Jem, although you are trying my patience a wee bit, I am still going to be nice. You are a lawyer, so you should be capable of careful reading. But to be especially nice, I am going to call your attention to the exact wording of the St. Louis Fed, which is, overall, NOT in conflict with the Federal Court. It is in conflict only in one detail. Where the Court disagrees with the St. Louis Fed, is embodied in the St. Louis' statement that: "...Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the Federal Government." The Court, last year, in Wells Fargo v United States emphatically disagreed with this. Rest assured, that the reserve banks will fall in line with the Court's finding, and in due time edit heir websites accordingly. Everything the St. Louis Fed said about the "stock" that regional Fed member banks are required to purchase is correct. But did you also read this?: " Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations." and that, too, is correct. In fact this stock is a de facto "debt contract." Similarly, when your bank loans you money, the bond (er... "stock", cough, cough) you give the bank is a debt contract! This conract, anyone would hope, does not make the Bank your "owner." Furthermore the St. Louis Fed correctly said, "Federal Reserve Banks are set up LIKE private corporations." They did NOT say, Federal Reserve Banks ARE private corporations. (emphasis mine). The incompatibility between what the Court found and the St. Louis' Regional Fed Bank's Statement arises because the Branch Banks statement leaves the Reserve banks un-owned and answerable to no one. The Court merely set the record straight and correctly pointed out, indirectly of course, that the Reserve Banks are neither private nor ownerless. The Court made clear that, the Federal Reserve Board jointly owns and controls the Regional Federal Reserve Banks along with the U.S. Treasury. jem, here I'm going to have to be just a little surly. Had I been your law school professor, I'd have had to flunk you on your reading comprehension of the St. Louis Fed's statement on ownership in light of the Court ruling . In the end, jem, as a lawyer, or at least someone with legal training, you'll have to bow to the Federal Court. You're too nice of a guy, and too good a sport-- you didn't even bitch a lot when I called you "jem, Honey," -- to let that happen to you. Edit: jem, I wanted to add just one more thing here that is important, and that is there were big structural changes made to the U.S. Federal reserve system with the Banking Acts of the 1930s. Prior to the 1930s private banks did exercise somewhat greater influence over our Central Bank.
It does wonders to increase the wealth gap. The Fed is the most efficient distributor of wealth inequality that the world has ever known.
I believe he has claimed to have attended law school. Though it find it impossible to believe he could be a practicing lawyer.
I have to respectfully disagree with this. My personal view is that the wealth gap is a consequence of the return on capital being greater than the economic growth rate. I also believe that widening of the gap is accelerated by intentionally collapsing multiple progressive income tax brackets into fewer brackets and drastic lowering of the rate in the top most brackets.
I recall that too. Note that attending law school, is not equivalent to passing the bar exam (i.e., being a lawyer). Assuming he was being truthful, as most anonymous posters are on the internet, he may have "attended" one of these schools: https://www.jdjournal.com/2020/06/18/12-easiest-law-schools-to-get-into-in-the-u-s/ However, I wouldn't bet money that he attended any law schools.
I grow weary of your stupidity. Private corps do not have to be run for profit. I have proven that to you with citations to statutes. Charities are not run for profit yet they can be privately owned. 2. You are so ignorant of the court System.. Other circuit courts have correctly ruled on this matter. .. 2 In Lewis v. United States,[79] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,[78] in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created instrumentalities, and the board of governors, which is a federal agency.
Sadly, the Fed regional banks are not charities. But on the bright side, they are non-profit, just like all other government entities. Oh, my god, that makes so much sense. Aren't you impressed? Wow, I did that on my own. Oh, did you have time to check the date of "Lewis" out. Looks like "Wells Fargo" post dates it, but it is only by a decade.