Talk:United States dollar/DollarLaw

message: 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, .
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Terminology clarification