Is the Fed privately owned?

The people who control the monetary policy are working for the banks, you fool. These people are all yes-men, kind of like yourself. If you are not willing to serve the bankers' agenda, you quickly find yourself out of your position of power, either through removal from office or a bullet to the head. We know what happened to Kennedy when he talked about doing away with the FED. But, being the Kool-Aid drinker you are, I suppose you believe the lone gunman story. You probably also believe we invaded Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11.

Your argument falls flat because the owners of these private banks that make up the FED hold the ultimate power over everyone below them, including the Board of Governors. The private bankers who own the FED provide the list of appointees to the president. In actuality, the president is told who to pick for the position by these private banks, but we're not supposed to know about that. The idea of the Board of Governors being presidentially appointed is only smoke and mirrors to fool the public into thinking it's federal when it's absolutely private. It's a dog and pony show, especially when you consider the president is nothing more than a puppet himself.

As long as you are going to use circular arguments about the FOMC being government-appointed, there is no point arguing with you because it's clear what your agenda is. Whatever is good for big business is good for you.

 

Rat

“Whatever is good for big business is good for you”

So Rat what are your economic policies?

I mean you have pushed libertarian policies in the past which has been shown to greatly increase the power of the wealthy and big business so this statement would seem to fit you rather well, so is this a contradiction or hypocrisy or are you just lying again?

It’s like you are always doing this negative stuff, against this and against that, against the government, against the Fed, against the bankers and on and on and on…

But what are you positively for?

For example you seem to be against what you claim is a privately owned Fed but at the same time you seem to have argued in the past that you’d want virtually everything out of public hands and in private ownership.

So even if you destroyed the supposedly privately owned fed you would just replace it with something else that was privately owned?

Again is this a contradiction, hypocrisy or something else?

 

I don't have "economic policies." I am not a politician.

HOWEVER, there is a difference between privatization and fascism, where the government, which is bought and paid off by these private (often foreign) corporations, hands over large portions of the government and pre-existing US assets (ports, roads, waterways, etc) to these private corporations which then practically become the government itself.

Under communism, the state would take over the corporations. What we have today is the corporations taking over the state. This is corporatism, which Mussolini himself said would more aptly be referred to as fascism. While the two differ in ways, the end result is exactly the same.

 

One thing you need to believe, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist loon, is that before the establishment of the Federal Reserve System the US was in some kind of golden age when everything was great. Of course this is completely stupid and ignorant, as the US had several banking crises before the creation of the Fed - crises which made obvious the need for a central bank along the lines of those already established in European countries. Also, it would be pretty hard to believe that the nearly 100 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve have been bad for the US - this is the period during which the US rose to become the world's greatest economic superpower, a position it still holds.

Private banking interests do not print money out of thin air. This is something you constantly repeat but cannot even explain, let alone prove. And another thing - the dollar today buys 119 yen. In 1995, it bought 85 yen. The dollar is worth more yen today than it was 12 years ago. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Get a grip, the US is not poorer than it was 100 years ago. The reason you are poor is because you give your money to Alex Jones and sit around worrying that if you leave the house you will breathe too many chemtrails.

Why don't you read it and maybe you'll be able to back up your theories. By the way, have you read his other books? Like "A World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B-17" or "This discovery of Noah's Ark - The Whole story"? Quite an expert this guy - discovering cancer cures, Noah's Ark, and still finding time to unravel global banking cartel conspiracies. On the other hand, maybe he's just another crackpot from the John Birch Society.

 

Several weeks and many pages into the thread, and you are still referring to "the FED". I asked you several times to define your terms so I can know which part of the Federal Reserve System you are referring to, but you won't, because you can't. You don't understand the FRS, you just repeat what you hear on conspiracy websites.

The FOMC and BoG are not banks, are not made up of banks, and are not controlled by banks. Every bank has shares in the RFRBs, I showed the actual US Code which makes ownership mandatory. You have nothing to back up your 13 banks theory.

Everyone with a whole brain knows this stuff is just a way for Alex Jones to make a living.

No, according to me there is no elite and you should get a life.

There's that FED again. What FED? K-Fed? FED-ex? Its no wonder you are so easily duped.

Its a conspiracy because its a conspiracy because its a conspiracy. This is your backup argument, i.e. "OK so I can't prove the Fed is privately owned, but I wouldn't matter anyway because the elites control everything!!!!!1!!"

Kennedy never talked about doing away with "the FED".

"The FED" again. Repeating this 1,000 times doesn't make it true Private banks do not "make up the Fed". They own the RFRBs, which do not set monetary policy. Learn the difference.

Hearsay. You could claim the Pope picks them.

This is a conclusion that needs an argument to back it up.

There's nothing circular about that. It is a fact that BoG is government appointed. Circular is arguing that the Fed is private, refusing to back it up, and then saying it wouldn't matter anyway because even if "the FED" isn't private and is Federal, the elites control everything anyway.

 

See, there is no debating with you because you use the same idiotic arguments. The fact is, those who control the banks which make up the Federal Reserve hold absolute power over this entire nation. The people who set the monetary policy are yes men for the private banks that make up the Federal Reserve. Everyone in government is in some way or another subservient to these private banks. You act like the Board of Directors hold the ultimate power when you know damn well that's not the truth.

You seem to think you know so much about the Federal Reserve, yet I have never once heard you talk about the history of it or the people behind it.

And stop with the crap about Alex Jones. I don't follow Alex Jones, and this information was known to people long before Alex Jones came around.

Stop using ad hominem attacks in a feeble attempt to win arguments.

 

This is how conspiracy theorists debate. You reject my arguments, but you won't say which ones or why - just that you reject them. I go through your arguments line by line, quote and respond to individual points. I back up what I say - not with conspiracy websites (or worse, what you typically do, link to websites which don't even support your arguments) - but with the actual text of the actual law governing the Federal Reserve System.

The FED has now become the Federal Reserve. But you're not there yet. The Federal Reserve System (FRS) consists of three parts:

1. The Regional Federal Reserve Banks (RFRBs)
2. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)
3. The Board of Governors (BoG)

Saying "The Federal Reserve" is still deliberately vague. Five pages into the topic, and you still don't understand the FRS. Banks make up the RFRBs, not the FOMC or the BoG. Pointing to private ownership of the RFRBs and then saying this proves the BoG and the FOMC (where monetary policy is controlled) are "private" is the basic lie underlying all "Fed" conspiracy theories. I pointed this out way back and all you have done is continually prove me right.

The BoG is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The BoG controls the FOMC which sets monetary policy. Monetary policy is not set by the privately held RFRBs.

This would not mean that the FRS isn't Federal or that it is privately owned. As I said before, this is a generic "the elites control everything" argument, which doesn't in any way back up your confused and incoherent argument about how the FRS works.

I said that the BoG is appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and controls the FOMC which sets monetary policy and controls the money supply. You can agree with all of that and still believe the elites control everything, but its about time that you admit you neither understand your own argument nor care whether its true, because in the end you always default to "the elites control everything because they control everything".

You big whiner. Like you never call anybody shills, liars, dupes, yes-men, cointelpro, etc. Boo hoo.

 

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers"

-- Congressional Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."

-- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982

"These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private gain every dollar of the public currency..."

-- Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before Senate Banking and Currency Committee - 1913

"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgiveable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."

-- John Danforth (R-Mo)

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers."

-- Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)


Yes, obviously private banks make up the regional reserve banks. The private banks then appoint the the Board of Governors using the government (to give the illusion it's federal) in which these private banks totally own and control. You are ignoring the simple fact that the people who own these private banks make the rules. Your thick cement head cannot grasp this!

