by the way I just looked up the case you cited... piezoe cast your attention to ---- " The Bank is a private, independent entity independently run by its own board of directors. It is not run by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or any other part of the executive branch. Thus, the Bank "act with sufficient independence under private ownership and control such that they do not qualify as government corporations or independent establishments." Katsiavelos v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Chicago, 859 F.Supp. 1183, 1185 (N.D.Ill.1994)." http://openjurist.org/406/f3d/532/scott-v-federal-reserve-bank-of-kansas-city The Bank argues that it is not a federal agency for purposes of Rule 4 because Federal Reserve Banks are distinct from the Board of Governors, owned by commercial banks, and directly supervised in their daily operations by separate boards of directorsânot the federal government. Further, the Bank states that Federal Reserve Bank employees are not considered federal employees, officials, or representatives for purposes of 12 U.S.C. § 341. The Bank also contends, inter alia, that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 451 and relevant case law state that Federal Reserve Banks are not federal agencies. II. 5 "Agency" is not defined in Fed. R.App. P. 4. Since agency is not defined under that Rule, we look to a broader definition in Title 28, under which Rule 4 falls. The applicable definition, found in 28 U.S.C. § 451, states that "[t]he term `agency' includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense." We address first whether the Federal Reserve Bank falls under any of these terms. 6 The Bank does not constitute an "independent establishment." Although the term "independent establishment" is not defined within Title 28, we can infer that it means an independent entity within the executive branch from other parts of the United States Code. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 104. The structure of the Federal Reserve System demonstrates that the Bank does not meet this definition. The Bank is a private, independent entity independently run by its own board of directors. It is not run by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or any other part of the executive branch. Thus, the Bank "act with sufficient independence under private ownership and control such that they do not qualify as government corporations or independent establishments." Katsiavelos v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Chicago, 859 F.Supp. 1183, 1185 (N.D.Ill.1994). 7 The Bank also does not constitute an federal agency based on any "proprietary interest" the United States possesses. The Bank is considered a separate corporation owned solely by commercial banks within its district, distinct from the Board of Governors. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 282, 287, and 341. The United States does not own stock in the Bank. Id.; see also Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239, 1241 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining the structure of Federal Reserve Banks). -- so now let me know if you still wish to argue the federal reserve banks are not private banks. or are you just now just wondering what the board of governors of the fomc can actually do. Hint... they can't do anything unless the is unanimous... which includes those appointed by the private fed regional banks.
People like Liesman have been half right. The feared results of the Fed's policies have not taken place at least yet. Of course, the benefits, other than a booming stock and bond market, are hard to see either. That doesn't make Liesman right however. Santelli perhaps lacks the academic background to articulate the exact problem, but he is a savvy markets guy and he knows in his gut that the Fed has been acting in a reckless fashion that is ultimatley bad for the country. The reason has nothing to do with growth rates or inflation. It has to do with punishing savers through its brand of financial repression, ie zero interest rate policy. Is it a wise policy to punish thrift and savings? And reward excessive leverage? That has been the Fed's unannounced policy. Even worse, the Fed has made it possible for the government to run mega deficits and not face up to consequences. Bernanke was nothing but another one of the dutiful drones doing Obama's bidding. At some point the bill will come due, but of course obama and Bernanke will be long gone.
This is just a wild guess, but I'm thinking you want me to choose Mr. Grant. Is that right? It seems he would know more far more about interest rate than I do. But I'd have to know more about his experience before I could be enthusiastic about him as a central bank leader. If you wanted me to choose who I would have been my first choice to lead the Fed in the past *are you sitting down?) it would have been George Soros, because of his training in economics, banking experience, knowledge of currency exchange, central bank operation, knowledge of Wall Street, markets, and years of practical experience as an investor. He is a bit too old now I think, but fifteen years ago he would have made a great central bank chairman in my opinion.
To whom it may concern: I'm inclined to put more weight on the opinion of the court than the differing opinions of either of the litigants. Note the qualifying wording "...for the purposes of the Act..."
Here's an article that might be of interest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rise of the Non-Working Rich. In a new Pew poll, more than three quarters of self-described conservatives believe "poor people have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything." In reality, most of America's poor work hard, often in two or more jobs. The real non-workers are the wealthy who inherit their fortunes. And their ranks are growing. In fact, we're on the cusp of the largest inter-generational wealth transfer in history. The wealth is coming from those who over the last three decades earned huge amounts on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms, or as high-tech entrepreneurs. It's going to their children, who did nothing except be born into the right family. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-rise-of-the-non-working-rich_b_5589684.html
so you like holdings... I can live with that... 1. here is one for the case you cited... after the court provided and extensive analysis showing the bank is private entity it held.... In light of the definition of agency in Title 28, the Hoag analysis, and the fact that the purpose of Rule 4 is not particularly well-served by declaring the banks to be federal agencies, we conclude that the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City is not a federal agency. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. 2. here is case cited in your case... This court agrees with the analysis of the EEOC and adopts its reasoning. EEOC Enforceement Guidance at ___ â ___, 1993 W.L. 452695 at *2-5. The regional reserve banks are not owned by the United States government. While regulated by federal statute and regulations, the regional reserve banks are not controlled by the executive branch. They act with sufficient independence under private ownership and control such that they do not qualify as government corporations or independent establishments. Since the FRBC is not an executive agency, § 794a(a)(1) does not apply to it. Therefore, plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
here is one I cited... Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982) ... "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. "[/QUOTE]
they won't make a difference... the establishment already owns all the dems and a good portion of the republicans. the only way things change is if these kids are real liberals (not these statist pre fascists who call themselves liberals) or real conservatives... by the way I welcome real liberals back to the debate. you can spot them in the wild near the capitol... they are the ones pushing for single payer... oh wait... you have to walk over to the smithsonian to see the wax ones.