What Would the United States Look Like Without the Federal Reserve?

[Albertabound]

Since H.R. 1207 was introduced by Dr. Ron Paul in Congress this February, there has been a growing movement questions whether the Fed should continue to operate without more oversight and some question whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue to operate at all.
Currenty, Paul’s “Audit the Fed” legislation has 282 co-sponsors and there are two similar pieces of legislation in the senate. If the legislation is passed, it will allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Federal Reserve’s balance sheets and their policy deliberations and monetary transactions. Currently Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, opposes the plan, saying it would undermine the Fed’s independence.
The “Audit the Fed” act has a real chance in passing, but some supporters of the legislation, including Ron Paul, want to take it further than that by ending the Federal Reserve all together. Paul introduced a piece of follow-up legislation, entitled H.R. 833: The Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act which would wind down and eliminate the Federal Reserve over the course of the year. Currently, the act has no co-sponsors, but is gaining a lot of grass-roots support. Paul hopes that members of Congress will join his movement to end the Federal Reserve after they see the results of a full audit of the Federal Reserve. Paul also authored a book about his proposal to end the Federal Reserve, entitled “End the Fed

.”


Although the movement is in its infancy and still gaining momentum, it’s not too crazy to think that the United States wouldn’t be better off without the Federal Reserve. Since the Federal Reserve System was brought into force into 1914, the United States economy has grown at a slower pace than it did before 1914, despite significantly improved productivity. The rate of inflation has been substantially worse since the introduction of the Federal Reserve, despite the fact that the Federal Reserve was around during the greatest period of deflation in US History—the Great Depression.

Apologists for the Fed would certainly have a different take. They would note that the United States was in recession half of the time between the Civil War and 1914 and only 21% of the time since the Fed came into force. However, the frequent down-turns before 1914 weren’t the result of a lack of a central bank, but more-so because of poorly thought government regulations, such as bans on branch banking making it so that banks could not survive localized economic trouble. The Federal Government also forced banks to trade notes at a discount whenever the bank offering the note was from another area.
Throughout the Civil War, state bank notes were taxed into oblivion to make the way for nationalized banks. Since national banks were forced to accept each other’s notes at their face value, the currency was uniformed, but those national bank notes had to be backed by Federal bonds. That requirement proved disastrous after the Civil War because of a shortage of bonds, which resulted in 4 currency panics between 1873 and 1907, which prompted the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
Until 1907, many reformers simply hoped to abolish the restrictions placed on banks during the Civil War, and allowing them to issue notes and allowing banks to branch nationwide to standardize currency instead of the requirement to have the backing of government bonds. Reformers looked to Canada where a similar system had been functioning successfully for several decades.
Although Congress did consider several pieces of legislation similar to what Canada had, none of those made it out of Congress because local bankers were determined to block any proposal for branch banking that would threaten their local monopolies.
After the adoption of a system similar to Canada’s failed, only then did reformers consider the establishment of a central reserve bank. As a result, the Federal Reserve Act allowed for the creation of 12 new banks to do what other banks were prevented from doing themselves, establishing branch networks and issuing currency backed by commercial assets.
The Federal Reserve was a poor substitute for deregulation. Since the Fed had monopoly privileges in issuing currency, it allowed them to cause unchecked inflation. By 1919, the US Inflation rate jumped to nearly 20%. Since the Federal Reserve had a monopoly on currency, it also had to make sure that there was enough currency in the market to avert a crisis. Soon after, two of the worst monetary contractions in history, the first in 1921, and the second between 1929 and 1933 took place.
Would a Canadian-style asset-based currency have survived the Great Depression any better? It turns out that Canada’s did. Between 1929 and 1933, 1/3rd of the United States’ money stock was wiped out and Canada’s monetary supply only dropped by 13%. In Canada, there were no bank failures, where as there were over 6,000 in the United States! Although Canada fared better during the great depression, it moved to Central Banking in 1935 because of a movement to get more easy money.
If it were 1934, a call to end the Federal Reserve would not have been considered anywhere close to crazy. 75 years and several crisis’s later, we’ve all but forgotten what the world would look like without the Federal Reserve system, but that doesn’t mean the idea is any less valid than it was during the Great Depression.

Has the Fed done more harm than good ?

 

[Cliffy]

I wasn't aware this was going on but it doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the Ron Paul hasn't been assassinated yet. It has been my understanding that both Lincoln and Kennedy were trying to de-privatize the fed and we know what happened to them. The US Fed is responsible for more suffering in the world and should be put back in the hands of the people.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Cliffy, Lincoln and Kennedy were main figures, Ron Paul is considered a fringe element in the Republican Party. He has very little following, most of it in the Republican Party.

As to his efforts to audit the Federal Reserve, I don’t know if it will come to anything, I am vaguely aware of it. Something may well come out of it, I don’t know. But as to his idea of abolishing Federal Reserve, it ain’t happening.

Most of the countries in the world have their equivalent of Federal Reserve, The Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Reserve Bank of India etc.

 

[ironsides]

If anybody is really interested, read "The Creature from Jekyll Island": A second look at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve can trace its roots all the way back to Knights of the Golden Circle, The Seasons in France to the Illuminati and beyond. The Federal Reserve is part of a organization that controls the worlds banks.

 

[normbc9]

Without the Fed the US would never have fallen into the financial abyss it is currently stuck in. The financial screwups it was supposed to be monitoring is akin to the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae disaster over seen by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank along with strong vocal support from Maxine Waters. Timothy Geithner is a third string player cast into a first string position and that too is a tragedy.

 

[Toro]

Has the Fed done more harm than good?

That's hard to say because history isn't finished yet.

I think there is little doubt that the Fed thus far has done far more good than harm. However, the Fed (along with the Federal government) is busy inflating away the value of the currency, which may have disastrous consequences in the future.

The final chapter has yet to be written.

 

[ironsides]

Goldman Sachs brought on this whole economic crash, along with "Chris Dodd and Barney Frank along with strong vocal support from Maxine Waters. Timothy Geithner is a third string player cast into a first string position and that too is a tragedy.
The real tragedy is that those who created this disaster are the ones profiteering from it now.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Has the Fed done more harm than good?

That's hard to say because history isn't finished yet.

I think there is little doubt that the Fed thus far has done far more good than harm. However, the Fed (along with the Federal government) is busy inflating away the value of the currency, which may have disastrous consequences in the future.

The final chapter has yet to be written.

I agree, Toro, especially under Alan Greenspan, Fed performance was spectacular, which was reflected in roaring economy and skyrocketing stock market under Clinton. When Clinton was president (and Liberals governed Canada), many of us became rich investing in the stock market.

The performance has been OK after Clinton and after Greenspan, but as you say, it remains to be seen if there are any inflationary pressures in the future.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Goldman Sachs brought on this whole economic crash, along with "Chris Dodd and Barney Frank along with strong vocal support from Maxine Waters. Timothy Geithner is a third string player cast into a first string position and that too is a tragedy.
The real tragedy is that those who created this disaster are the ones profiteering from it now.

It wasn’t Goldman Sachs, ironsides. From what I have read there seems to be consensus among the economists that Bush was wrong to let Lehman Brothers go under. It was a politically popular move, it played well on the Main Street, but it wrecked havoc on the Wall Street.

Lehman brothers went belly up over the weekend. By Monday, credit markets completely froze up, nobody was lending anything. If a huge big firm like Lehman Brothers can go bankrupt, what guarantee was there that loan money will be returned by any institution?

There was a general panic, nobody was lending to anybody and we were rushing towards the cliff, ready to plunge into the abyss of depression. That necessitated two huge stimulus packages.

If Bush had spent a few billion dollars bailing out Lehman Brothers, he would have saved more than a trillion dollars, neither of the two bailout packages would have been necessary. We would have had a normal, run of the mill recession, not the almost depression that we had. Unfortunately, the move would have been hugely unpopular; Republicans would have suffered even heavier losses than they did in the election.

But Bush should have fallen on the sword, for the good of the country. Not bailing out Lehman Brothers turned out to be disastrous.

 

[gopher]

The Federal Reserve was created by Republican Nelson Aldrich. Since it was created by that party to benefit ruch bankers don't expect to see it eliminated.

 

[GernB]

... In Canada, there were no bank failures, where as there were over 6,000 in the United States! Although Canada fared better during the great depression, it moved to Central Banking in 1935 because of a movement to get more easy money.

This is a little misleading, albeit probably not intentionally. While there may have been no bank failures in Canada during the depression, there were numerous mergers, which helped to avoid such failures. Also no mention is made of the fact that the Bank of Cannada is, and has been since the 1930s, owned by the government whereas the Federal Reserve, IIRC, is a private institution.

As for Canada faring better than the US during the depression, historian W.L. Morton (The Kingdom of Canada) does not agree, nor does author Pierre Berton. Both state, more-or-less, that Canada probably suffered more in the depression than any western nation.

 

[ironsides]

No question that if the goverment had bailed out Lehmann Brothers all this might not have happened, but they didn't. Goldman Sachs wheeled and dealed right thru both the down and up. notice they really never lost a beat, just made money. I do think the goverment (senators/congressmen etc.) were working with Goldman Sachs for years preparing for what happened. Alan Greenspan would be the one in my opinion who orchestrated most of if not this event.

 

[Lu_Galasso]

The fed is like a cancer.

 

[Albertabound]

Do people realize that the Fed was (supposedly) designed to prevent incidents like we are in right now. However every ten years or so we go into a recession....Hmm. The private banking system other wise known as the Federal Reserve creates all recessions. Why? So the banking system robs us, the people of our money.

I agree, Toro, especially under Alan Greenspan, Fed performance was spectacular, which was reflected in roaring economy and skyrocketing stock market under Clinton. When Clinton was president (and Liberals governed Canada), many of us became rich investing in the stock market.

What a joke. Alan Greenspan was warned in 98 and 99 about the derivatives market. They were told these must be regulated. They said the same thing as SirJosheph, we're all making money, why regulate. Alan Greenspan protected the private banking system that has stolen your tax dollars and much more.
FRONTLINE: the warning: watch the full program online | PBS

And NO, bailing out lehman brothers would not have been the answer. These banksters are all corrupt and create money out of thin air. Just like the Fed does.
The Crisis of Credit Visualized on Vimeo
The whole system of banking has been so deregulated that the banksters are allowed to do as they wish and we the people have to pay for it. If we are going to pay for it all in the end any way. I say let it all go down, and we start all over again. This is the only way to correct the current system of created recession and boom cycle that is all designed. Along with the current system of creating money out of thin air.
Now with this I question again....Is the US insolvent. The capablility of the US to now pay back it's current debt in physically impossible. So what will happen is the US dollar with devalue by up to 50% because it is necessary at that point it will cease to exist and the new dollar will be introduced being a combination of the canadian( because with a rising dollar we can not do any trade and it only makes sense to have a euro type dollar) will be the excuse for us. Mexico will join because as usual, it has no choice. It may also extend into south America as Free Trade expands into the southern hemisphere.

 

[Albertabound]

Money out of thin air.

The battle to reform the American banking system needs to include reimposing the barrier between investment banking and depository banking (Glass-Steagall), pay incentives based on what is best for Americans and not just the top executives, the end of too big to fail, and other changes which are frequently discussed by financial writers. These are vital issues.
But there is more to the battle for reform than you might know.
New York Versus the Rest of the Country

If you are happy with the banking system, and don't think it needs to be reformed, then you probably work for one of the banks headquartered in New York.

Indeed, the banks outside of New York have acted much more conservatively, used more conservative capital ratios and less leverage and gotten less involved in credit derivatives and other speculative investments.

Buy a banker in the Midwest a drink, and he will probably rail against the giant New York banks for causing the financial crisis, costing the smaller, better run banks a lot of money and huge fees, and driving many smaller banks out of business.

And even within the Federal Reserve, what the New York Fed and Bernanke are saying is wholly different from what the heads of the regional Fed banks are saying. The Fed banks in Philadelphia and Kansas City and Dallas and elsewhere disagree with what the New York Fed and Fed's Open Market Committee are doing. See this and this.

So the battle isn't between bankers versus outsiders. It is between the giant New York money-centered banks and the rest of the country.
Reserve Requirements

Congresswoman Kaptur said last week:

We used to have capital ratios. We need to get back to them. Ten to one. For every dollar in your bank, you can lend ten. You know what J.P. Morgan did? A hundred to one. And then with derivatives, who knows how much?
​

Remember, Milton Friedman - the monetary economist worshipped as the guy with all of the answers in the latter part of the 20th century - advocated for 100% reserves.

Friedman has been deified as the economist to follow. But his views on reserve requirements have been completely ignored.
Goldman Using Taxpayer Dollars to Buy Stock in China?
As everyone knows, Goldman became a "bank holding company" in September, to be able to access funds from the Fed at essentially zero percent interest.
But in a new interview with Bill Moyers, Simon Johnson noted that in August of 2009, Goldman switched again - to a "financial holding company".
What's the difference?
Johnson says that being a financial holding company means that Goldman can borrow money from the Fed at essentially no cost, and then invest it in any thing it wants. For example, Johnson says that Goldman has bought a large share of the stock of a Chinese automaker. Johnson says that if the investment succeeds, Goldman will reap the profits; but if it fails, the taxpayers are on the hook.
Banks Have the Power to Create Money

Congresswoman Kaptur also said last week:

Banks have the power to create money. And decide how much that is worth.
​

What is Kaptur talking about?

Here Comes the Judge
Well, in First National Bank v. Daly (often referred to as the "Credit River" case) the court found that the bank created money without having the reserves:

[The president of the First National Bank of Montgomery] admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration [for the mortgage loan given to the defendant] was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneaopolis, another private bank, further that he knew of no United States statute or law that gave the Plaintiff [bank] the authority to do this.
​

The court also held:

The money and credit first came into existence when they [the bank] created it.
​

(Here's the case file).

Nobel Economists, Congressmen, the Fed and Treasury Agree

Still confused?

Well, let's hear from some top economists.

As PhD economist Steve Keen pointed out recently, 2 Nobel-prize winning economists have shown that the assumption that reserves are created from excess deposits is not true:

The model of money creation that Obama’s economic advisers have sold him was shown to be empirically false over three decades ago.
The first economist to establish this was the American Post Keynesian economist Basil Moore, but similar results were found by two of the staunchest neoclassical economists, Nobel Prize winners Kydland and Prescott in a 1990 paper Real Facts and a Monetary Myth.
Looking at the timing of economic variables, they found that credit money was created about 4 periods before government money. However, the “money multiplier” model argues that government money is created first to bolster bank reserves, and then credit money is created afterwards by the process of banks lending out their increased reserves.
Kydland and Prescott observed at the end of their paper that:
Introducing money and credit into growth theory in a way that accounts for the cyclical behavior of monetary as well as real aggregates is an important open problem in economics.
​

In other words, if the conventional view that excess reserves (stemming either from customer deposits or government infusions of money) lead to increased lending were correct, then Kydland and Prescott would have found that credit is extended by the banks (i.e. loaned out to customers) after the banks received infusions of money from the government. Instead, they found that the extension of credit preceded the receipt of government monies.

Keen explained in an interview Friday that 25 years of research shows that creation of debt by banks precedes creation of government money, and that debt money is created first and precedes creation of credit money.

As Mish has previously noted:

Conventional wisdom regarding the money multiplier is wrong. Australian economist Steve Keen notes that in a debt based society, expansion of credit comes first and reserves come later.
​

This angle of the banking system has actually been discussed for many years by leading experts:

“[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts."
- 1960s Chicago Federal Reserve Bank booklet entitled “Modern Money Mechanics”

“The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.”
- Economist John Kenneth Galbraith

[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.
- Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report
“Do private banks issue money today? Yes. Although banks no longer have the right to issue bank notes, they can create money in the form of bank deposits when they lend money to businesses, or buy securities. . . . The important thing to remember is that when banks lend money they don’t necessarily take it from anyone else to lend. Thus they ‘create’ it.”
-Congressman Wright Patman, Money Facts (House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1964)
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.
- Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s.

Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money.
- Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955
​

Monetary reformers argue that the government should take the power of money creation back from the private banks and the Federal Reserve system.

Indeed, PhD economist and candidate for Florida governor Farid Khavari wants to create a Bank of the State of Florida, to create credit without burdening the state and its citizens with high interest charges by private banks.
The state of North Dakota already has such a bank.

The bottom line is that monetary reformers argue that letting banks create credit and money and then charge high interest rates creates massive levels of debt for states and taxpayers. They argue that the power to create money should be reclaimed by the government and taken away from the private banks.

Personally, I agree with the monetary reformers. But even for those who think this is too radical a proposition, the question is whether a system where debt has to constantly and continually expand to keep the economy afloat is sustainable.
The Ever-Expanding Bubble

In a hearing held on September 30, 1941 in the House Committee on Banking and Currency, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Mariner S. Eccles) said:

That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.
​

Indeed, Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said:

If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.
​

America's banking system needs to be fundamentally reformed.

 

[Albertabound]

Is the US insolvent? Yes it is

A Congressional move to enact “Stimulus II” will be talked about into next year and then finally become reality. The fools in Congress are talking in terms of $200 billion when $2 trillion is needed. As you have seen $800 billion did very little to stoke the economy thus far. These packages and other subsidies bring only transitory relief. Americans are in the process of trying to free themselves from debt slavery foisted upon them by banking elitists, as that unfolds there is no possible way consumption, which is now 69.3% of GDP, can rise. Who wants to incur more debt when unemployment may be just around the corner?

Without an additional substantial stimulus package the economy is looking at stagnation and further progressive deterioration. It won’t be long before the federal debt as a percentage of GDP is 60%. This is the path Japan has taken since 1992. They have lived in perpetual depression ever since. The difference was Japan had the US and other markets to export too, which kept them from collapse. Those markets are now in collapse. Their debt to GDP is now 180%. As a result the numbers of unemployed are increasing, not at as great a rate, but increasing nevertheless.

