This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Chinese Sue Fed For Monopoly USD Devaluation

Tyler Durden's picture


In what could to grow into a class action in US courts, a Chinese woman is suing the Federal Reserve after discovering that the real value of the USD250 she put in an account in 2006 had shrunk by 30%. She claims it was the result of the Fed issuing too much money, and as The South China Morning Post reports, her son Li Zhen, the lawyer, called the lawsuit "litigation for the public good". Alleging "abuse of monopoly in issuing currency," the People's Court of Kunming has yet to rule on the litigants' demand that the Fed cease-and-desist from its quantitative easing policy. While this may seem frivolous, there are some interesting points being made that bear watching, as Li notes, since "the Fed is private institution which enjoys monopoly over the issuing of currency, US Dollar holders can sue it for printing too much money."



A woman in Kunming, Yunnan province, is trying to sue the United States central bank after discovering that the real value of the US$250 she put in an account in 2006 had shrunk by 30 per cent.


She claims it was a result of the Federal Reserve issuing too much money.


Her attorney, her son Li Zhen , called the lawsuit "litigation for the public good" which aimed to stop the Fed from continuing its quantitive easing policy and promote people's awareness of their rights.


He filed the lawsuit alleging "the abuse of monopoly in issuing currency" last month at the Kunming Intermediate People's Court on behalf of his mother, Liu Hua , but the court has yet to decide whether to officially place the case on file.


...he was the first mainlander to have filed a lawsuit against a foreign country's central bank.


Li, who works at the Yunnan Tongbang Law Firm, said he referred to Black's Law Dictionary, the most cited legal dictionary in the US, and concluded that the Fed is a private institution instead of a government department.




"Since the Fed is a private institution which enjoys a monopoly over the issuing of currency, US dollar holders can sue it for printing too much money," he said.


Li said he requested two things from the court - that the Fed halts the abuse of its monopoly over the issuing of dollars and that it makes a "symbolic compensation" of US$1. Asked about the possibility of whether the court will accept the case, Li said it was "difficult to say".




He said he was looking for more "victims" like his mother and expected to bring a class action in a US court.




- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:07 | 3485627 All Out Of Bubblegum
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

The Coinage Act of 1792 called for the death penalty for debasement of the currency. Hang the lot of them.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:09 | 3485633 localsavage
localsavage's picture

They will sweep this lawsuit under the rug....asap

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:11 | 3485642 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

His name is Li Zhen ("lie then")-perfect name for an attorney.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:18 | 3485667 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

A translation error occurred. It should read as follows:

He filed the lawsuit alleging "the abuse of issuing monopoly currency"


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:20 | 3485673 Divided States ...
Divided States of America's picture

its amazing that a chinese lady realizes this and actually does something about it while the sheeps in America still hasnt figured it out yet

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:23 | 3485680 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

In defense of Americans, many have realized that the time to "take it to court" has long since passed.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:34 | 3485706 yogibear
yogibear's picture

It's long past the court. The American people need to provide boiled rope neck ties for these treasonous banksters.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:43 | 3485732 knukles
knukles's picture

Hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Oh shit....

There remain small parcels of sanity within the electromagnetic consciousness...

a bunch of golf buds today were talking about the inevitability of heads on sticks

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:47 | 3485739 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Fuck yeah! Sue em for 1.5 quadrillion dollars, those bastards.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:11 | 3485810 Momauguin Joe
Momauguin Joe's picture

Where do I sign up for the Class Action?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:54 | 3485974 Tom Servo
Tom Servo's picture

Ben assured me she'll be made whole in 7 years.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:01 | 3486004 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Is Jewish joke from Leviticus?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:25 | 3486231 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Dumb bitch should sue her ancestors.

Exactly who invented fiat scrip in the first place?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:27 | 3486245 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Italian peoples?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:27 | 3486250 HulkHogan
HulkHogan's picture

Don't worry, that lady will never be seen of again. Tank man anyone?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:04 | 3486185 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Isn't that how long the NYFED gold boat takes to go anywhere in the world? One embarked to germany last year and is currently refueling in newfoundland.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:00 | 3486002 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

But "how" will they pay? And with what?  With moar fiat FRN's?  Or in Gold that they claim to have, but don't?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:30 | 3486254 dunce
dunce's picture

It occurred to me that they had a very good case and the size of the class action could be in the billions of bilked. Now you have burst my ballon of hope by pointing out that they are in fact above the law.I thought that the contempt for the law and the constitution was limited to this administration, but now i see where the true supreme power resides. Not in any branch of govt. but in a self selected group of faceless dorks that only meet once a month whose diliberations are secret.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:24 | 3486236 noless
noless's picture

so i just carved this chit, it's worth this many smoked cigarettes, right? now i cut it in half, same as many for each piece understand? a chit is a chit, i want this many, if you wont trade then fine, i'll make more chits, then we can talk again..

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:04 | 3485791 noob
noob's picture

Family Guy - Peter Compilation

Diplo - Bird is the Word

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:10 | 3485812 I am more equal...
I am more equal than others's picture

The Chinese have something better than hanging... it is death by a thousand cuts.

slow, gruesome and an object lesson in how not to think or act by future bernake-wanna-bes

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:59 | 3486001 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Is like Boris' morning routine to shave face. Someday, Boris is get own razor because always is seem dull after wife and daughters is use for hairy leg.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:13 | 3486057 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Boris is always make me laughs...


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:34 | 3486109 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

BA, thanks I needed that after the day I've had...


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:43 | 3486136 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

Boris, you da man...I couldn't write like that if had to! ROFLMAO

Where is that computer screen cleaner...?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:52 | 3486149 Dull Care
Dull Care's picture

????? ????? ???????!

Edit:Damn you can't write with cyrillic text on here. Boris Ochyen Smeshnoi!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:23 | 3486239 Boris Alatovkrap
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

You are too, very fun!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:18 | 3485831 More_sellers_th...
More_sellers_than_buyers's picture



Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:12 | 3485815 Croesus
Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:41 | 3486290 dunce
dunce's picture

Please!, every body with a back pack is an under cover cop? No doubt there were some plain clothes cops there as there should be, but all dressed alike, not likely. Should they identify them selves to the public? What part of undercover is not understood?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:30 | 3486437 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Undercover, dressed, active duty, just watching.  Who cares.  They were right there and didn't prevent anything.  That should tell you everything you need to know about their 'expert presence'.  Some will choose to believe it was 'mere incompetence', others who are more cynical will see it as 'negligence', if not outright co-operation or complicity.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:01 | 3486174 Freddie
Freddie's picture

I want to marry this woman!

"Me rove you tomorrrrow ChiCom rady!"

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:35 | 3485707 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

 "Fuc Yu Bernanke!"

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:51 | 3485758 ronaldawg
ronaldawg's picture

No jurisdiction CHING CHONG....

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:31 | 3486258 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

I'm sure if you dig deep into the details of the Federal Reserve Charter there's a sub-clause in there somewhere that exempts Satan from all liability since the beginning of time.

(Come on, he may be the great deceiver, but nobody stuck a gun to your head, am I right?)

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:10 | 3486041 Frederic Bastiat
Frederic Bastiat's picture

Sheeps in America win without knowing it, they get iPads in exchange for monopoly money. 

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:59 | 3486344 casfoto
casfoto's picture

Go back to sleep.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:23 | 3485678 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

In a class action settlement, everyone in the world gets $10000.  Helicopters start flying and dropping cash tomorrow.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:29 | 3485686 Big Corked Boots
Big Corked Boots's picture

"As approved by the Court, each of the attorneys will get $10,000. Everyone else in the world gets a free toaster at the bank." - sez the fine print at the bottom of the settlement letter.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:50 | 3485748 max2205
max2205's picture

South sea bubble part deux

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:57 | 3485773 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Free SpiderMan towel.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:12 | 3485643 old naughty
old naughty's picture

...and then they might not...

'Nuke' the Fed !

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:56 | 3485774 ronaldawg
ronaldawg's picture

How did she get USD250 - did she blow 125 guys?  "rue soooo bigg!!!"

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:02 | 3485785 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

1250 guys.

fixed it.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:00 | 3486175 AllWorkedUp
AllWorkedUp's picture

Ronaldawg and Churchill definitely win the morons of the week contest. What a couple of fuzzbags.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:48 | 3486306 dunce
dunce's picture

How many decades has it been since you patronized a pro? You are at zerohedge you must know about monetary inflation. Talk to Elliot Spitzer on current pro prices, a documented expert in the area.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:14 | 3485649 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

She's suing because she lost 30%?  She lost alot more than 30% of her purchasing power in 17 years. 

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:32 | 3485703 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

17?  Show me

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:37 | 3485717 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

The transporter beam is having an effect on Scotty...

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:51 | 3485750 Anglo Hondo
Anglo Hondo's picture

Very funny, Kirk.  Now beam his brain down!


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:34 | 3485708 ziggy59
ziggy59's picture

Youre not a fed worker in ecomonics, i hope...

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:39 | 3485722 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

The evidence says he is...

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:55 | 3486534 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Now it's obvious why Benny cannot make it to Jackson Hole; he's off to Beijing to testify.



Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:31 | 3485699 SHEEPFUKKER

Jackson Hole Gallow Pole.......Benny is busy though. 

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:05 | 3485794 Saint Pitbull
Saint Pitbull's picture

Gawd, I wish I was a judge in that court that was near retirement.  Even if not, someone with a big ego could get some serious press.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:56 | 3486539 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

A judge with a big ego? That sounds pretty damn rare to me.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:37 | 3485892 razorthin
razorthin's picture

The only currency that should be flowing from Bernanke is 2,450 volts worth.

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 11:31 | 3488276 ChacoFunFact
ChacoFunFact's picture

this comment reminds me that our courts are for the settlement of debts, our law is based on admirality law (if it's on land and your cart of gold breaks down, we can go fetch it.  but if it's on water and your ship sinks, we can't so we get in to things like bills of lading, birth certificates, port passes /passports, courts look like ships, etc.), and our current economy is based on 1800's concepts of electricity.  Never forget that since our money is credit, you are a battery.  if you fail to pay you are CHARGED.  I think I got this right... help me out though...

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:56 | 3485981 geologyguy
geologyguy's picture

 The Bernank should "forgive" a $100 Billion in treasuries/bonds the Chineese hold.  That way, they Chinesse don't feel as exposed to our debt & we can pat ourselves on the back for improving Mandarin relations.

Heck, they should realize we aren't ever paying that drink tab...right?  If not, jokes on them!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:08 | 3486034 Frederic Bastiat
Frederic Bastiat's picture

Jokes on them, we have the stuff, they have the paper. (not even paper, bits in a computer)

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:33 | 3486261 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Well before our traitors "opened up" China and started destroying US industry, the Chinese couldn't even feed their people.

Now they are a major economic power.

So, lets call it even.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:19 | 3486397 HyperinflatmyNutts
HyperinflatmyNutts's picture

Jokes is on us the fuckin US tax payer..  China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia will slow roll the Physical Gold market untill they have most of the Gold.  He who has the Physical makes the rules!!!  

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 07:04 | 3487217 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Rethink that-

the US got iSTUFF and PAPER

China got FACTORIES and GOLD


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:58 | 3485998 One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Section 19 of the Act established a penalty of death for debasing the gold or silver coins authorized by the Act, or embezzlement of the metals for those coins, by officers or employees of the mint; this section of the Act apparently remains in effect and would, in theory, continue to apply in the case of "any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint." (At present the only gold or silver coins struck by the US mint are the American Silver Eagle and the American Gold Eagle coins, some Proof coinage at the San Francisco Mint, such as the silver US State Quarters, and much of the Commemorative coinage of the United States.) All other sections of the act have been superseded, as for example the Coinage Act of 1834 changing the silver-to-gold weight ratio. Various acts have subsequently been passed affecting the amount and type of metal in U. S. coins, so that today there is no legal definition of the term "dollar" to be found in U. S. statute.[4][5][6] Current statutes regulating coinage in the United States may be found in Title 31 of the United States Code.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:25 | 3486233 willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

@ alloutofbubblegum

If I could buy all the bubblegum in America to give you more up arrows.. I would.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:11 | 3486365 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Jesuit by chance?

The collar is cute.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 23:29 | 3486645 All Out Of Bubblegum
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

That's The Mish. He's a man of faith: "You have faith in the central bank."

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:08 | 3485629 Dead Canary
Dead Canary's picture

I'm in. (Oh wait, my money isn't in dollars anymore)

Never mind.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:09 | 3485630 ghengis86
ghengis86's picture

Go get 'em and all the best, but the money printers don't give a shit. Might provide a laugh or two

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:51 | 3486153 AllWorkedUp
AllWorkedUp's picture

Exactly. This will be thrown out by one of the corrupt Jew judges before it hits the docket.

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 07:11 | 3487232 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

How many Jewish judges are the in CHINA?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:08 | 3485631 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

Go to Jail.........go straight to jail and do not collect 200$.......and while you're at it shove Park Place up your azz

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:42 | 3485711 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

They will send her an EE Savings Bond for $75 to compensate for the 30% loss and when she goes to the bank to cash in the bond, she'll be pissed that she only receives $37.50.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:10 | 3485636 Dishonesty Fatigue
Dishonesty Fatigue's picture

Didn't she read the prospectus?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:23 | 3485679 Edward Fiatski
Edward Fiatski's picture

Private currency - private rules. :)

Oh, and IRS is an integral part of the Ruleset, if you deal in USDs.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:24 | 3485638 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

Middre crass must join in for a crass arction raw suit. RAWYER UP!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:12 | 3485640 Landotfree
Landotfree's picture

Stupid lawsuit.   A US district court is not the court of original jurisdiction, the case will get dismissed for failure to state a claim from which relief can be granted.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:40 | 3485726 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Gee, thanks Perry Mason...

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:05 | 3486023 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

So she re-files.  This time with competent lawyer.  Preferrably of Chinese-American origin, so as not to be culturally compromised (like the European-origin lawyers).

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:14 | 3486209 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Her son should make Paul Krugman a co-defedndant.  I would laugh if that fat idiot Krugman had to fly to China to be desposed.

Chinese Lawyer: "Mr. Krugman are you sucky sucky boy?"

Krugman: "How dare you - I have Nobel Prize."

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:21 | 3486078 MFLTucson
MFLTucson's picture


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:45 | 3486140 Sabibaby
Sabibaby's picture

Darn... well at least we have guns!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:40 | 3486450 Real Estate Geek
Real Estate Geek's picture

The Plaintiff could really be a proxie for the CPC.

This kid's an attorney so he has to have some brains.  Seems to me that a sharp young man isn't going to file this kind of case without TPTB's advance review and tacit consent, at the very least; following orders is more likely.  That his mom is involved makes things . . . simpler if everyone doesn't play their part correctly.

The Chinese venue could be handy in certain outcomse, and this certainly wouldn't be the first time that a growing world power's courts made an aspirational ruling.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:12 | 3485641 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

we are going to make  you whole....but while we get ur money, could you put this bag in that trash can first.......thanks

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:12 | 3485644 WSP
WSP's picture

The criminals at the Federal Reserve print the money that goes to the corrupt courts, so nothing to see here.  U.S. judges are just as corrupt as the criminals at the Federal Reserve because they are bought and paid for.   U..S courts are truly "Kangaroo Courts"-----judges are bought and paid for "enforcers" of the criminal class and kleptocrats. IF the media wasn't also owned by the criminals at the Federal Reserve, this story would be worthwhile to shed the microscope on the criminal, private Federal Reserve; however, since the media is bought and paid for by the same money printers, nothing happens.  

The one thing this case should do is at least show law students and definitely followers of the law that THERE IS NO LAW in the corrupt kleptocracy known as the United States.  Justice, as Gerald Celente is famous for saying, is "Just Us"----for the private central bankers (federal reserve) and their cronies.


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:09 | 3486033 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture


Bravo!  Could not have said it better myself.  Without getting more verbose.  ;-)

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:24 | 3486422 HyperinflatmyNutts
HyperinflatmyNutts's picture

+100% Amen Brother

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 01:19 | 3486859 e-recep
e-recep's picture

law is a bitch of TPTB.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:11 | 3485645 colin
colin's picture

they can settle it in bitcoins, are we still taking about bitcoins now?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:13 | 3485647 Critical Path
Critical Path's picture

heh, I can see it now... here is your settlement... in new currency. 

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:45 | 3485733 booboo
booboo's picture

The Federal Reserve banks have bins full of little bags with shredded money called "Fed Shred" in the visitor center, "Guard give this lady an extra bag on the way out the door"

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:13 | 3485651 Racer
Racer's picture

She is lucky to get 70% of it, if you put money in a bank not only will the inflation eat it up, but you will be lucky to get any back

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:33 | 3485701 dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

She should just sue "inflation'

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:38 | 3485719 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Good point.  We need to outlaw inflation.  Too many people are getting hurt by inflation so if we can just make it illegal, it will go away.


If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:46 | 3485741 knukles
knukles's picture

You didn't make that inflation

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:55 | 3485769 ronaldawg
ronaldawg's picture

You will need a background check for that inflation, SIR.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:56 | 3485772 RebelDevil
RebelDevil's picture

This lawsuit is interestingly stupid. $250 is not worth suing over. $2500 probably is though.
It would be awesome to see more people step up and sue the bastards!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:01 | 3485784 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

Maybe that's her annual compensation from foxxcon.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:23 | 3485839 hannah
hannah's picture

annual..?!..more like lifetime.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:14 | 3485655 Haus-Targaryen
Haus-Targaryen's picture


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:25 | 3485682 Miss anthrope
Miss anthrope's picture

hey, plus one game of thrones...... take no prisoners haus

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:14 | 3485658 czarangelus
czarangelus's picture

Could this be the Chinese government attempting to manufacture a cause célebré amongst the proles? At any rate, give'em Hell.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:15 | 3485659 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Whats this bullshit that a lower value currency is better for exports ?

The dollar has fallen for 12 years and so has exports.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:48 | 3485744 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

They would have fallen even further.



PS: Mr. Spitzer, I saw you on 56th and 5th Ave last week but I was in a hurry so I didn't have a chance to introduce myself.  Maybe next time.  You are the real Spitzer, no?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:57 | 3485777 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

 I was just on my way back from a $5000 rub and tug..



Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:16 | 3485660 syntaxterror
syntaxterror's picture

Shoulda bought stawks!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:15 | 3485661 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

Sad to see QE ending over a mere $250 that are only worth $182.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:16 | 3485664 Hulk
Hulk's picture

The gall of those currency manipulators !!!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:17 | 3485666 graspAU
graspAU's picture

It's not the US Dollar, it is a Federal Reserve Note. Big difference. Very hard to tell what is a Dollar now days, but this is a good read:

Heck, the Congress knew the purchasing power was not stable after the Fed Reserve took over. These poor folks think they discovered something?


“When the Congress shall declare a national monetary policy which shall give the Nation a dollar whose debt-paying, purchasing power shall remain the same from one generation to another, the people of the United States, for the first time in their history, will have an honest dollar. The only honest dollar is a dollar of stable, debt paying, purchasing power. The only honest dollar is a dollar which repays the creditor the value he lent and no more, and requires the debtor to pay the value he borrowed and no more. The people of the United States are entitled to a sound currency. The only sound currency is a currency whose exchange value is the same from one generation to another. The failure of the Government to create and stabilize the value of money has not only resulted in the unemployment of millions of people through no fault of their own, but it has seriously changed the- relationship between debtors and creditors,… The experience of the last 31 years of four serious panics and depressions is proof positive that the banks cannot control the volume of money, and that their failure to do so has not only destroyed thousands of banks, but has inflicted the people with great suffering. The Government alone can give relief. The Government alone has the legal authority and duty to establish and regulate the value of money, and to create it ill sufficient quantity to serve the national use. It alone has the power and the duty to prevent either injurious expansion or destructive contraction. “
-Robert L. Owen, Former Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate. Sited in US Senate Doc. 23, 76th Congress, 1st Session – Written Dec. 23rd 1938, and printed January 24, 1939 pages 74-75:

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:13 | 3486055 negative rates
negative rates's picture

The inefficiency of such a thing was all it took to create the inflationary environment we see today. Yes, when utopia is achieved, then the value of everything from education to health care shall remain stable and in balance. Until then, it's just the lost war on drugs to blame.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:12 | 3486198 forwardho
forwardho's picture


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:16 | 3486214 Milestones
Milestones's picture


The Prelude



The Decision of Santa Clara v The Southern Pacific Railroad 1886.


The Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

These two events, when viewed alone, were serious breaches of what the founding fathers envisioned, but put together brought all the fuel necessary to engulf this nation in the morass which we now find ourselves; the muscle of the corporation and the money of the parasite bankers who had long before bought the corrupted government at all levels, from the Presidency, Congress and the courts down to, in many cases, city councils. I would contend that this drifting country is no longer fit to hold itself up as the shinning beacon of freedom, but of an example of the loss of will, courage and more than anything, a sense of honor, not just as a nation but as individuals.

 And then of course there is everyone’s favorite—me, me, and of course me. Us, and we are only heard when distributing blame or fault. The concept of personal responsibility has long since fled the scene.

When my father handed me the keys to the car—it ran. Today I am handing my children a rusty rotting hulking piece of metal, not worthy of death in recycling yards.

What we are witnessing is what has transpiring for much of our planets civilized existence; the concentration and centralization of power and money of entire regions and societies. But as we go along in our history trek we can notice that events are happening at shorter and shorter intervals. The rise and fall of nations and empires are being compressed. Events happening now were changed yesterday and are crushing in their implications.

125 years ago the communications and transportation systems were light years away from today. Military-surely you jest. We are as far removed from the Civil War as we are from the Stone Age. And then we have our MSM who are so bought out that I would be embarrassed to try and pass myself off as a reporter. Junk jockeys.

In the above 2 listed events we can clearly see the absolute complicity and duplicity of all 3 branches of government, at least a century ago. The nation was already taking on water. The final batch of crooks sealed our fate on Jekyll Island. Please stay with me here as I will start outlining the case.

Corporations are persons under the Constitution @ 1886 Santa Clara  Decision

In 1886 The Supreme Court issued a court ordered decision known as Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad 118 U.S.394 (1886) This total nothing 14 page decision is at best a tedious reading about fencing and tax rates. Nowhere in the body of that decision was the obvious constitutional issue addressed; Re: are corporations legally people. As will be shown,  one critical sentence was deleted from the court rendition of what transpired.

The issue of, are corporations people was addressed in the syllabus, which is not any part of the official decision but only a summation of the decision by the court clerk.

The clerk to the Supreme Court was one John Chandler Bancroft Davis. What he issued in the syllabus was for the consumption of the legal community and was not widely distributed. Here are his comments:

“The court does not wish to hear on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of law applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion that it does”

Because the syllabus is in no way part of the court decision it has no precedential value and cannot be considered as part of any court decision. As I will show later it was the opinion of a single justice and not the court itself.

The above statement was made by Supreme Court chief justice Morrison Remick Waite and was pronounced before the beginning of arguments; the matter was never even discussed!!

What makes this sweeping statement in the syllabus seem so out of place is that for many years prior to 1886 the overriding opinion legally was that corporations were not “ persons” and could not be--- they were creatures brought into existence by state legislatures and only had powers granted to them by the state. Below is a sample of opinions held by the courts prior to the 1886 Santa Clara decision.


U.S. 168 (wall) (1868)

“—that the declaration states that the corporation was itself a citizen of Indiana. Now no one, we presume, ever supposed that an artificial being, created by an act of incorporation could be considered a citizen of a State in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, and the averment was rejected because the matter averred was simply impossible. Yet that is one precise position of the appellant here. He insists that a corporation is a citizen of a state within the scope and meaning of the provision of the Constitution: “That the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States” This court has several times decided that a corporation  is NOT a citizen within this meaning of the Constitution. The averment that the company is a citizen of the State Indiana can have no sensible meaning attached to it.”



The term citizens as there used applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic, owing allegiance to the State, not to artificial persons created by the legislature and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed.”

And further, further:

“The corporation being a mere creation of local law can have no legal existence beyond the limits of the sovereignty where created. As said by this court in Bank of Augusta v Earle, It must dwell in the place of its creation and cannot migrate to another sovereignty”

 I think any attorney might want to take heed of that last sentence.

Well, I think most of you get message. In fact the real message comes from 1907—21 years after the 1886 Santa Clara decision.

After some further rummaging around in the various decisions I stumbled into the following 2 page decision by the Supreme Court--- Western Turf Association v Hyman Greenberg 204 U.S. 359 (1907.) Quoting from that decision: “Of still less merit is the suggestion that the statute  abridges the rights and privileges of citizens; for a corporation cannot be deemed a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.”

Later in that abrupt, short decision came the following: “The same observation  may be made as to the contention that the statute (California state statute) deprives the defendant of its liberty without due process of law; for the liberty  guaranteed  by the 14th Amendment against deprivation without due process of law is the liberty of natural persons not artificial persons.” 

Finally, and maybe importantly, in 1912 came the case of Selover, Bates and Co. v Walsh 226 U.S, 112 (1912). In that 3 page decision, in the last line it cited Turf Assn. of 1907 as case law, not Southern Pacific of 1886!!

This brings to mind the question—how in the hell can a court be so wrong on such a critical decision unless there are other factors involved?

The Court Reporter Davis, as mentioned earlier, therefor entered, as summary of the courts findings that:  “The defendant Corporations are persons within the clause in section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Michael Kinder recently uncovered from Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite to Court Reporter Davis, a letter outlining his feelings of reporter Davis record stating: “I think your mem. In the California Rail Road cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the arguments began. I leave it to you to determine whether need be said about it in the report inasmuch we AVOIDED MEETING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN THE DECISION,”

The underlined portion of the letter was not included in the headnotes (syllabus)

This letter was provided by under the heading “An 1886 Supreme Court decision ruled corporations are persons which I printed out 4-27-10. It also confirmed an opinion I have had for some time; how can a corporation be a LEGAL PERSON and still be owned by shareholders? That is called SLAVERY and is banned by the 13th Amendment!! Think it through.

You can’t have it both ways and I have never seen, and neither did any ruling concerning this contradiction.

Our entire society has been vastly corrupted by an offhand remark by a single Supreme Court Justice, which was not part of the deliberations of Santa Clara decision and is not a part of that decision!!

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

As for court reporter Davis; he was the former President for the Neburgh and New York Railway. How cozy! Things stunk back in the good ole days too! Well on to bigger and better things. Let me reiterate a post I made some two years ago here on ZH on 6-14-10; my first post.


The Trials and Tribulations of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913


There has been, over the last several months that I have been reading ZH, issues raised concerning the Federal Reserve and The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The almost unanimous opinion of the readers here as well as those blogs were the topic has come up such as Market Ticker, Jesse’s Café Americain, Naked Capitalism, Mish and others too numerous to mention all decry the “FED” and their propensity for large scale plundering of our economy among other peccadillos’ .

I would contend that after reviewing the circumstances of the FED, its origins and its daily operations, the FED is not only illegal and unconstitutional; that it is also void by law, and has been since its inception in 1913.

I will interject here and now, I am not an attorney. Hopefully the arguments I will lay out below will bring up the issue to be judged by what appears to be one of the most knowledgeable, well-educated and outspoken group on the web. I post below for your consideration, comments and rebuttal.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress in the last days of December by a handful of Senators who had not left for Christmas break.  The House had passed the bill earlier. President Wilson then signed it into law.

The concerns of those who oppose the FED generally center on Article I Section 8 (5) (18).That particular part of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: Article I Section 8 (5) says (Section 8) Powers of Congress. The Congress shall have power: (5) “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin—.”

Herein lay my problem and question. The Constitution says “Congress shall have power—to regulate the value thereof.” That is what the Constitution says. Congress shall have the power to do. Oh, -I forgot, Congress apparently delegated that authority to the new kid on the block; the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, just newly created by Congress.

That delegation of power to the FED is my question. Did Congress have the authority to do so under the U.S. Constitution? So let us go to rulings by the Supreme Court to see what they had to say about this issue of delegation of authority.

Panama Refining Co. v Ryan 293 U.S. 388  1935

“The Constitution provides that All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.' Article 1.1. And the Congress is empowered “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' its general powers.”

The Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. Undoubtedly legislation must often be adapted to complex conditions involving a host of details with which the national Legislature cannot deal directly. The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality, which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards, while leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility. But the constant recognition of the necessity and validity of such provisions and the wide range of administrative authority which has been developed by means of them cannot be allowed to obscure the limitations of the authority to delegate, if our constitutional system is to be maintained.”

The Court observed that it was impracticable for Congress to provide general regulations for these various and varying details of management,' and that, in authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to meet local conditions, Congress 'was merely conferring administrative functions upon an agent, and not delegating to him legislative power.

Thus, in every case in which the question has been raised, the Court has recognized that there are limits of delegation which there is no constitutional authority to transcend. We think that section 9(c) goes beyond those limits. As to the transportation of oil production in excess of state permission, the Congress has declared no policy, has established no standard, has laid down no rule. There is no requirement, no definition of circumstances and conditions in which the transportation is to be allowed or prohibited.

If section 9(c) were held valid, it would be idle to pretend that anything would be left of limitations upon the power of the Congress to delegate its lawmaking function. The reasoning of the many decisions we have reviewed would be made vacuous and their distinctions nugatory. Instead of performing its lawmaking function, the Congress could at will and as to such subjects as it chooses transfer that function to the President or other officer or to an administrative body. The question is not of the intrinsic importance of the particular statute before us, but of the constitutional processes of legislation which are an essential part of our system of government.

FIELD V CLARK 143 US 649 1892

 “That congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the constitution.”

The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making power, and must therefore be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation.

That no part of this legislative power can be delegated by congress to any other department of the government, executive or judicial, is an axiom in constitutional law, and is universally recognized as a principle essential to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the constitution.  The legislative power must remain in the organ where it is lodged by that instrument.”

Well now, it appears by the language of the above two cited Supreme Court decisions, i.e.: Panama of 1935 and Field of 1892, the Federal Reserve Act is bracketed by 2 separate decisions by the Supremes; one prior to the Fed act of 1913 and one after; that the court has said that Congress does not have the authority to delegate the power “to regulate the value thereof” as that power is directly mentioned in the Federal Constitution as being granted to Congress.

Please bear with me. Sovereignty is granted to “We the people” as outlined in the first 3 words of the Preamble. As such, under the Constitution, we delegate our sovereign authority to persons to represent us in dealing with the events that govern us from day to day. But it is the reserve of the sovereign’s to delegate authority, not Congress; they only represent us; but it does not carry with it the authority to yet further delegate congressional power-that is our power as sovereigns to bind this nation in such a manner.

John Locke came to the same conclusion: (Parliament, Congress)—“Cannot transfer power of making laws to any other hands for it is being but a delegated power from the people who have it and cannot pass it over to others.”

I would contend that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is illegal under the Constitution. Further if we consider Marbury v Madison of 1803, a decision which to my knowledge has never been legally overturned, states the case in even far starker terms:

Marbury v Madison 17 Wall 205 Cranch 2  1803

“Thus the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principal, supposedly to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v Madison  17 Wall 205 Cranch 1,2,3,4, Book 2

So now, if we follow the train to the end of the line, not only does the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 appear to be unconstitutional due to Congress’s illegal delegation of power concerning “The regulating the value thereof” part of  Art. 1 Section 5 and 18; one is drawn to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve Act is void under Marbury. Congress acted illegally and contrary to the constitution by delegating its authority but President Wilson also acted illegally in signing said act into law.—“as well as other departments are bound by that instrument.”

Black’s Law Dictionary

Manifest—Evident to the senses, especially to the sight, obvious to the understanding, evident to the mind, not obscure or hidden, and is synonymous with open, clear, visible, unmistakable, indubitable, indisputable, evident and self-evident. In evidence, that which is clear and needs no proof; that which is notorious.

Void—Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended. An instrument or transaction which is wholly ineffective, inoperative and incapable of ratification and which thus has no force or effect so that nothing can cure it.

In short, I contend Congress was and is prohibited by the Constitution from delegating any of its authority that is vested to it in the Constitution as shown in the 2 cases cited, i.e. Panama and Field and that that action was repugnant to that instrument and is Void under Marbury. There are undoubtedly many, many laws that are currently on the books that would fall into this category. 

Because the Supremes have already addressed such acts as outlined above, I question how they could rule against what they have already done. I would think the government could simply fire up the presses, make changes to the currency as did JFK in 1962 when he used red ink on $5 bills and simply deal out the Fed. (This contemplates of course eliminating Tiny Tim and BB).

 I am well aware this sounds rather simplistic, but if the FED is seized lock, stock and barrel and folded into the Treasury there will of course issues to be resolved but I really can’t see them as being life threatening. Congress could try and reinstate the Reserve Act but would almost certainly face 1890’s wild west  justice rapidly; like while they are all still in Disaster Central.

I am not so naiveté as to believe TPTB are going to roll over if my argument is correct. It will be ignored, and laughed at later if ignoring it fails. But Joe Six-pack is growing more and more aware that somehow the FED is the central problem in the financial/ political mess this country finds itself. The connection must be made in the public mind that this 1920’s Al Capone Chicago style Mafia lives again posing as upstanding bankers who are in fact monstrous crooks who are in direct violation, not of the law, but of the U.S. CONSTITUTION and the banking industry are not just “greedy” people but a Mafia criminal element threatening this nation and its well-being. A proper coat of paint would go a long way to identify to the general public who and what these criminals are about.

And now the caveats: this is my first post. This issue has been sticking in my craw for some time now and ZH appears to be the best forum to outline my thoughts. It’s not the only one. Corporations as people, which Thom Hartmann has gone over in his book, Unequal Protection, is another saddle on the American public that has bothered me for some time. I hope to address that issue sometime in the near future.

