Talk:United States dollar/DollarLaw

Article neutrality and factuality dispute

The article makes no mention of the fact that the United States currency is a debt money system, something that the United States Constitution implicitly prohibits. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation as declared by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19, 1982 in Lewis vs. US and it charges interest on the use of its notes which are the United States currency. This debt money system has all but brought the United States to the brink of destruction. Further details regarding this can be found at http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm Xode

Would it be more appropriate to discuss that issue in the Federal Reserve Note article? Perhaps a brief mention of the issue here and a link to the Federal Reserve Note article? Something like: "The legality of issuing Federal Reserve Notes is disputed." Seitz 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seitz, I like your idea and took your suggestion, linking to both the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Note articles. Xode

Dear fellow editors: On 25 January 2006 I respectfully deleted the reference (in the "United States dollar" article) to "disputes" in (or regarding) the "legality" of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Note in the articles on the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Notes -- for the simple reason that, at least as of the time of my edits, there simply were no descriptions of any disputes present -- on either those article pages or their related discussion pages. Yours, Famspear 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How does the United States Constitution implicitly prohibit a "debt money system"? It is clearly stated in words, not assumed, that the U.S. may "...borrow money on the credit of the United States". --Kurt

A debt money system is not the same thing as borrowing money on the credit of the United States. A debt money system is a fraud where the issued money costs the issuer of the money nothing to create and where the issued money is intrinsically worthless. Further, in a debt money system, those who have been issued the money are forced to use the money system even if they don't want to, receive nothing in exchange for having used the money system and have to pay something in return to use the money. In other words, a debt money system is a something for nothing ponzi scheme in favor of the the issuer of the money. In contrast to this, truly borrowing real money and going into debt means that you receive something for having incurred that debt. The people of this country have received nothing for having "incurred" the (ever growing) "national debt."Xode

Also, Knox v. Lee established that paper money is indeed a legal tender of the United States. --Kurt

The courts in this country have violated their oath to the people of this country. Consequently, you can't trust anything that they say. In fact, the courts have been corrupted into enforcing the slavery that the people of this country have been sold into via the money fraud that has been perpetuated on them. Please see http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm

for details regarding this. Xode

Also, congress has the power to coin money. Congress created the Federal Reserve. Regardless of the fact of the Federal Reserve being a "private corporation" or not, Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of the United States government, not the Federal Reserve Banks. --Kurt

Whatever Congress does, it must be in the best interest of the people of this country. That much is obvious from the Constitution. Further, Congress does not have the authority to give up any of the powers, that the Constitution granted it, to any other party. The money system in this country must be a public and neutral institution to everyone using it. The debt money fraud with the Federal Reserve being a private corporation means that Congress has given up its money making power to the Federal Reserve, in violation of the Constitution. Further, Congress violated its trust to the people of this country and committed treason by creating the non-neutral debt money fraud and the Federal Reserve system. Finally, those Federal Reserve Notes being obligations of the United States government and not the Federal Reserve Banks, you are correct about that. But, what did the people of this country receive from the owners of the Federal Reserve in exchange for the government having become obligated to the owners of the Federal Reserve? Answer, nothing. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines fraud as "an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Fraud voids all contracts. Consequently, everything that Congress did regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve and its attendant debt money fraud is illegal, void, and treason. Xode

The only type of U.S. currency your argument could be directed at is the Federal Reserve Bank Notes, which were obligations of/issued by each Federal Reserve Bank individually. Although, you'll need a time machine to argue against these notes since they were last issued in the 1930's. --Kurt

Considering that, on every piece of U.S. currency, it says "Federal Reserve Note" right at the top, each and every one of the pieces of U.S. currency in circulation are "Federal Reserve Notes." Consequently, my above argument can be directed at all of the U.S. currency currently in circulation, and has. Personally, I call these "Federal Reserve Notes" FRAUDs (Federal Reserve Account Unit Debts), because they are fraud, and treason. Xode

And finally, there are still non-fiat coins of silver valued at 3¢, 5¢, 10¢, 20¢, 25¢, 50¢, and $1, non-fiat coins of gold valued at $1, $2.50, $3, $5, $10, and $20, Interest Bearing Notes, Compound Interest Treasury Notes, Demand Notes, Fractional (Postal) Currency, United States Notes, Gold Certificates, Silver Certificates, National Bank Notes, National Gold Bank Notes, Refunding Certificates, and Treasury (Coin) Notes that are still valid legal tender for payments in U.S. dollars. Oh, and let's not forget the American Eagle bullion coins which are issued through directly through the U.S. Mint that are also legal tender for payment in U.S. dollars. When one looks at the U.S. dollar (metaphorically), one can clearly see that it is backed by more than just Federal Reserve Notes.

--Kurt 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The coins that you mention here have a face value as you stated. However, that is different from their intrinsic value, which is what matters to the money system. For example, gold was about 560.00 FRAUDs ("Federal Reserve Notes") last time that I checked and it changes continuously. This means that that American Eagle Bullion coin would cost you about 570.00 FRAUDs at the present time, price in FRAUDs subject to change without notice. Further, what the people get paid in and what they are forced to pay their bills with are... FRAUDs, not the coins that you mention above. This puts those coins in the category of commodoties and not part of the (illegal) money system currently in place at all. Therefore, they can't be considered "backing" for this illegal debt money system. All of the rest of the items that you mention above are based on FRAUDs. Xode

As long as I'm lurking in this area, I have some questions for anyone who can help. With all the discussion above of a "debt money system" and the "legality" or "illegality" of same, what is the exact legal definition of a "debt money system," and what is the citation to the primary authority (e.g., statute, case law, etc.) for the legal definition? Also, how does one distinguish a "debt money system" from a money system that is not a "debt money system"? What does it mean (either legally or in an economic sense) to say that a given note is an "obligation" of the United States government (or of the Federal Reserve System, or a given Federal Reserve Bank, or anybody else)? Is this relationship between the holder of the note and the United States government really legally and economically analogous to the relationship between (for example) a bank that holds a promissory note (the creditor) and the person who signed the note (the borrower)? What is it, if anything, that the government (or the Federal Reserve System, or anybody else) is obligated to "do" or "pay" to me just because I have a Federal reserve note in my wallet? Is there any legal obligation at all and, if not, is a Federal reserve note really a debt instrument at all? Famspear

I will address these points later. I have separated the point below so that it and my response can be compared... Xode

I can address these points now...

Hey, Famspear, catch this:

"There is a large class of people who believe that paper can be, and ought to be, made into money without any promise or hope of redemption; that a note should be printed: 'This is a dollar,' and be made a legal tender. I regard this as a mild form of lunacy, and have no disposition to debate with men who indulge in such delusions, which have prevailed to some extent, at different times, in all countries, but whose life has been brief, and which have shared the fate of other popular delusions. The Supreme Court only maintained the constitutionality of the legal tender promise to pay a dollar by a divided court, and on the ground that it was issued in the nature of a forced loan, to be redeemed upon the payment of a real dollar; that is, so many grains of silver or gold. I therefore dismiss such wild theories, and speak only to those who are willing to assume, as an axiom, that gold and silver or coined money, have been proven by all human experience to be the best possible standards of value, and that paper money is simply a promise to pay such coined money, and should be made and kept equal to coined money, by being convertible on demand." (Secretary of Treasury John Sherman, 1877)

Thirty-seven years later, President Woodrow Wilson sold his soul to international banking by helping to establish the Federal Reserve System. Since that day in 1913, the purchasing power of the American "dollar" has been eroded from 100 cents to precisely 2 of those 1913 cents. The missing 98 cents went into the pockets of those same international bankers, mostly foreigners, all of whom still own and run the US Federal Reserve System.

I do believe that we are getting more than enough verifiable evidence to put back the statements that I originally added to the article page. No? Xode

Dear Xode: Well, no. Again, if you want to state in an encyclopedia article that something is illegal, you need law to back up that claim. What you have quoted above appears to be a statement by someone named John Sherman, who apparently was Secretary of the Treasury in 1877. That quote, even if accurate, is not law. It is the personal opinion of Mr. Sherman. Further, the quote language includes something that actually hurts your argument, if anything. Consider the statement that the "Court maintained the constitutionality of the legal tender promise" (emphasis added). The rest of Mr. Sherman's diatribe is mere "cant". Similarly, in the passage regarding Woodrow Wilson, there is no citation to primary legal authority about anything being "illegal." I repeat: Does anyone have a citation to an actual primary legal authority (again, statute, case law, etc.) to the effect that a "debt money system" is "illegal"? Famspear

Finally, does anyone have a citation to an actual primary legal authority (again, statute, case law, etc.) to the effect that a "debt money system" is "illegal"? If there is no primary legal authority stating that the system is illegal, then I respectfully contend that the significance of our discussion is about the same as the significance of the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yours, Famspear 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption here is that the courts are neutral and that what they say regarding this can be trusted and should be followed. Unfortunately, that is not true. Consequently, it is irrelevant whether the courts say that a debt money system is legal or illegal. The very nature of a debt money system is what makes it illegal. If you compare how it works to what the accepted definitions for fraud, theft and breach of contract are, you can see for yourself that a debt money system is all three of those. Xode

Dear Xode: Actually, I am not making any assumption about whether the courts are "neutral" (whatever you intend the word to mean in this context). In questions about law, whether what the courts say "can be trusted and should be followed" is irrelevant. Whether the courts are "neutral" is irrelevant. Under the American legal system, the law is literally what the courts say the law is. What courts say (if anything) about whether a "debt money system" is legal or illegal is therefore not only not irrelevant, it's almost the only thing that is relevant -- the only thing that really counts. By the way, the terms "fraud, theft and breach of contract" are also legal terms. In our legal system, the function of determining what constitutions, statutes, treaties, regulations, common law, etc., mean is ultimately the function of the courts. If the legislative branch does not like a particular result in a particular case, the legislative branch can and does change the law or the people can and do amend the constitution, depending on the nature of the court ruling. Similarly, if the legislature passes a statute, that statute is the law regardless of whether you or I feel that it is "legal" or not. Yours, Famspear 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Famspear:

First, let me make this clear. The government in the United States is required to be a government by the people of the country and to serve the people of the country. Nothing else. Period. This includes that the courts be neutral (i.e. impartial) as required by the U.S. Constitution. Given this, your statement of "Whether the courts are "neutral" is irrelevant" borders on absurdity. If the government, which includes the courts, stops serving the people then it ceases to be lawful and becomes a foreign invader, and anything that it says becomes null and void. That has happened in this country with the courts being the prime offender. You can find all of the evidence of that, that anyone would need, at http://www.jail4judges.org. Therefore, as I stated above, nothing that these courts say can be trusted and none of it should be followed.

Second, the United States is required to be a republic. That means that the administration of government is open to all citizens. That includes the quoting and the enforcement of the law. Stating "In our legal system, the function of determining what constitutions, statutes, treaties, regulations, common law, etc., mean is ultimately the function of the courts" is an arrogant slap in the face of the republic that the United States is required to be, and, further, is not true. Fundamental legal terms gain their meaning from common sense and from moral and natural law (those are defined in Black's Law Dictionary) in this country, and not from corrupt and venal courts, such as what we currently have in this country.

Finally, your statement of "Under the American legal system, the law is literally what the courts say the law is" is a dangerous and illegal sickness that was introduced by the U.S. Supreme Count in 1803 in Marbury vs. Madison. Common sense will tell you that as in: the Constitution might as well not exist if it can be twisted whichever way a corrupt and venal court wants, to the point where black would fraudulently be declared to be white and true would fraudulently be declared to be false. Believe it or not, this has already happened multiple times, as I have read from time to time in the daily J.A.I.L. email newsletter from http://www.jail4judges.org. But the Constitution does exist and was put down in writing, which only means that this dangerous sickness is yet another thing that needs to be flushed from this country, along with the illegal "money" system that currently exists in this country.

While we are at it here, you state that you have read the legal evidence that I referenced at http://www.techccu.com/users/compwiz/Bankruptcy_Fraud/Bankfraud1.htm and claim that it is "legally insignificant" (which I don't care about since I am not interested in impressing the courts but simply exposing them for the corruption that they are) and also claim that there is a false statement in it. That document is nothing more than a long series of references to various statutes, court cases, agreements, memorandums, etc. that the various governmental bodies in the United States have generated over the decades, along with some sparse and terse narrative to give it some logical flow, with the ultimate intent to clearly expose the bad faith that the government in this country has shown to the people of the country. Please prove to me in no uncertain terms that there is even one reference in that document that doesn't reference a document that was in fact created by this or that governmental body in the United States. Given that that document clearly proves the bad faith of the government such as it exists in the United States, it most certainly is legal evidence against the government since a government that shows bad faith ceases to be lawful. Xode

Dear Xode:

I understand that you feel that my statement "Whether the courts are 'neutral' is irrelevant" borders on “absurdity.” However, regardless of what you or I feel about the absurdity or fairness of this state of affairs, under the American legal system the law is what the courts say the law is. And this did not begin with Marbury v. Madison. Our legal system came to us from English common law, which is primary "judge-made law." I did not create the American legal system. Where people have a dispute about what the law is, that dispute is decided not by the Congress or the President or by the guy working at the gas station down the street or by you and me in a discussion in the pages of Wikipedia. "What the law is" is decided by judges in courts of law. When you say my statement borders on absurdity, you are in effect saying that you really don't like the way the system was set up.

You also state: "If the government, which includes the courts, stops serving the people then it ceases to be lawful and becomes a foreign invader, and anything that it says becomes null and void."

You also state that because our nation is required to be a republic, "[t]hat means that the administration of government is open to all citizens. That includes the quoting and the enforcement of the law."

In response to my statement that the Nelson materials are legally insignificant you replied that you "don't care about [that] since I am not interested in impressing the courts but simply exposing them for the corruption that they are".

You also state "Please prove to me in no uncertain terms that there is even one reference in that document that doesn't reference a document that was in fact created by this or that governmental body in the United States."

First of all, I and the other editors of Wikipedia do not need to prove that the Nelson materials are (or are not) referencing actual government documents to keep the Nelson materials out of the main articles area of Wikipedia. Aside from copyright problems, and assuming for the sake of argument that all the references within the Nelson materials are to primary authority, you still have the problem of showing that these sources actually stand for the proposition that the Federal Reserve System is “illegal.”

It sounds like you, like the author of the Nelson materials, are on a mission of sorts to “expose the bad faith that the government in this country has shown to the people of the country.” Regardless of the validity of your belief or lack thereof, the main article on the Federal Reserve System (or the US Dollar) in Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to do the “exposing.” Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cyberspace soapbox to expose the alleged bad faith of the government.

The rules in Wikipedia include Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. A bald statement that the Federal Reserve System is illegal is not verifiable for purposes of the Wikipedia guidelines. For all practical purposes, you would have to cite to an actual court decision where the court actually ruled that the Fed was illegal.

A statement that such and such a legal scholar has argued in such and such an article that the Fed is illegal MIGHT be verifiable. (It would not be primary legal authority, but at least it might be verifiable for Wikipedia purposes.) And an article containing such a reference MIGHT or might not be neutral point of view -- as long as the opinion was clearly identified as being that particular scholar’s opinion, and not the actual law, and as long as the article made clear what the actual law is on that point.

I am sure that your beliefs about the legality of the Fed are interesting to you and many other people. However, I and the other editors of Wikipedia are enforcing the rules, including those requiring Verifiability and Neutral Point of View.

If I may presume a bit, I would like to suggest that your disagreement with the Federal Reserve System might not be so much that it is somehow “illegal” but rather that having the Fed is somehow a bad idea, unfair, bad public policy, etc. The arguments you have been making are much more appropriate by avoiding words like "illegal" and re-framing the arguments as public policy arguments – maybe including arguments to CHANGE the law and the banking system – not arguments over what the law actually is.

Thanks for using this talk page for these discussions. Famspear 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: For your consideration and discussion, here is the text of a relevant provision from the U.S. Money and Finance Code:

Section 5103. Legal tender

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

See 31 U.S.C. § 5103. Yours, Famspear 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If it will please you to use "bad idea, unfair, bad public policy, including arguments to CHANGE the law and the banking system – not arguments over what the law actually is, etc." instead of "illegal" in the disputed encyclopedia articles in order to make people aware of the incredible problems that the Federal Reserve system is causing and to give those same people the opportunity to read the documents, including the Nelson materials, then, by all means, do it. I personally don't care how people are made aware of the what I know to be the illegality of the Federal Reserve system. All I care about is that they are made aware of the problem and have an opportunity to read the materials, including the Nelson materials, exposing the Federal Reserve system for what it is. To do otherwise (i.e. project the Federal Reserve system and its associated "money" as a great wonderful system that has no problems, etc.), would violate the Neutral Point of View and Factual Accuracy requirements for Wikipedia articles. Since you are so adamant about how the statements that I added to the disputed articles are phrased and since you seem to know exactly how you want those statements phrased, then I ask that you restore my statements to the disputed articles, using whatever language you find pleasing. Again, all I care about is that people reading the disputed articles are immediately made aware of the problems surrounding the Federal Reserve system, so that the disputed articles can keep their Neutral Point of View and Factual Accuracy. Xode

Dear Xode: As you can see I moved your comments down slightly on the page, underneath my last entry. I personally believe that the formal articles areas of Wikipedia are not the right places to be trying "to make people aware of the incredible problems that the Federal Reserve system is causing" as you put it. I'm also not sure about the appropriateness of using Wikipedia articles to try to make people "aware of the problem and have an opportunity to read the materials, including the Nelson materials, exposing the Federal Reserve system for what it is" as you put it. And it's not so much that I am "adamant" about how the statements you "added to the disputed articles are phrased," except that I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia rules should be followed, especially those dealing with Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. And I think that instead of saying that all you care about is that "people reading the disputed articles are immediately made aware of the problems surrounding the Federal Reserve system" we should be saying that the main thing we care about is developing a good encyclopedia. But I know you'll agree that Wikipedia is not about what I personally want to see in the Federal Reserve and US Dollar articles. At least at this point, I do not want to get into restoring your statements to the disputed articles, using whatever language I find "pleasing." I'm just one editor of Wikipedia, so maybe we should ask for more input from the other editors. Anybody have any suggestions? Famspear 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Farmspear asked for my input. When I first saw the "Totally disputed" banner, I clicked the "neutrality" link, which took me to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute article. There I read:

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

Based on that, I thought that it was better to keep a brief mention of the claim, rather than dispute the validity of the claim. Further, since the disputed claim specifically dealt with Federal Reserve Notes, it would be best for any further discussion to take place in that article. Seitz 06:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Famspear on this issue. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jwolfe 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Xode, I refer you to Article Three of the United States Constitution, which was drafted by the founders and states in its first line that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." This means, simply put, that the Constitution itself gives to those courts the power to interpret the law. Perhaps you mean to argue that there exists some inherent right to money not based on debt that over-rides the Constitution itself, or that the current system is wrong, and the Constitution should be overthrown in favor of a document that prohibits money based on debt. However, because this Constitution empowers the courts to define the law, the definition so rendered under our existing Constitution can not be "illegal" unless the Constitution itself is somehow illegal. bd2412 T 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss public policy, or to publicize positions that are far out of the mainstream (even if the mainstream is wrong). Please try to find accepted authorities (professors of economics or of law at reputable universities, etc.) for information you wish to present here.

For that matter, the "United States dollar" article also doesn't seem like the right place to document the Federal Reserve System and the monetary policy of the United States. --Macrakis 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I find the above comments by Macrakis shocking, condescending, and uncalled for.

Macakis's opinion that "Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss ... positions that are far out of the mainstream...", is pregnant with psychologically abusive and elitist intimidation designed to overcome the targeted person's desire to establish fact (or at least to establish the nature of the controversy). This sort of attempt to suppress the argument and return to the status quo robs Wikipedia of its vibrancy and relevance by driving away people who care strongly about what they understand to be true.

Wikipedia is designed to be edited by "anyone", even those who are not lawyers, academics, or eggheads of any other ilk. This is an encyclopedia for the masses and NOT just another exclusive club for the pleasure of the self-appointed “holier than thou” intelligentsia. In this forum, those who stifle debate (discussion) should be the magnets of derision, and NOT those who foster it. Debate IS the only acceptable form of establishing the truth, for what other reason do we need these discussion pages? And, who elected Macrakis as the judge and jury of what is, or is not, "mainstream"? Was it his own bridge club, perhaps? --Britcom 08:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollo May tells us: “The opposite of courage … is not cowardice, it is conformity.”

---

Terminology clarification

Dear fellow editors:

As long as we're talking about U.S. dollars and the Federal Reserve System, etc., one problem I see with some of the discussion is confusion over terminology.

Specifically, the term "Federal Reserve" is ambiguous in the absence of elaboration. I am not expert on the Federal Reserve System. However, the following entities are separate from each other and, together with various other entities not listed, comprise the "Federal Reserve System":

1. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;

2. Federal Open Market Committee;

3. The Federal Reserve Banks (e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, of San Francisco, of Dallas, etc.);

4. "Member banks" in the Federal Reserve System.

Let's look at this statement found elsewhere on this Talk page: "The Federal Reserve is a private corporation as declared by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19, 1982 in Lewis vs. US".

The cite for the case is apparently Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). I don't have a reliable copy of the court's decision right now, and I don't have the "cert" history (if any) on it. But based on what I have, it appears that the court in this case did NOT declare or rule that the "Federal Reserve is a private corporation".

What the court in Lewis apparently ruled is that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is not a "federal agency" within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).

When you say "Federal Reserve" some people are going to think you mean the entire "Federal Reserve System," not the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or even the Federal Reserve Banks generally. The use of the phrase "Federal Reserve" without the suffix "System" or "Bank" is unfortunately very common, and it may sometimes be a source of confusion.

The court in Lewis apparently stated: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region." The court noted that "the fact that the Federal Reserve Board [and here the court probably meant "the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System"] regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act."

To make things more confusing for non-lawyers, the court also noted that the "Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation."

In other words, what the court was talking about in Lewis (if my copy of the case is correct) was not the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not the Federal Open Market Committee, not the member banks of the Federal Reserve System, and not the "Federal Reserve" or the "Federal Reserve System" as whole -- but only the Federal Reserve Banks themselves (in this particular case, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco).

So, we have at least two sources of confusion. One is the indiscriminate use of the term "Federal Reserve" without making clear whether we're talking about the entire Federal Reserve System or, alternatively, just the Federal Reserve Banks or some other part.

The second source of confusion is that a Federal Reserve Bank, like other "things" can be considered one "legal thing" (to use a non-technical term) for purposes of one law such as the Federal Tort Claims Act and another "legal thing" for purposes of another law, such as a law of state taxation. The concept of things being treated one way under one law and another under another law is very familiar to lawyers, judges, etc., but may be confusing to others.

My copy of Lewis may or may not be reliable. If anyone can get quick access to a copy of the decision (e.g., in the West Federal Reporter, second series, or another reliable copy), please let us know whether my description of Lewis above is accurate. Famspear 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, I have added a revised version of my 2 Feb 2006 comments above at Talk:Federal Reserve, as there seemed to be a lot of confusion there about "who owns the fed". Yours, Famspear 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)