It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The District Court dismissed the case by ruling that the federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appeals court affirmed the decision.
nesara.org...
the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the [Federal Tort Claims] 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 traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services.
www.geocities.com...
The Reserve Banks [n]have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes.
The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.
Brink's 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 [**12] instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351.
Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the [Federal Tort Claims] 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 judgment of the district court.
I thought it would be a good time to write this seeing as the GOVERNMENT TOOK CONTROL OF AIG recently.
Done. They are OF COURSE Privately owned, like Airlines and Telecom!! This isn't a socialist country - but, they are FEDERALLY REGULATED just as everything else is
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Very nice article, very well thought out, nicely explained.
Now show me where in the constitution it says that corporations IN ANY FORM can print money?
Can you? Thought not. Thus: epic fail.
Originally posted by Phage
Can't show you that. It seems you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution specifies only what the government can or cannot do. It does not say anything about what individuals or corporations (as legal persons) can or cannot do.
[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]
Originally posted by badmedia
You are right that the constitution tells the congress what it can do. But anything not mentioned it is not supposed to be able to do. Such as giving away that job of regulating the currency to a private entity.
Originally posted by Phage
Interesting. Taken to the logical extreme, wouldn't that mean that all laws which don't specifically address issues mentioned in the Constitution would be unconstitutional?
The Constitution doesn't mention paper money at all. Does that mean that U.S. Notes (as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes) were never valid currency?
The Federal Reserve Act has been the law of the land for almost 100 years. Until it is repealed, on constitutional or other grounds, it will remain so, right or wrong.
Originally posted by Skipper1975
Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company?
Originally posted by Phage
Originally posted by Skipper1975
Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company?
No.
The Federal Reserve is neither a corporation nor privately owned.
Ranting is fine. But get your facts straight first.
[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]
Originally posted by bismarcksea
Is it just me, or did you prove the conspiracy in your attempt to debunk it?
I mean really....Reading your own information proves the point you are trying to disprove. Kinda funny actually.
Originally posted by buds84
This is a load of crap.
Sorry.
This only shows they are privately owned which I thought everyone already knew?
Thanks for the research and effort though.
[edit on 17-9-2008 by buds84]
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Originally posted by Phage
Originally posted by Skipper1975
Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company?
No.
The Federal Reserve is neither a corporation nor privately owned.
Ranting is fine. But get your facts straight first.
[edit on 17-9-2008 by Phage]
Prove it. Show me the GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT that runs the Federal Reserve. Show me the pay grades of the employees of the federal reserve. After all, I can find out the pay grades of various other federal employees.
If you are correct, it shouldn't take you too long to prove him wrong.