Further I am not an attorney as mentioned earlier and I do not know how to use the internet to shepardize the 2 mentioned cases. I know there are attorneys on this site and any comments, critiques or help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Getting bent over a barrel is never fun but that’s how the game has to be played if you want to know if you have something or you’re as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Let the games begin.

Regards, Milestones



I am sure that most of you have come to grips with the fact that the world is headed for a major league dump, and as part of this world we are going to see a lot of pain along with 7 Billion people; many of whom will probably “vanish” in the march to responsibility for our actions and/or inaction. Nature is not cruel, but it does require payment for stupidity. We have done that in spades.

But we must not compound the misery by doing the same thing over again and think we got a handle on the game. There are many among us that will have to go, people as well as institutions,—the so called leaders and manipulators and many desk jockeys who have enriched themselves at the price of sacrificing everyone who wants to play nice and live and let live.

Most of the people on this floating speck of dust want to watch their grandchildren grown up, marry and all that stuff. We do not have to be #1. Hell, what’s wrong with 26th if you are happy and have enough food and water and a place to lay your head,-- who gives a shit?

Many will criticize that statement, for me, growth is in your vision, not your grasp. I don’t really want things; they bog you down.

Omar the Tentmaker said in the “Rubaiyat” (Khayyam-11th Century Persian poet)

And when like her, oh Saki , you shall pass

Among the Guests Star-scatter’d on the grass,

And in your joyous errand reach the spot_

Where I made One—turn down an empty Glass!        




 very long winded but the info. is kinda necessary to see where I am coming from. We are fooked unless We the people start acting like owners of this country and not tennent farmers.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 21:48 | 3486308 Real Estate Geek
Real Estate Geek's picture

BRAVO! Worthy of being an article rather than a comment.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:13 | 3486379 the PTB
the PTB's picture

Dear Milestones:

Congratulations on your opus magnus.  I agree with the spirit of your argument completely, but at the risk of wetting on your charcoal,  feel it my bounden duty to inform all that, by definition, a nation with a constitutional government has no need of court precedence.  Further, SCOTUS opinions are just that, opinions and do not have the force of law as the talking heads and the headless voices (and clueless "Constitutional scholars") would have one believe.  If you feel that I am in error, please direct me to that clause in the Constitution wherein SCOTUS has the final say on the meaning of that doucment.  All have a say, including, but not limited to the several states, governors, attorneys general and most of all, juries which have the power to nullify any statute whether state or federal.

One final point.  Can you describe the legal mechanism whereby any of us is bound by the Constitution?  Afteall, none alive today ratified the document.  How is it that we are bound by it?   The interested reader is directed to  You will not be disappointed.

Kindest regards,

Yours forever in fiat scrip,

the PTB

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 17:33 | 3490284 Milestones
Milestones's picture

PTB--ARTICLE VI  Miscellaneous Provisions Section 2 "Suprency of constitution, treaties and Laws" This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made. or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the law of the land; and the judges in every state  shall be bound thereby; anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary nonwithstsanding." 

I presume yrou are aware of Article III concerning the Judicary.

Finally, it is my humble opinion that under the doctrine of seperation of powers doctrine, that the only powers in the U.S. Constitution all belong to the Executive and Legislative bodies of the federal government and that almsot none to the Judicary; as they are the Seperation of power that rules between the Executive branch (king -power to tax and war) and the legislature to control the purse ( in England the house of Lorda, as in Landlords (Senate) and the House of Commons (as in Commoner-House of REpresentives.

I would submit that this whole thing of courts goes back to a meadow in England called Runnymeade (sp?)  and an instrumewnt called the Magna Carta done in 1215 A.D. where the large landholders forced the king to grant demands made by the Landlords (owners of large tracts of land and also to protect the vassels of the land lords so they could plunder their wealth (cheap labor) instead of the state (king)

I really appriciate your comments and taking the time to read a very long document.

Best regards--Milestones

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:19 | 3485670 Black Markets
Black Markets's picture

It's actually a good idea. The Federal Reserve is a private company with a monopoly.

And they are undertaking price fixing and price gauging. Check the Governors testimony for evidence.

A class action of "the people" v's "the Federal Reserve" is probably the best and only way to educate the population as to what the Federal Reserve actually is, what they've been doing, and who owns it.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:50 | 3485749 imaginalis
imaginalis's picture

The case can't proceed due to "National Security" concerns.....

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:19 | 3485672 HD
HD's picture

Ben is the worst rapist of all time - old people, young people, poor people...basically anyone not long S&P takes it up the ass without a kiss.

Time to fire up the crocodile tears for the cameras and call Gloria Allred in for a lawsuit.


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:35 | 3485709 donsluck
donsluck's picture

Your language is iffy. Comparing a brutal act of violence (I assume you are not referring to statutory rape) to one of fraud is weak.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:39 | 3485721 HD
HD's picture

 Really? I mean really.  Come on.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:01 | 3485786 Saint Pitbull
Saint Pitbull's picture

Your comprehension is limited.  Find a dictionary when you get off that high horse.

Save you some time:

"the violent, destructive, or abusive treatment of something"

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:57 | 3486169 lotsoffun
lotsoffun's picture

actually  - ben thinks bigger and broader - it's the russell 2,000 is his target, because he wants to spread the 'luv' around.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:22 | 3485675 Edward Fiatski
Edward Fiatski's picture

"He said he was looking for more "victims" like his mother and expected to bring a class action in a US court."

Pretty much everyone alive on the Globe today. :)

Use tangible things to save money in.

Better luck next time.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:24 | 3485681 TalkToLind
TalkToLind's picture

All individual class members will receive $1.79 for their troubles!

TTL, Esq.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:27 | 3485687 TideFighter
TideFighter's picture

"You're money is over there, in that pressure cooker!"

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:32 | 3485700 Wakanda
Wakanda's picture

Any lawfirm named "Yunnan Tong Bang" is fucking awesome.  I hope they stir up a shit storm of trouble for the banksters.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:35 | 3485705 rhinoblitzing
rhinoblitzing's picture

Pay her back with some hard assetts like: Drywall, Toys, Dog Food, and other quality products made in her backyard.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:35 | 3485712 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Somewhat humurous that it is a Chinese citizen suing and not someone in the U.S., but I still love it.

Ben "Monopoly Money" Bernanke and his helicopter need to be permanently grounded and put out of business.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:38 | 3485716 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

Wo ai ni Ms. Zhan

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:41 | 3485725 azengrcat
azengrcat's picture

What a better way to inflate an economy than to print money in a massive payoff of a class action lawsuit against money printing.  Perfectly legal helicopter money.  0 to full Printard here we come.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:42 | 3485729 superdave
superdave's picture

Wouldn't it be wild if a Chinese lawyer was able to accomplish what no one in America has been able to do?  And that is to bring the  friggin crooks at the Fed under heel!  I's a pipe dream..but still...   I believe there's more at play here. 

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:46 | 3485737 agent default
agent default's picture

The actions of this Chinese woman when contrasted with the attitudes in the West provide conclusive proof: We are fucked.  We collectively live in la la land while they are fully aware of reality.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:52 | 3485753 Tortuga
Tortuga's picture

Go get'em Chinese lady.

Rico all banksters and their ho politicians.


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:52 | 3485755 ziggy59
ziggy59's picture

Wonder what the attorney fees will

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:52 | 3485756 sodbuster
sodbuster's picture

Li has got more balls and good sense than most Americans.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:55 | 3485766 Tortuga
Tortuga's picture

Nah. I bet it's the No. 3 son, the lawyer, sueing with information from the No. 1 son, the banker, with protection by the uncle, Triad General.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:52 | 3485763 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

She should have put it in yuan. :rolL:

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 18:53 | 3485765 StarTedStackin'
StarTedStackin''s picture

Yew kan't sue the FED bitchez!

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:03 | 3485789 jonjon831983
jonjon831983's picture

Her attorney is salivating... and after the case will be disowned for taking most recovered monies as fees.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:10 | 3485806 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Me so solly  -Ben Bernanke-

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:10 | 3485807 Black Markets
Black Markets's picture

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.


It seems to me the girls and boys of the Federal Reserve are a little confused.

A non profit making organisation that pays a dividend of 6% per year?

Are you shitting me!?!

6% of what? That fucking gigantic balance sheet?

Or 6% of gains on the epic Treasuries bubble they created from cornering the bond market??

6 fucking percent of $85bn a month is a lot of fucking money.

If the Fed is not operated for profit how they hell do they pay a 6% dividend??

I'm going to have to buy some dollars so I can join this class action.

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:32 | 3486105 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government."


"It is not "owned" by anyone. . ."

It isn't?  It it a corporation?  How can it not be owned?  If it is owned by anyone other than the government, it is private.  Maybe it is not owned by "anyone" but it is owned by a group of corporate entities - ie. banks.

" . . . and is not a private, profit-making institution."

Interesting dodge.  It is not a private institution would have been a more direct statement. But it is qualified by "profit making."  Define profit.


Mon, 04/22/2013 - 20:56 | 3486162 lotsoffun
lotsoffun's picture

nice.  can i buy shares?  i'd love to be a part of the people that can print money. 

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:17 | 3486390 Izznogood
Izznogood's picture

Can you provide us with a reference for the above stated, please?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 22:19 | 3486395 the PTB
the PTB's picture

"It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution"


Those two things are, of course, mutually exclusive.  It is owned as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the West.  Pray, why do we not know their names?

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 01:23 | 3486864 Milestones
Milestones's picture

See my post above for a few answers.          Milestones

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 05:39 | 3487121 KashNCarry
KashNCarry's picture

I agree with you and I'll buy the worthless paper and the physical gold, but 3 to one physical gold.  Remember this from 2009?

Rep. Alan Grayson questioning Elizabeth Coleman about the Feds off book balance sheet activities...During the questioning of Coleman, Grayson asks her over and over if there is a formal accounting available for the trillions in off-book balance sheet activity for the Fed. He asks patiently, and he repeats the question many times. Coleman stutters, makes statements that are obviously evasive and finally all-but-admits that she actually has no authority even to examine the Fed's off-balance sheet activities. She admits this in a frazzled manner, but only after losing her way so badly that she has to ask Grayson to repeat the question (which he has already asked about ten times.)

What the scenario seems to shows us – and this has already been suggested by the then increasingly querulous appearances of Ben Bernanke – is that the huge monetary and organizational powers of the Fed are a thousand miles wide and an inch deep. True, the corporation can create tens of trillions of dollars out of thin air, but such power is not easily shared. Even the heads of large, money center banks are not necessarily part of the very small inner circle of the Fed. It is a group that seems to function almost on a need-to-know basis and its public resources (PR, etc.) are seemingly a great deal less massive than its monetary leverage.

Seems almost comical to think that anyone representing the US Fed would be made to appear in any court around the world...

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:11 | 3485809 chubbar
chubbar's picture

Might the Chinese be looking for a public case to exploit in order to segue into a gold back Yuan with popular support around the world?

Mon, 04/22/2013 - 19:17 | 3485828 hannah
hannah's picture

i think i am in at least 4 fucking class actions right banks sheetrock....damn near everything i have purchaed in the last 5 years is in a class action. i read on a bit and the lawyers get like $35mil...dont know if the reat of us get $1.50...!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!