The Board of Governors and the FOMC are completely subservient to the people who own the private banks which make up the Federal Reserve. Whoever prints the money makes the rules, numbnuts. Whoever owns the gold makes the rules. The people you think make monetary policy are not in any way the people making these policies. They are simply the frontmen through which these policies are implemented. People like Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan are nothing but hand-selected shills for the private banks that make up the Federal Reserve. Are you so gullible to believe the Board of Governors and the FOMC hold more power than the bankers themselves? It's these private bankers who own and control our entire government!

I understand exactly what I am saying. I just don't buy into half the bullshit you do about the FOMC and BOGs holding any power over the people who own these private banks, who are the absolute masters. The only purpose the FOMC and BOGs serve is to provide the public with the illusion the Federal Reserve banks are somwhow federal institutions.

Now if you have any specific points you want me to address, lay them out. But I have the feeling it's going to be the same nonsense about how the Federal Reserve must be truly federal simply because of the Board of Governors.

I am totally aware how the the PRIVATE BANKS of the Federal Reserve use the BOGs and FOMC to give the illusion that somhow the FED banks are not private, but are federal. The fact of the matter is that the FED is private, and every single time I have referred to the FED, I was referring to the banks which make up the FED. The BOG's and FOMC make the PRIVATE BANKS that make up the FED no less private, except maybe to uninformed people such as yourself.

The entire government is controlled by these private banks, you dolt!

Wake up!

 

Your quotes are garbage. Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati? Who the fuck is that supposed to be? This is basically spam - you mass copy quotes vaguely related to the FRS and then dump them here.

Real obvious, five pages later after I explain it to you over and over again.

What a load of nonsense. Using the government... so the BoG is appointed by the Federal Government after all - that makes it Federal and not "owned" by private banks, i.e. you have now officially abandoned your argument and admitted I am right. Own and control.... own and control what? The government? Then what do privately owned RFRBs have to do with anything? Why would they need to conspire to create private RFRBs, and if the RFRBs were taken over by the government what difference would it make? None! As I said, this is your backup "the elites control everything anyway" argument. There is no linkage between the RFRB ownership and the appointment of the BoG.

How? You haven't shown how owning the RFRBs puts them in any better position to "make the rules" than owning all the Hooters restaurants in Washington. You have already said the BOG is appointed by the Government. So what do the RFRBs have to do with anything?

What the name of that whiner who was complaining about ad homenim attacks just recently? Oh yeah, his name was Pressed Rat.

So we're back to "the Federal Reserve" again. A sure sign you're getting confused and being deliberately vague. But how are the BoG and FOMC subservient to the RFRBs? The RFRBs have no power, and if the elites control the government anyway, what difference does RFRB ownership make?

That's the FOMC, unless you mean the actual physical printing presses, in which cases its the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which are both controlled by the Treasury. I already pointed this out.

Again, that's the Treasury.

This has nothing to do with whether the Federal Reserve System is privately owned and not Federal. Again, it sounds like you have abandoned your argument.

Private banks make up the RFRBs, not "the Federal Reserve". It seems like after one feeble attempt, you have gone back to being deliberately vague. Private banks do not make up "the Federal Reserve", and even though you repeat this endlessly, you can't back it up and it doesn't make sense anyway.

Then why the hell would they need to conspire to create privately owned RFRBs, which have no power over monetary policy?

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't refer to "the FED" or "the Federal Reserve". There are only three parts to the FRS - the FOMC, the BoG, and the RFRBs. Lean the difference already.

What illusion? Its no secret the RFRBs have private shareholders, their own websites will tell you that, but it makes no difference because they do not control monetary policy.

Sure. Since the RFRBs have no control of monetary policy, what difference does it make who owns them? If the BoG and FOMC are appointed by the Federal Government, and have no shareholders at all any more than the Supreme Court or the Air Force have shareholders, and if the FOMC has control of monetary policy, in what sense are either of them "owned" by private banks and not Federal? If the elite control everything, what the hell difference does it make what kind of central bank the US has? Oh and if the government borrows from the RFRBs only, why is there a trillion dollar treasury bond market? If the dollar is worth "so little" now, why has it appreciated against the yen?

Its pretty hard to explain how entities appointed by the Federal Government are not Federal.

This is fucking retarded it is so self contradictory. Banks do not make up the FED, private banks own only the RFRBs which do not set monetary policy. The FOMC and BoG are not banks and are not owned by banks, they have no shareholders. They are made up of Federal Government appointees. How many times do I have to say this?

Are you insane? "PRIVATE BANKS THAT MAKE UP THE FED" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is gibberish.

This is the longest, most circular argument you have ever tried to make. One more time: RFRB, FOMC, BoG. The BoG controls the FOMC which sets monetary policy. The BoG is appointed by the Federal Government. The RFRBs do not set monetary policy, they deal with mundane aspects of central banking such as providing check clearing services for the banking system. You have never established any mechanism by which control of RFRBs would give control of monetary policy, or money printing, or gold reserves or ANYTHING.

 

Isn't it funny how that, out of all those quotes I provided, you pick one to criticise then you ignore the rest -- a typical straw man tactic. Maybe if you did some research, you would know who this "Mr Crozier" is.

Mr Crozier is in reference to Alfred Owen Crozier:

ALFRED OWEN CROZIER (1863-1939)

"A prominent attorney in Grand Rapids, New York and Cincinatti, who wrote eight books on legal and monetary problems, focussing on his opposition to the supplanting of Constitutional money by the corporation currency printed by private firms for their profit."

Are the quotes from Louis McFadden "spam" as well because you are unable to refute them? It seems like any time I provide quotes or any substantial evidence, you are quick to attack it so then you won't have to attempt refuting it. You are awfully good at attacking the messenger while ignoring the actual message. You do this with every issue, whether it's dealing with 9/11 or the war in Iraq, or whatever. If a person does not spew the authorized government rhetoric, they are either a crackpot or an anti-Semite.

Either you are incredibly dense or are a total shill. You want me to admit the private banks are federal when they are completely private, simply because the Board of Governors are "government-appointed," which means nothing when the government is working for these international bankers. The Federal Reserve banks are PRIVATELY OWNED, yet you refuse to acknowledge this and would rather argue over the most mundane bullshit.

I proved my point already, and those who have their facts together know I am right and you are wrong. I will let the kool-aid drinkers like yourself believe whatever they want. I could really not care less.

I am not even going to argue with somebody who denies that an Elite or international bankers even exist. Then again, this is not surprising considering you have also defended Bush tooth and nail since you've been coming to these forums. You are the type of person who would argue that there were WMD's in Iraq and that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. You have proven yourself to be the shill you are. You are a mouthpiece for the neocon agenda, and that alone should make any rational-minded person suspicious over your intentions.

 

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned

Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution



Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:



Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Affirmed.

1. United States

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . .

2. United States

Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .

3. United States

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .

4. Taxation

The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.

5. States Taxation

Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.

--------------

Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)

Poole, Circuit Judge:

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:

the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.

[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

AFFIRMED.



It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."

The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.

The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses. Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.

 

WTF? I have never disagreed with that - I said EXACTLY THAT TWICE IN MY LAST POST.

I can't believe this - we're on page six now and you still don't get it. You are like a dog chasing its tail.

How many times do I have to say it, Rat? How many times before you finally get it?

I have always said the RFRBs are privately owned. I said it several times in several posts, including my last post. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. The Regional Federal Reserve Banks do not "make up" the Federal Reserve System, they are one part of it and not the part that controls monetary policy. Why the hell are you copying and pasting in a court decision that proves something I have never disagreed with and which it totally irrelevant? Because you still don't get it, you still don't understand the FRS. There is no way you would have pasted in that court case if you actually understood how the FRS works.

I made it simple and clear. The way this conspiracy theory works is as follows: show that the RFRBs are privately owned, and then pretend that the RFRBs are "the Federal Reserve". They are not. Here we go again Rat, there are three parts to the FRS: The RFRBs, the FOMC, and the BoG. The BoG which controls the FOMC is appointed by the President. The FOMC controls the money supply. The BoG and the FOMC are not banks, are not part of banks, and are not controlled by banks.

This is the same court decision Dudenamedrob posted way back in the thread. Neither of you understand it. It contradicts you and supports me.

You can go on and on and on about how the RFRBs are private but that proves nothing. It is not in dispute. The problem is you have completely failed to explain what private ownership of the RFRBs has to do with the BoG or the FOMC (where monetary policy is made) being Federal or "owned by private banks".

I wouldn't bother going back and re-reading your conspiracy websites, because they can't explain it either. You won't find any answers there. They can't explain it because the whole conspiracy theory is a fraud and you fell for it.

 

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10501


How the Federal Reserve System Works

The Federal Reserve System is the result of the Congress and President having agreed to privatize the nation's money system and relinquish the power that should have remained the government's exclusive right. That act was so outrageous the Fed had to be deliberately designed to look like a branch of the federal government to hide the fact that it's really an all-powerful privately owned banking cartel whose member banks (including all the national ones) share in the vast profits earned from having the most important of all franchises governments alone should have - the right to print money in any amount, control its supply and price, and benefit hugely by loaning it out for a profit including to the government itself that must pay interest on the money it should never have to if it simply printed its own. Think of what happened as the government having legalized the right to counterfeit the national currency for private gain. It's no exaggeration to claim this is the greatest ever of all financial scams causing incomprehensible harm with the public none the wiser. Here's how it works in simple terms:

The Fed was given the authority to conduct the nation's monetary policy with the power to control the supply and price of money. It has three ways to do it - through open market operations, the discount rate it charges member banks, and the reserve requirement percentage of member banks assets it requires them to hold and not loan out. The Board of Governors is responsible for handling the discount rate and reserve requirements while the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is in charge of the open market operations of buying or selling bonds explained further below. Using these tools, the Fed is able to influence the supply and demand for money and thus directly control the federal funds short-term rate that's always fixed unless the Fed wishes to raise or lower it. Longer rates are controlled by the powerful institutional traders in the bond market.

The FOMC and How It Works

The Federal Open Market Committee is really key to the whole process of money creation or contraction. It consists of 12 members - seven members of the Board of Fed Governors, the president of the New York Fed Bank (the most important one of all) and four of the remaining 11 Reserve Bank presidents who serve one year terms on a rotating basis. The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings a year to assess economic conditions and decide how loose or tight it wants monetary policy to be to further its stated goal of sustainable economic growth and price stability.

The FOMC literally has the power to create money out of nothing. It does it in a four step process:

Step 1 - The FOMC first approves the purchase of US government bonds on the open market.

Step 2 - The New York Fed bank buys them from sellers (financial markets always have an equal number of buyers and sellers).

Step 3 - The Fed pays for its purchases with electronic credits to the sellers' banks, which, in turn, credit the sellers' bank accounts. These credits are literally created out of nothing.

Step 4 - The banks receiving the credits can then use them as reserves to enable them to loan out as much as 10 times their amount (if their reserve requirement is 10%) through the magic (only banks have) of fractional reserve banking and, of course, collect interest on all of it. What a business, and it's all legal. Imagine how rich we might all be if we as private individuals could do the same thing. Borrow a million from the Fed and like magic it becomes 10 times as much, and we get to collect interest on all but the 10% of it we must hold in reserve. This is the magic of fractional reserve banking money creation and explains how powerful an economic stimulus it is when the Fed wants to enhance economic growth. When the Fed wishes to contract the economy by reducing the money supply, it simply reverses the above process. Instead of buying bonds, it sells them so that money moves out of the buyers' bank accounts instead of into them. Bank loans must then be reduced by 10 times if the reserve requirement is 10%.