Over the past nine months the creation of money and credit has advanced at about a 20% rate. The major recipients have been banks, the brokerage industry and insurance as corporate borrowers are crowded out of the market. The Fed and the administration are in a box and they cannot get out. No matter which way they turn they face terrible problems.

It is no wonder investors are looking more and more to gold, silver and commodities. There is also a desire by buyers to take delivery, because they obviously do not trust the exchanges. Such delivery could create supply shortages and possibly exchange collapses as seen in the late 1830s and in the early 1930s. Liquidity problems will also arise as the stock market falls. Most investors are unaware that investments in hedge funds have fallen from about $3 trillion to $2 trillion yoy, and leverage has been reduced to about 5 to 1. The delivery of gold and silver and commodities can be disruptive sending prices higher due to lack of product, and such events aggravate inflation and could cause hyperinflation. In investing there is always cause and effect. If the stock market weren’t so ridiculously high you wouldn’t have such strong precious metals and commodities prices. Wait until the market falls and more funds flow into the sector. Then gold, silver and commodities will move higher.

JPMorgan Chase’s earnings were fictitious. Their fixed income and derivatives books are marked to fantasy. The tooth fairy is loose again

 

[Albertabound]

It's endless
Bloomberg reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's closest aides earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other Wall Street firms. Bloomberg reports that none of these aides faced Senate confirmation. Yet, they are overseeing the handout of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to their former employers.
The gifts of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money provided the banks with an abundance of low cost capital that has boosted the banks' profits, while the taxpayers who provided the capital are increasingly unemployed and homeless.

JPMorgan Chase announced that it has earned $3.6 billion in the third quarter of this year.

Goldman Sachs has made so much money during this year of economic crisis that enormous bonuses are in the works. London Evening Standard reports that Goldman Sachs' “5,500 London staff can look forward to record average payouts of around 500,000 pounds ($800,000) each. Senior executives will get bonuses of several million pounds each with the highest paid as much as 10 million pounds ($16 million).“
In the event the banksters can't figure out how to enjoy the riches, the Financial Times is offering a new magazine--”How To Spend It.” New York City's retailers are praying for some of it, suffering a 15.3% vacancy rate on Fifth Avenue. Statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports that retail sales adjusted for inflation have declined to the level of 10 years ago: “Virtually 10 years worth of real retail sales growth has been destroyed in the still unfolding depression.”

Meanwhile, New York City's homeless shelters have reached the all time high of 39,000, 16,000 of whom are children.

New York City government is so overwhelmed that it is paying $90 per night per apartment to rent unsold new apartments for the homeless. Desperate, the city government is offering one-way free airline tickets to the homeless if they will leave the city and charging rent to shelter residents who have jobs. A single mother earning $800 per month is paying $336 in shelter rent.

Long-term unemployment has become a serious problem across the country, doubling the unemployment rate from the reported 10% to 20%. Now hundreds of thousands more Americans are beginning to run out of extended unemployment benefits. High unemployment has made 2009 a banner year for military recruitment.

A record number of Americans, more than one in nine, are on food stamps. Mortgage delinquencies are rising as home prices fall. According to Jay Brinkmann of the Mortgage Bankers Association, job losses have spread the problem from subprime loans to prime fixed-rate loans. On a Wise, Virginia, fairgrounds, 2,000 people waited in lines for free dental and health care.

While the US speeds plans for the ultimate bunker buster bomb and President Obama prepares to send another 45,000 troops into Afghanistan, 44,789 Americans die every year from lack of medical treatment. National Guardsmen say they would rather face the Taliban than the US economy.

Little wonder. In the midst of the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, US corporations continue to offshore jobs and to replace their remaining US employees with lower paid foreigners on work visas.

The offshoring of jobs, the bailout of rich banksters, and war deficits are destroying the value of the US dollar. Since last spring the US dollar has been rapidly losing value. The currency of the hegemonic superpower has declined 14% against the Botswana pula, 22% against Brazil's real, and 11% against the Russian ruble. Once the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the US will be unable to pay for its imports or to finance its government budget deficits.

Offshoring has made Americans heavily dependent on imports, and the dollar's loss of purchasing power will further erode American incomes. As the Federal Reserve is forced to monetize Treasury debt issues, domestic inflation will break out. Except for the banksters and the offshoring CEOs, there is no source of consumer demand to drive the US economy.

The political system is unresponsive to the American people. It is monopolized by a few powerful interest groups that control campaign contributions. Interest groups have exercised their power to monopolize the economy for the benefit of themselves, the American people be damned.</SPAN>

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous academic appointments. He has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades.