Walker Todd

[Judge Roy Bean]

This is the classic example of pointing to evidence or testimony that may or may not have had any dispositive bearing on the outcome.

Unlike a bench trial where the court laboriously details the reasoning behind the ruling, a jury simply votes up or down without explanation.

Todd's testimony in the Wahler case may have had no compelling influence whatsoever on the jury. Given Todd's track record, his bearing on a matter is most often limited by his verbosity and ability to couch his theories in very soft terms that leave most readers questioning what it was he may or may not have said.

Then again, anyone who still believes in the Credit River mythology has to grasp at straws and deconstructing Walker Todd is about as good as they can latch onto until reality sets in.

[David Merrill]

Like I said; Quatloosian Acid Reflux.

Walker Fowler's testimony fully supports the testimony brought out in Credit River. They agree that Dave RAMSEY has walked his following out onto a thin branch indeed. There is no consideration offered on any loan and all the FRNs are generated on no consideration by the bank. Dave RAMSEY has fooled thousands of Americans and beyond to paying off debts that in legal terms, never existed but through endorsement of private credit from the Fed, that is not even an agency of the United States. Talk about Fraud! The Fed pretends to be an agency of the US all day long, extends loans on signature endorsement without consideration and routinely collects on collateral in the event of false defaults!

This letter tells all.

It is a fun theory to support. Because it is true. The truth being that Walker Fowler was able to convince a jury about the true nature of money in easy to understand terms.

You you are on, JRB!

Tell us what about Walker's testimony you, if it was a judge trial would have picked apart? What would you have utilized to convict Lewis Vincent? Especially considering that the international earmark for gold (UN's IMF Trust Fund) is still setting at $42.22/troy ounce? Look at the Footnotes.

[Prof]

Pfui; balderdash; MDMVPBS.

[Arthur Rubin]

Pfui; balderdash; MDMVPBS.

Too many words.

[Gregg]

Another half truth there. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are indeed private entities (and no, no foreign banks or families/royalty are involved, just your own local banks own them). The Federal Reserve Board, though, is a Government Entity. It supervises the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open market Committee, among other things. It's members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

[Harvester]

... There is no consideration offered on any loan and all the FRNs are generated on no consideration by the bank. Dave RAMSEY has fooled thousands of Americans and beyond to paying off debts that in legal terms, never existed but through endorsement of private credit from the Fed, that is not even an agency of the United States. Talk about Fraud! The Fed pretends to be an agency of the US all day long, extends loans on signature endorsement without consideration and routinely collects on collateral in the event of false defaults!

That is correct. Although I wouldn't necessarily read any maliciousness in RAMSEY fooling Americans - he may be fooled himself. I certainly was for a long time. Gotta hand it to the banksters, their deception was pervasive & very good. Nice to watch their ship sink though.

[David Merrill]

Another half truth there. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are indeed private entities (and no, no foreign banks or families/royalty are involved, just your own local banks own them). The Federal Reserve Board, though, is a Government Entity. It supervises the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open market Committee, among other things. It's members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Thank you Gregg;


I am basking in the sworn testimony of Walker Fowler TODD, that completely validates both the Credit River Decision and his earlier Internet paper that was unsigned and never properly filed. I like JRB not willing to explain what is wrong with it that a judge would see that the jury did not.

[LPC]

The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are indeed private entities

But only for very small values of "private."

My understanding is that Federal Reserve Banks are economically "owned" by the member banks (which are corporations owned and controlled by public shareholders), but that the FRBs are creatures of federal law and effectively controlled by officials appointed by the federal government.

[fortinbras]

The twelve Federal Reserve Banks are not legally part of the government, although created by Act of Congress and certain officials are federal appointees, and the whole operation is governed by federal laws and regulations. This means that the Federal Reserve Banks can be sued, cannot defend on the basis of sovereign immunity, and can bring lawsuits on their own initiative without having to get the govt's permissions.

This status is no secret, and the Federal Reserve Banks have never pretended otherwise.

[Kestrel]

Another half truth there. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are indeed private entities (and no, no foreign banks or families/royalty are involved, just your own local banks own them). The Federal Reserve Board, though, is a Government Entity. It supervises the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open market Committee, among other things. It's members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

And, of course, we all know the politicians are really beholden to their financial backers, while just pretending to be beholden to the voters...

So I guess there really is more than a grain of truth in the claim that the Fed is controlled by the Chinese, or the Rothschilds, or the evil International Banking Cartel.
Chinese ==>> money ==>> politicians ==>> Fed ==>> Chinese-friendly policies ==>> exce$$ive profit$ to Chine$e ==>> more Chine$e $$ to politicians.

Repeat, repeat, but don't bother rinsing inbetween. It won't make a difference, and the rinsewater would accelerate Global Warming.

[.]

I ran into a Van Pelt-ish moron on another board who was deep into the "Fed is private" weeds (a professional cabinetry/woodworking board of all places, where I rarely post because I'm just a long-time amateur tool-jockey.)

