The Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution !!!

[Ronin]

The Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution
Text of court ruling and analysis



Global Research, April 2, 2008

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html



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.
________________________________________

[Ronin]

Bernanke: Federal Reserve
caused Great Depression
Fed chief says, 'We did it. ...
very sorry, won't do it again'

________________________________________
Posted: March 19, 2008
9:02 pm Eastern
By David Kupelian
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.
The worldwide economic downturn called the Great Depression, which persisted from 1929 until about 1939, was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment, and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history."
What exactly caused this economic tsunami that devastated the U.S. and much of the world?
In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve.
(Story continues below)
 
Here's how Friedman summed up his views on the Fed and the Depression in an Oct. 1, 2000, interview with PBS:

PBS: You've written that what really caused the Depression was mistakes by the government. Looking back now, what in your view was the actual cause?
Friedman: Well, we have to distinguish between the recession of 1929, the early stages, and the conversion of that recession into a major catastrophe.
The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.
And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.
At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.
Although economists have pontificated over the decades about this or that cause of the Great Depression, even the current Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke, agrees with Friedman's assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression.
At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor Friedman's 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman's old home base, the University of Chicago. Here's a bit of what Bernanke, the man who now runs the Fed – and thus, one of the most powerful people in the world – had to say that day:

I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. ...
Today I'd like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.
... As everyone here knows, in their "Monetary History" Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."
After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Fed's continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke adds:

... Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.
It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis, that weeding out "weak" banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.
In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. ...
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
Best wishes for your next ninety years.
Today, the entire Western financial world holds its breath every time the Fed chairman speaks, so influential are the central bank's decisions on markets, interest rates and the economy in general. Yet the Fed, supposedly created to smooth out business cycles and prevent disruptive economic downswings like the Great Depression, has actually done the opposite.
________________________________________


________________________________________


David Kupelian is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom." He is a dynamic speaker and has been featured on Fox News, MSNBC, CBN and many other media outlets.

[Jenica (in)van Helsing]

Salut pe toata lumea! :-DIncerc sa particip si eu.Ma bucur ca sant aici! :-)Nu am cu cine discuta pe temele mele de interes si de unul singur,oricat de pasionat esti,te blazezi. :oops:Sper sa aflu multe de la voi.In masura in care voi avea si eu informatii,le voi comunica pe forum.Presupun ca mai toti am citit destul de multe pe tema asta,eu unul,cam tot ce am gasit la noi si destul de multe din cele existente pe site-uri.Are rost sa discutam despre veridicitatea"Teoriei Conspiratiei"?Personal,eu nu cred,eu sunt convins.

[sevastase]

 
A Phone Call To The Fed

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.

CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?
MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.
CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?
MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by Congress.
CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes ...
CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.
CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?
MR.SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?
MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of Congress to lay tax on the people.
CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.......
CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 billion in assets.
CALLER - What are these assets composed of?
MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.
CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.
CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.
CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?
MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.
CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.
CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.
CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.
CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.
CALLER - Where did they go?
MR. SUPINSKI - People's mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.
CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.
CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?
MR. SUPINSKI - No
CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?
MR. SUPINSKI - About $7.
CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.
CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?
MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.
CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?
MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here.
CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?
MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited.
CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.
CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?
MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution.  It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress.
CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?
MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.
CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?
MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).
CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?
MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter.
CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases?
MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.
CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?  ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]
MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?
MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.
CALLER - What is the solution?
MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.
CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62.  In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.
CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?
MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest.
CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?
MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that.
CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason.  Isn't the punishment of treason death?
MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so.
CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.
MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good.
CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.
MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good.
CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time.
MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.