied that she was connected with the group and at her trial she said she had read the pamphlet only for general information about jury service. There have been moves by prosecutors and judges to nullify the increasing effectiveness of the group.

In fact one of the Gilpin County judges (Frederic Rodgers) had written a recent article for the Judge’s Journal, a national judge’s magazine, about how to deal with juries tainted by notions of jury nullification. Somehow this Journal had turned up in the prosecutor’s office. Lawyer Grant alleges that this proves collusion, an impermissible conflict with the concept of separation of powers.

A two day trial ensued, ending on October 3, 1996. The testimony, mostly of other jurors and Laura herself, of course, is mostly irrelevant to this story, because the true issue is whether the state, at all, has the power to try individuals on these charges and in turn deny them the right to a jury trial.

Also, by doing this the Gilpin County court and the prosecutor have opened up the jury’s deliberations in the Michelle Brannon case. Such deliberations have been long considered sacrosanct and foreclosed from involuntary public scrutiny.

The verdict of the judge (not handed down as of this writing) is meaningless because the state, unfortunately and in the face of clear common law precedent, has decided that it has the power to make these charges in the first instance. The damage has been done. The terror has been spread.

These hanging judges want to reverse the precedent of Penn/Bushell/Zenger. No more FIJA and no more Mr. Nice guy. It is a desperate power play doomed to failure no matter what the judge says. This is the stuff of revolutions—Drug Wars or no Drug Wars.

Kriho has rightly put the crosshairs on her involvement with history. She said, “Basically I feel like I’m being punished for voting not-guilty. I could have said whatever I wanted in the jury room, but if I had comeback with a guilty verdict I would not be here today. I’m absolutely being singled out.” The Establishment just doesn’t want any not guilty verdicts in drug cases. It just doesn’t look right.

So it is in the name of drug prohibition that 326 years of hard fought rights handed down to us from the past is sacrificed. Government needs a war and the Drug War is a war against the rights of all the American people.
The past is prologue.

November, 2010

Laura eventually won her fight. Her lawyer did it for no money. The prosecutor was pressured on all sides and dismissed the case, as I recall. But it still goes on. An instruction is always read that the jury must follow the law. And any inference by a defense attorney that they can judge the law will get him a night in jail and a mistrial for his client.

One recent incident within the last year or so was a case here where I live. The Judge usually brought the jury in at 8:30 to give them a pitch about what it means to be a juror. There are stock instructions he is supposed to use for those. Well, none of the attorneys were present when the speech was made and since a court reporter was never present when he made his speech. One day a new court reporter recorded his spiel, nobody knew what he said.

The defense attorney got hold of it and filed an appeal after his client was convicted. The appeals court vacated the conviction based on the judge’s statements about the jury being only a fact determiner and that it was inappropriate to discuss the law. He went way beyond the instructions, inferring that if they did that and he found out about it he would chastise the juror. I’m not recalling the specifics of the speech but it went too far.

Turns out he had been giving that same speech for 20 years and is still giving it even though told not to do so. Probably, he is insuring there is no court reporter present. When you get in the jury room judge the law but don’t mention it as a reason for your not guilty vote.
They don’t like honest jurors. But libertarian jurors are the last bastion of Freedom.


This is surreal.

Ever notice

that no "terrorists" ever show up at these things the bankers do?
They only seem to show up at innocent people's places, and never the big-wigs.

I wonder why that is?


When you put SIERRAH'S "False Flag 11-6-2010" topic.. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/148497

And Obama costing 200 million a day for a vacation with 40 war ships...departure date 11-5-2010

And this meeting happening 11-5&6

Sounds like a recipe could be cooking up to me.

Their Days Are Numbered !

When Ron Paul exposes their corruptness to the whole world soon, very soon !


How long has this been known?

Damn! Had we known about this earlier perhaps we could have organized a congratulatory celebration for screwing up our country (and the world in general).

ATTENTION GEORGIAN'S !!! - Please grab your bullhorns and cameras, then head over to greet these crooks with a big C4L welcome. And be sure to put it up on U-tube so we can all enjoy ;-)

oath keepers

wouldn't it be nice if there were a SEAL team off-shore of Jekyll Island at the ready?

Great idea!

I've said for years that two teams of special forces could solve most of our problems within 72 hours.

Yeah it's too bad, most of them are out of the country

when they are so needed here.

+...Pray for Your Enemies and Moral Courage for Righteous Leaders, so that Justice Will Be Delivered to the Innocent...+

Where's the "End the Fed" Organization?

I'm a member. Had they notified me, I would been on or about Jekyl Island this weekend. I've been there many times. One road and drawbridge connects the island to the mainland. The only others ways to get on or off the island are boats and light aircraft (i.e., small planes or helicopters). Because of this, Jekyl Island is the PERFECT place to confront the banksters and disrupt their evil acts. Think G20.

No doubt the entire area will be crawling with their

'men in black'. Not a very good idea. They will get theirs soon enough.

Jekyll Island is much too pleasant a lair to Hyde Banksters!

A lair to ... Hyde ... will concentrate the stink. Their odor will persist.

Their hide would cure getting fresh thin air while hanging out to dry. See a tanner for details.

Tannery, Inc.: The Best Hiding Place.

Banker discounts.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul



it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


bump for activism.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

A Tsunami! That's it!

Too bad I have plans for this weekend. I'd like to participate.

I guess it's true

Criminals always return to the scene of the crime.

Where is H.A.A.R.P. when we really

Need It!

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Why is the only discussion point for "the future of. . ."

Land overvaluation? I can't stand those crooks. I hope God sinks Jeckyll Island tomorrow.

SteveMT's picture

Like Napoleon was exiled on the island of Elba,....

so to should these banksters be exiled on Jekyll Island, without any cell phones or golf clubs, but with a lot of heckles from us and all of the Heckle & Jeckle cartoons they want to watch.

Reopening Alkatraz would be

Reopening Alkatraz would be best. No improvements needed and keep the tourist industry in place to display them properly.

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor