I've heard George Gordon mention several times on his show that the Federal Reserve is organized as an eleemosynary trust, which essentially means that it's a religious organization in the business of distributing religious alms.
Gordon goes on to expound about how this makes the Federal Reserve System it's own religion, and anathema to God, etc, etc. (which I would agree w/ that, if true.. in fact, I find the Federal Reserve to be anathema regardless of what it's formal designation is).
I find this very interesting, but have not been able to find a great deal of information on this.
Just posting this, to see what other people, or if they have information on this subject.
I've heard George Gordon mention several times on his show that the Federal Reserve is organized as an eleemosynary trust, which essentially means that it's a religious organization in the business of distributing religious alms.
Gordon goes on to expound about how this makes the Federal Reserve System it's own religion, and anathema to God, etc, etc. (which I would agree w/ that, if true.. in fact, I find the Federal Reserve to be anathema regardless of what it's formal designation is).
I find this very interesting, but have not been able to find a great deal of information on this.
Just posting this, to see what other people, or if they have information on this subject.
Interesting thoughts PJ. Due to the fact that the FRS is caught up in the distribution of FRN's which most people view as 'money', and seeing as the Bible instructs the Christian followers that 'the lust of money is the root of all evil' (evil being the opposite of God), and joining together the thought that most people are likewise caught up in the competition of obtaining more and more of this so-called 'money', it could be surmised that the FRS has in fact established a 'religious' cult wherein the FRS is providing a 'false god' that can be carried around in ones' own pocket and enabled to worship this new idol without even being conscious of the fact the the holder of such an idol is even worshiping anything at all.
Indeed, an interesting thought. Thank you for bringing it to this forum.
Has anyone found any case, legislative act, statute, code, or regulation that would lend some weight to this position.
I am not knocking the position. I am looking for clues (from them) that would support this. I have also read that the FR was setup as a joint-stock trust corporation.
We already know the FR is a private corporation. I'll hunt down and repost the court case which says this.
That would be the Federal Reserve Act. I have never really gotten a handle on Uploads around here - I believe I can get the entire directory of images into Articles though.
Quote:
Bouvier's 1857: Corporation;
10. Lay corporations are divided into civil and eleemosynary. Civil corporations are created for an infinite variety of temporal purposes, such as affording facilities for obtaining loans of money; the making of canals, turnpike roads, and the like. And also such as are established for the advancement of learning. 1 Bl. Com. 471
11. Eleemosynary corporations are such as are instituted upon a principle of charity, their object being the perpetual distribution of the bounty of the founder of them, to such persons as he has directed. Of this kind are hospitals for the relief of the impotent, indigent and sick, or deaf and dumb. 1 Kyd on Corp. 26; 4 Conn. R. 272; Angell & A. on Corp. 26.
ELEEMOSYNARY. Charitable alms-giving.
2. Eleemosynary corporations are colleges, schools, and hospitals. 1 Wood. Lect. 474; Skinn. 447 1 Lord Raym. 5 2 T. R. 346.
I am toying with the idea of the Fed as a religion and have considered it a priesthood* for a long time. The question is whether or not this model is functional for finding remedy. I do not think so, since the remedy to going to church there is written right into the Fed Act itself and preserved today in the USC. (attached)
I prefer to consider the private credit FRNs in your pocket stock certificates in the Fed, religious organization or not. If you are holding stock in the Fed instead of lawful money, direct obligations of the US, you are a Fed bank, a reserve bank of the Fed.
Read the attachments in that light and maybe you will agree that remedy is like the doors to the church. You choose to go in, or not.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* The administration of the Seven Noachide Laws in a pagan nation (Christianity). Attached is a priest breastplate symbol found in the Mason Museum. As the Bar Associations of the world are administered from the Sovereign and Independent City of London, so is Masonry from Tel Aviv - and ultimately from a cavern under the Temple Mount - The Sanhedrin.
Quote:
The first National Grand Lodge in Israel was constituted on 1933, even before the creation of the State, and brought together all the Lodges that had been working under Egyptian or French jurisdictions. The English-speaking lodges, however, refused to join the new Grand Lodge and continued working separately. Lack of recognition by the United Grand Lodge of England resulted in almost complete international isolation. There was need for the creation of a Grand Lodge, that would achieve unity within Israeli Freemasonry and recognition abroad. This ideal was realized in 1953, when, in an impressive ceremony conducted in Jerusalem by Brother the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, the Grand Lodge of the State of Israel was consecrated and M.W. Bro. Shabetay Levy, Mayor of Haifa, was installed as its first Grand Master.
From 30 Lodges at its foundation, the number of Lodges working under the Grand Lodge of the State of Israel has grown during the years, reaching some 70 active lodges at this time. The last to be consecrated, in January 1993, was the French-speaking "France" Lodge No. 77 of Jerusalem, consecrated in the presence of the Grand Master of the (regular) French National Lodge.
The historic origins of Freemasonry in the Holy Land date from the 13th of May, 1868, when M.W. Bro. Dr. Robert Morris, Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, directed a Secret Monitor ceremony in the Cave of Zedekiah, popularly known as King Solomon's Quarries, deep under the walls of the old city of Jerusalem.
Note the dates of Masonry correspond to FDR saving the Fed (1933) and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). Abraham Lincoln's cane/sceptre carried to the White House for "...you boys". I have written out the letter in a Word file too.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
JOHN L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 80-5905
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT
680 F.2d 1239; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002
March 2, 1982, Submitted
April 19, 1982, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]
As Amended June 24, 1982.
PRIOR HISTORY:
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
COUNSEL: 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.
JUDGES: Before POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. n*
* The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
OPINIONBY: POOLE
OPINION: [*1240]
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 Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 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 [**2] Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976). 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671. "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. § 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 § 2671.
There are no sharp criteria for determining [**3] 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. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973). Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation, Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955 (W.D.Okla.1962), aff'd per curiam, 326 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1963), whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F. Supp. 955, [*1241] and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d at 345. [**4] 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 purposes 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. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities 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. §§ 341 [**5] 361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities 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, 63 Cong. [**6] 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 traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government [**7] employee discounts on lodging and services. The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in 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 [*1242] 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. §§ 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. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S. Ct. 1085, 6 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1961) [**8] (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of the Act in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 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, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 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. The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In [**9] 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." S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962), reprinted in (1962) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a). 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.
The Reserve Banks are deemed to [**10] be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). 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. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S. Ct. 1, 5, 86 L. Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S. Ct. 450, 62 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1979). The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.
Performance of an important governmental function, however, [**11] is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956). 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 [*1243] Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S. Ct. 705, 708, 79 L. Ed. 1408 (1955). 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. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S. Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L. Ed. 2d 390 (1976), United States v. Logue, 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1973).
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. 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 purposes 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 judgment of the district court.
The only thing that makes the Fed an instrumentality of the US is that its stock certificates, FRNs, are purposefully designed to diminish in value over time - because of fractional lending.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
The only thing that makes the Fed an instrumentality of the US is that its stock certificates, FRNs, are purposefully designed to diminish in value over time - because of fractional lending.
You accept them in good "faith".
Quote:
faith c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid).
Quote:
federal 1645, as a theological term, from L. foedus "covenant, league" (gen. foederis), related to fides "faith" (see faith). Meaning "pertaining to a treaty" (1660) led to political sense of "state formed by agreement among independent states" (1707), from phrases like federal union "union based on a treaty," popularized by formation of U.S.A.
__________________
Its' a dog eat dog world and I am wearing milkbone underwear!!!
Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress.
End.
This is an interesting point.
Privately owned entities receive no appropriated funds from Congress.
One could likewise conclude that if you DO receive appropriated funds from Congress, say a Social Security check, an unemployment check, Bush's tax rebate (<-- actually a bride), then you are in fact *not* privately "owned", and that in fact the federal government "owns" you (or at least an equitable stake in you).
The only thing that makes the Fed an instrumentality of the US is that its stock certificates, FRNs, are purposefully designed to diminish in value over time - because of fractional lending.
Quote:
WHARTON v. MORRIS, 1 U.S. 125
Wharton et. al v.Morris et al.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
April Term, 1785
Debt upon a bond. Plea, payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence.
The case was this: The plaintiffs, copartners; fold to Pleasants, Shore & Co. merchants in Virginia, a considerable quanitity of tobacco in March 1778, when the Pennsylvania scale of depreciation, estimates continental money at the rate of five for one......
McKean, Chief Justice delivered a circumstantial and learned charge to the Jury.
His Honor, having recapitulated the evidence, concluded with the following observations.
"The bond is made payable in current money of Pennsylvania; but, I would ask, what is the current money of Pennsylvania? For my part, I know of none, that can properly be so called, for current and lawful are synonymous. In Great Britain, the King by his proclamation may render any species of coin a lawful currency. But here, it can only be done by an act of assembly; and except in the temporary laws for supporting the former emissions of paper-money, there is no pretence that the legislature has ever interfered upon this subject. The expressions in the 2 Sect. of the act of the 27th January, 1777, cannot be construed to make the Spanish milled dollars a legal tender, as they are only mentioned by words of referrence; but that which was declared to be a lawful tender, and consequently, became the legal currency of the land, was the money emitted under the authority of Congress.
To that species of money, therefore, the bond must be taken to relate; and the jury will either reduce the penalty to gold or silver, according to the scale of depreciation; or, if they think it more equitable, they will find a verdict for the value of the tobacco, and give the plaintiffs legal interest from the day of sale." Emphasis added.
Continental Congress was aware of the depreciative effect of paper money and enacted protections against it. In our case the Democratic party seems to have omitted this protection about as accidentally as a space shuttle launch.
Quote:
HOLLINGSWORTH v. OGLE, 1 U.S. 257
Holingsworth v.Ogle et. al.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
April Term, 1788
This was an action of debt brought upon a bond, dated the 5th June, 1779; the penalty of the bond being in 'L200 hard Money computing half Joes at L3;' and the condition, for the payment of 'the full and just sum of L100 hard Money, or Specie, computing half Joes at L3; on the expiration of five Years, from the date, with lawful interest etc.' The Defendants pleaded Payment, to which the Plaintiff replied, Non Solverunt, and issue was thereupon joined.
It appeared at the trial, that the bond was given in consideration of a sum of L500 Continental Currency, lent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants in June, 1779, when the scale of depreciation estimates that money at twenty for one. .....
"The arguments appear to be strong on both sides, particularly in the two cases, which have been opposed to each other, by the contending council. On the one hand, where a man has borrowed, L1000 in continental money which, before the day of payment, had unexpectedly risen seventy-fold in value it would certainly he hard to compel him to return L70,000, for the use of the L1000 which he received: And, on the other hand, it is equally true, that where L500 continental money has been loaned in consideration of a bond for L100 specie, the lender can never claim any more than the last mentioned sum, though a change in the public credit and circumstances, should have made the L500 continental money equal to specie, and by that means he has sustained a loss of the difference between the two sums. It is likewise to be considered that when the contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendants, the paper medium of the United States was in a very fluctuating condition; and, though the event has shown the fallacy of the opinion, there were not wanting many good and intelligent men, who strongly maintained, that the continental money would eventually be redeemed, according to its nominal value.This far, however, is clear, that the law, at that time, did not acknowledge the current depreciation, so that the Defendant might legally have satisfied any specie debt, with the money which the Plaintiff had advanced.....
...for that paper-money is only made a tender and payment of debts due to the Commonwealth, and, in every other respect, must be considered merely as an article of merchandize.
Since no known person expects the FRNs to be redeemed they are then articles of merchandize, depreciating because they are measured against earnings of the corporation USA. Find a new basis for their value measurment and they won't depreciate. IMO
__________________
Postulate: If I have to defend myself from you, I will not support you.
Last edited by amenmesse : 06-17-2008 at 06:31 PM.
Linear Mode
