Is the Federal Reserve a British Institution?
An Exploration into the Hidden Legal Origins of the Federal Reserve
Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing herein shall be construed as legal advice in any way. Consider the following as nothing more than one man’s (admittedly well-researched) opinion.
Americans today are drowning in unpayable debt and inflation, and yet we have no idea how or why this has happened. Mainstream academia generally refuses to entertain the idea that these conditions were deliberately created (likely by foreign powers, no less), but a thorough review of the situation warrants such a conclusion. You can neither protest nor positively change that which you can’t accurately describe.
With this in mind, let us come to understand how our money system works—and especially how the Federal Reserve fits into the picture.
For most Americans, the Federal Reserve is the “part of the government” that issues money. To a sizable minority of Americans, the Federal Reserve is known to be an imposter institution, masquerading as a legitimate federal bank when, in reality, it’s a private institution endowed with a monopoly on the creation of United States currency.
The latter group is correct: the Federal Reserve is essentially a glorified private credit issuer that creates credit out of thin air, and issues said credit as a loan to the world with interest. But there is much more to this story that begs to be discovered.
Yes, The Federal Reserve is a Private Corporation.
First thing’s first—before we get into the deep history of the Federal Reserve, let’s prove what we’ve said so far about it.
Is it a corporation? Undoubtedly, yes, it is. The Federal Reserve system consists of several Federal Reserve Banks. Point 4 in Section 4 of the Federal Reserve Act tells us that each one is to be regarded as a Body Corporate. That is to say, it’s not a branch of government in the sense that most think. The Federal Reserve Act does not describe the Federal Reserve as an organ of the Treasury (or even a department of the legislative or executive branches of government).
Federal case law further affirms that the Federal Reserve Banks aren’t the governmental entities that Americans believe they are:
“Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act), but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations… The Banks are neither listed as “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. 846 nor as “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. 856.” — Lewis v United States, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 680 F. 2d 1239 (1982)
So there you have it; federal case law and congressional records both attest that the Federal Reserve system is a corporate banking system, and we can no longer entertain skepticism regarding this fact. But still, this is a surface level detail that betrays a deeper problem at play in America’s financial and legal sectors, and it is that deeper problem that we want to understand.
How Did the Federal Reserve Come to Be? Laying the Groundwork.
Taken on its own, the Federal Reserve is a difficult phenomenon to explain. How indeed could the United States ever be tricked into giving private entities the power to issue the country’s currency? Does it not seem utterly bizarre for a government that can already issue its own money to do such a thing?
The Federal Reserve could have only been instituted against a backdrop of certain conditions. The road needed to be sufficiently paved for its arrival, both in the legal realm and in the mass psychological realm (because the deep structure of the human mind is implicated in the way societies and economies are structured. We will speak more on this point in a future article).
To understand where we’ve arrived at today, let’s start from the beginning: What was going on at the time when the United States declared independence?
During the 18th century, the American colonies were treated, more or less, like slave states by the Crown. The colonists were legally and economically disempowered by numerous statutes of Westminster (aka British Law) that gave egregiously unfair advantages to Crown agents, as well as wealthy Dutch merchants, in all manner of trade and commerce in America. These parties saw America as their own private cash-crop; the Dutch East India Company was responsible for the lion’s share of the slave trade (see Shadow Men, by Anthony Napoleon), and sought a monopoly in every conceivable sphere of economic activity.
Tellingly, it was the Dutch merchants who founded Wall Street in New Amsterdam—later to be renamed New York.
The British Crown and the Dutch merchants had fomented economic and “legal” suppression against the early colonists to such a degree that many colonists rightly saw it as necessary to declare independence forever or succumb to an impenetrable tyranny. The Declaration tells us in plain English that, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is [the people’s] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”
From the point of view of the Crown and the Dutch merchants, losing control of the colonies meant the loss of some of their most precious investments and real estate.
Imagine investing trillions of dollars’ worth of capital (in today’s money) into a new series of colonies, only for said colonies to declare independence, thus precluding any chance of seeing a return for said investment? In the eyes of the Crown and the Dutch merchants, the colonies only existed to enrich them, noble appeals to equality and freedom on the part of the citizenry be damned.
Did America Really Achieve Independence?
Mainstream history tells us that the Americans declared independence, and then a war was fought, and—lo and behold—the Americans won, and that was the end of that. This narrative turned out to be highly convenient to the Crown and the Dutch merchants, for it had served—and continues to serve today—as a pacifier, preventing the vast majority of people from recognizing the steady encroachments made against their rights by the very forces they had fought during the revolutionary war.
Regardless of what we have been told about the United States’ separation from Britain, many jurists and attorneys working in early America were trained by the Middle Temple of London, a prestigious “inn” of the Crown (meaning roughly, in today’s language, an institution that acts simultaneously as a law school as well as a source of original law). The “inns of court” in England—of which the Middle Temple was one of four—were responsible for creating much of what is recognized today as equity jurisprudence, including the formation of chancery courts.
To raise an example— the Delaware Court of Chancery tells us that the “general equity jurisdiction of the [Delaware] Court [of Chancery] is measured in terms of the general equity jurisdiction of the High Court of Chancery of Great Britain as it existed prior to the separation of the American colonies.”
In other words, British equity law, as it was practiced in the 18th century, was imported into Delaware, and operates there to this day. (As an interesting side note, Delaware was also the first state to ratify the constitution—hence its nickname, “the first state.”)
Shockingly, four out of five of the first Supreme Court Justices in the Union were trained at the Middle Temple in London. These men were Edward Tilghman, William Rawle, Jared Ingersoll, and Alexander J. Dallas. How odd is it that our very first Supreme Court proceedings were presided over by men trained in London, immediately after a war was fought to gain independence from England? Indeed, it stands to reason that the separation from England was never as “complete” as we’ve been told. (For more information regarding the presence of Middle Temple-trained jurists in the early United States, see History of the American Bar, by Charles Warren.)
Jefferson’s Writings Fill in the Blanks
At least as early as September 1, 1797, Thomas Jefferson was sounding the alarm that the British were coming back to take what they had lost. As he wrote to Colonel Arthur Campbell:
“It is true that a party has come up among us which is endeavoring to separate us from all friendly connection with France, to unite our destinies with those of Great Britain, and to assimilate our government to theirs. Our lenity in permitting the return of the old tories, gave the first body to this party; they have been increased by large importations of British merchants and factors, by American merchants dealing on British capital, and by stock dealers and banking companies, who by the aid of a paper system, are enriching themselves to the rule of our country and SWAYING THE GOVERNMENT BY THEIR POSSESSION OF THE PRINTING PRESSES AND other MEANS not always honorable to the character of our countrymen.”
Is this not the same situation Americans face today? Instead of being invaded by the British per se, we are infiltrated by communists and globalists (two subjects we will return to in future articles); but, in essence, the fight is the same:
Through the slow and steady infiltration of the press and of the legal and financial sectors, America’s enemies have sought to undermine her sovereignty and capture her institutions, and this is not a new phenomenon; it’s been going on seemingly since day 1.
The writings of Thomas Jefferson bear this out repeatedly. In a letter to William Johnson on June 6th, 1823, he wrote,
“…The original objects of the federalists were, 1st, to warp our government more to the form and principles of the monarchy, and 2nd, TO WEAKEN THE BARRIERS OF STATE GOVERNMENT AS COORDINATED POWERS. In the first they have been so completely foiled by the universal spirit of the nation, that they have abandoned the enterprise… and under the pseudo-republican mask, are now aiming at their second object, and strengthened by unsuspecting or apostate recruits from our ranks, are advancing fast towards an ascendency…”
Remarkable, isn’t it?
In their quest to weaken barriers of state government, the federalists of Jeffersons time bear a remarkable resemblance to the modern-day globalists, who also wish to do away with nation-state borders in favor of centralized power.
Today, those who oppose such schemes are usually denounced by the media as bigots, tribalists, nationalists (as if there’s anything wrong with loving one’s own nation), and so on and so forth.
During the 18th century, the press relied on the same essential bag of tricks, though the insults and stigmatized labels used today are very different from what they once were. For example, during Jefferson’s campaign for president, the opposition frequently smeared him as an atheist—which is rather funny considering that Jefferson directly referenced God in the Declaration of Independence as the true source of all inalienable rights.
The Emergence of a “Bastard System” of Laws
Hopefully, a picture is starting to emerge.
We started out by asking ourselves how the Federal Reserve could have been implemented in the first place. It is becoming evident that the answer to this question is to be found in a combination of legal and mass-psychological trickery.
On the one hand, the printing presses were weaponized to create division and confusion—the mass psychological aspect of the operation—and on the other hand, a steady implementation of certain legal structures—whose principal aims were to undermine state and individual sovereignty—were required before the capture of the American credit system by a private entity could be accomplished.
We refer again to Thomas Jefferson for clarity on this matter. On April 16th, 1804, he wrote the following to Gideon Granger:
“the federalists know… that they are gone forever. Their object, therefore, is to return to power under some other form. Undoubtedly, they have but one means, which is to divide the republicans, join the minority, and barter with them for the cloak of their name… The minority, having no other means of ruling the majority, will give a price for auxiliaries, and that price must by the principle. THUS A BASTARD SYSTEM OF FEDERO-REPUBLICANISM WILL RISE ON THE RUINS OF THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF THE REVOLUTION.”
In other words, the federalists (who wanted to reinstate the monarchy) could only do so by dividing and conquering the republicans (meaning: the republican party of his day), and then wearing the republican name as a sort of “skin suit” under which to introduce legal principles that make such a recapture possible.
Again, the parallels to today are striking. How often are our rights suppressed or taken from us by those who claim to be ‘patriots’ and ‘conservatives’? Recall that the PATRIOT ACT was passed by George W. Bush (not to be outdone by Bush, Obama signed even more of our rights away with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, but I digress).
Conclusions, For Now…
Our aim here is to understand not just what the Federal Reserve is and does but also how it came to become America’s central bank when it’s not even a government entity.
The “bastard system of federo-republicanism” predicted by Jefferson holds the key to our understanding. Through careful study of this “bastard system”, we will discover exactly how a privately owned corporation became the central bank of our nation (against the knowledge or wishes of the people).
In our next article on the legal history of the Federal Reserve, we will learn some of the essential features of this “bastard system”, and in the process discover that the situation America is in today is much worse than most believe—yet, at the same time, from a proper understanding of the true context of our laws we will become more equipped than ever to free ourselves from perpetual debt and inflation.
You can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel unless you first open your eyes.
We can have our country back—we can create a prosperous economy again—but to do this we must learn how we lost it in the first place. Ultimately, we must become competent at defending ourselves and implementing new systems that truly serve us. Indeed, according to the Declaration of Independence it is both our right and our duty to do just that.
Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.
If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of my work for free at American Hypnotist.