 

Yes.......of course the Federal Reserve is a private bank that controls the nation. Watch this;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=America:+Freedom+to+Fascism&hl=en

This is exactly the thing our founding fathers feared! We must stop this somehow!

 

You made this offer and I told you exactly what i wanted. Since then you haven't said a word, you just cut and paste the same material I responded to way back on page 1 (or course in Rat style, when anyone responds to or criticizes your cut and paste material, you refuse to acknowledge it or reply).

Are you admitting you can't, and won't, answer my simple questions?

 

Rat

Favouring privatisation is having an economic policy preference.

You have said many times that you favour ‘small government’, that you want large portions of the government and most or all US assets such as ports, roads, waterways, etc, to be under private not public control.

You have talked at length about getting the ‘government’ out of people’s lives, wanting things to be liberated from government control, unregulated and free.

You want control to be in private hands not government hands

And part of that idea is a free market, but in a free market anyone is free – if they have the resources – to buy whatever they want.

So if something is bought and paid for has that person or institution got control of it?

If yes, then these private corporations – not the American people – would be in charge of those US assets even if the person buying them is a foreigner?

If no, are you saying that the government has the real control, that it can say who can and cannot buy assets and those that do are regulated by the government and not free to do as they want with their - bought and paid for – property?

Or are you saying that all such assets should be totally public and under direct government control?

What is it?

**

So what is to be free from government control and what is to be under government control?

You say “The Federal Reserve System is the result of the Congress and President having agreed to privatize the nation's money system and relinquish the power that should have remained the government's exclusive right.”

So whatever you would like to replaced the fed with it would be directly under government control?

So are you saying that you want ‘small government’ and wish to diminish the government’s control over people’s lives, yet you think the government should have complete, utter and central control over the nation’s economy and economic systems? Where everyone in private institutions would in some way or another be subservient to the government?

Are you basically advocating a command economy in fact an economic model associated with Soviet Russia’s style of government?

**

 

So Rat to recap –

You seem to be saying that key infrastructure assets of the US should be under government control such as “ports, roads, waterways, etc”, by ‘etc’ I presume you mean other key infrastructure assets, for example, the utilities (power, gas, water), telecommunication networks and possibly such things as education and health facilities?

(“The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons”
The American Heritage Dictionary)

How far are they to be under government control, are you thinking nationalisation or regulation?

At the same time you want “the nation's money system” to be firmly controlled by the government, with all economic decisions made by the President and Congress and with private institution having to comply with the governments dictate.

But you also claim you want a government that has little or no control over peoples lives.

So what is it, contradiction, hypocrisy or are you just plain lying?

 

You're going to have to provide examples of where I said this. I never said that.

It seems like you only see things in terms of extremes, where there can only be corporatism or socialism, which both result in the same outcomes.

Government is bigger than it has ever been. If big government results in keeping the corporations under control, how come the corportations are more out of control than ever before?

You only see things in terms of what has been brainwashed into your head. That's the problem with following politics instead of looking at things critically and forming your own opinion.

 

But Rat you seem to have not answered the questions?

Do you favour a capitalistic free market and if so “if something is bought and paid for has that person or institution got control of it?”

**

How far are the assets you talk about to be under government control, are you thinking nationalisation or regulation?

And if the “the nation's money system” is to be firmly controlled by the government, with all economic decisions made by the President and Congress and with private institution having to comply with the governments dictate.

How do you claim you want a government that has little or no control over peoples lives.

Again what is it, contradiction, hypocrisy or are you just plain lying?

 

There is no such thing as a "free market". It doesn't exist. These are all names which mean nothing.

And once again you seem unable to understand that the corporations ARE the government. The multinational corporations now have control over the government, which is being used to exert its will over the people. It is called fascism.