I tried to do a fairly comprehensive refutation of his rubbish. First, the "private" aspect:

Your lame arguments that the FED is somehow a public institution is completely bogus. No one disputes it is private. Not even the FED itself.

I see that you're still confused.

You lump all parts of the Fed together. The Federal Reserve System Board of Governors is a FEDERAL AGENCY created by federal law. All 7 members of the Board are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The System BoG formulates monetary policy. The System BoG is where reserve requirements are set, where the discount rate is set, and where rules and regulations are adopted.

The 7 System BoG members are a PERMANENT MAJORITY of the 12 member Federal Open Market Committee, the other 5 rotating voting members being regional bank presidents, elected by the member bank "shareholders." The Chairman of the System BoG is also the Chairman of the FOMC. The FOMC implements System BoG monetary policy. The FOMC is where fed funds target rates are set, where margin rates are set, and is responsible for open market operations to carry out policy.

The System BoG and the FOMC are where ALL of the actual power of the Fed resides.

The boards of the regional banks suggest changes in the discount rate, but the System BoG must approve them. Other than that, the primary function of the regional Fed banks is to provide services like check clearing and FedWire to member banks. They do the scut work and a lot of research, and their presidents give speeches.

Everyone with any clue at all (including the Fed) disputes that "the Fed" is private, it is, as I said, a 100% government-CONTROLLED operation, member bank "shares" in the regional Fed banks notwithstanding.

Now, don't get me wrong, I dislike the Fed because it's nothing but central government tinkering with economic policy via monetary policy and they usually get things wrong. I do not, however, subscribe to laughable conspiracy theories and non-factual rubbish cooked up by people who don't know what they're talking about.

The Fed was created to prevent periodic financial runs and panics and other financial chaos. I think they do a horrible job, but that's just the usual unintended consequences of any government activity and whether "the Fed" is a net benefit or detriment is open to debate. What's not debatable is whether the Fed is private. It ain't.

Only the federal reserve (...) has the power to issue bills now."

And who caused that? Why, it was Kennedy, the same guy you were claiming tried to destroy the Fed.

Not to mention that the Fed doesn't "issue" bills, banks BUY them from the Fed because their customers need them. Banks hate cash, they don't earn anything on it, they only buy bills to satisfy customer demand for them.

So much for that conspiracy theory, eh?

On to the next one...

The Kennedy reference was to EO 11110. This guy really was and is brain-dead.

All that was after I laid out the 14 reasons I could think of why regional Fed bank "stock ownership" was meaningless and a total misnomer:

the Federal Reserve, which is a private banking cartel."

Anyone still unclear about what the "shares" that Fed member banks own in the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks really mean?

Anyone still wondering about the whole "the Fed is privately owned" thing?

If so, here are 14 key differences between the regional Fed bank "shares" and actual shares of real common stock in the real world that will disabuse you of any doubt:

1) If you want to buy shares of IBM (or any other public company) you may buy any amount you wish. The "shares" Fed member banks have to buy is equal to 6% (3% in cash, 3% on-call) of their paid-in capital and retained earnings. By statute.

2) If you own shares of IBM, you will never be required by anyone to buy more for any reason. As Fed member banks' capital increases, they are required to purchase more Fed regional bank "shares." By statute.

3) You buy IBM shares through a market like the NYSE or NASDAQ. Not from the government. Whether through a broker or an on-line securities account, you simply buy them. You don't fill out an application to the Federal Reserve as prospective Fed member banks do, by statute.

4) You buy your IBM shares from some (unknown) individual or institution. Not from the government, as Fed member banks must, by statute.

5) When you want to sell IBM shares you use the same markets you used to purchase them, and do so whenever you wish. Fed member banks can only sell their "shares" back to the government when they cease to be a member bank. By statute.

6) You can pledge your IBM shares as collateral on a loan at anytime you wish. No member bank can pledge or hypothecate its regional Fed bank "shares" under any circumstances, by statute.

7) An owner of IBM shares can vote on all issues that are put to a shareholder vote. Regional Fed bank "shares" entitle a member bank to vote for 6 of the 9 members of its regional bank's Board of Directors. That's it. By statute.

8 ) Owners of IBM shares gets one vote for each share. Member banks holding regional Fed bank "shares" get one vote, period, no matter how many "shares" they own. By statute.

9) Candidates for IBM's Board of Directors are nominated by IBM or its shareholders in accordance with its by-laws, and are then voted on by shareholders. The Fed's Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and neither Fed member banks nor their 12 elected regional bank Boards of Directors have anything whatsoever to say about it. By statute.

10) If IBM's Board of Directors decides that they want to increase the dividend payable to shareholders they can do so at anytime they wish. The 6% "dividend" on Fed regional bank "shares" is set by statute.

11) If IBM wants to amend its corporate by-laws, it can do so at anytime with the approval of a majority of shareholders. By statute, no regional Fed bank can amend its charter, ever.

12) IBM is a profit-making private enterprise, and they may do whatever they wish with any after-tax profits. The Fed regional banks must turn over 100% of their operating income (after the mandatory 6% "dividends") to the US Treasury each year. By statute.

13) As time goes on, the value of IBM shares fluctuates, sometimes widely. The value of each member bank's regional Fed bank "shares" is fixed at $100. By statute.

14) If IBM is liquidated, your shares entitle you to your relative proportion of assets left (if any) after all creditors of IBM have been paid. Fed regional bank "shares" entitle member banks to exactly zero Fed assets under any circumstances. By statute.

The reality is that regional Fed bank "shares" are nothing more than a semi-permanent deposit of capital by another name.

The use of the word "share" is very narrowly technically correct as these quasi-government entities were formed as corporations which issue shares, as do all corporations. But, it gave rise to conspiracy theories galore propagated by people who know little or nothing about the Fed, banking, government, law or economics, but focus laser-like on the single word "shares."

The Fed is not privately owned and never has been, regional bank "shares" notwithstanding. For good or ill, it's a 100% government-controlled operation. There's no conspiracy, it is what it is.

Moron had no rejoinder, but I'm sure he, in his gargantuan and invincible ignorance is still totally convinced that "the Fed" is "private."

[notorial dissent]

., minor quibble, on No 5., the "shares" do not go back to the gov't, but to the Fed district that issued them. They are for all intents and purposes a membership certificate in that FED district and nothing else.

Otherwise, you are spot on with all your other points. The FED is strictly, wholly, and absoluteley a creation, and creature, of the Federal Gov’t, and specifically, since any changes come ONLY from Congressional action by way of Federal Statute. All aspects of the Fed, and by default, the Federal Reserve banks are wholly subject to the laws as set down by the Congress.

[David Merrill]

This is the formative treatise on the FRB as an Instrumentality, rather than an agency. If you have the Lexis Nexus subscription you will quickly find that the distinction is drawn with Federal Reserve notes being stock certificates* in the Fed; and that since they are designed to decline in value (fractional lending) this has to be a government sanctioned (First Sentence of the Fed Act - "...furnish an elastic currency") for the operation to be legal at all.

It has been a couple good days indeed for Van Pelt-ish morons all over Quatloosia!




* Think about it! Title 12 USC §411 explains at the very least that Federal Reserve notes await redemption - like stock certificates.

[David Merrill]

... There is no consideration offered on any loan and all the FRNs are generated on no consideration by the bank. Dave RAMSEY has fooled thousands of Americans and beyond to paying off debts that in legal terms, never existed but through endorsement of private credit from the Fed, that is not even an agency of the United States. Talk about Fraud! The Fed pretends to be an agency of the US all day long, extends loans on signature endorsement without consideration and routinely collects on collateral in the event of false defaults!

That is correct. Although I wouldn't necessarily read any maliciousness in RAMSEY fooling Americans - he may be fooled himself. I certainly was for a long time. Gotta hand it to the banksters, their deception was pervasive & very good. Nice to watch their ship sink though.

I think you may be correct about RAMSEY. I have a problem with paying off falsely imposed debt arranged under a general social fraud. You have to listen to this discussion, revealing that Dave was convincing people to sell their gold early, based on the impression that it has very little profit potential according to the instructor of the class. Dave and his gold-buying cohort, on stage with him have made such an incredible profit if you look at the gold prices...


Even that though is such a business blunder - such poor advice from the pulpit - that RAMSEY should be selling a good portion off and offering refunds. He keeps track of personal information, even to get on the website forums. He can find these people and apologize.

[.]

., minor quibble, on No 5., the "shares" do not go back to the gov't, but to the Fed district that issued them.

Sure, but any Fed district is, by definition, part of "the government."

Government being the point, as in "you can only sell to them." Morons never understand subtle distinctions of any kind, which is why I didn't bother to try to make one.

[notorial dissent]

Quite true, but it upsets so very many preconceived dearly held misconceptions that none of them want to give up.

[Harvester]

I think you may be correct about RAMSEY. I have a problem with paying off falsely imposed debt arranged under a general social fraud. You have to listen to this discussion, revealing that Dave was convincing people to sell their gold early, based on the impression that it has very little profit potential according to the instructor of the class. Dave and his gold-buying cohort, on stage with him have made such an incredible profit if you look at the gold prices...

Oh! That is a serious blot on his reputation. Gold is real money. That he'd encourage listeners to exchange it (with his own buyer!) for depreciating debt notes speaks volumes. Fiat is collapsing, worldwide. You need to stock up on real money, real assets, and move out of everything denominated in depreciating debt notes.

[David Merrill]

Indeed so Harvester;


But I am surrounded by people who stare in shock when I point out that by encouraging people to double-enrich the banksters alone, that Dave RAMSEY is a pioneer in syndicalistic financial terrorism: