Suing the FED for FRAUD - Is it Time?

Fri, Mar 11, 2016 - 7:30pm

Why this post?

From time to time it comes up that someone thinks that the FED has debased the currency, which is fraud and theft, and therefore thinks it is a good idea to lawyer-up and sue the FED or its mouthpieces such as Ben Bernanke, or Ole’ Yellen. The legal theories of recovery stretch from the mundane (fraud/theft) to the extremely creative (Qui Tam). So, what's the problem? They CAN be sued, right? Well, yes, technically, they CAN be sued. But ultimately, the lawsuits will be dismissed upon motion, which motion to dismiss will be granted, and whoever decided to sue will be stuck paying the costs of the ill-fated adventure into the hallowed marble edifices of the regime, known more commonly as United States Federal Court.

Any fraud or theft lawsuit against the FED have, and will, all share a common element: they ALL have zero chance of recovery, for many reasons, philosophically, practically, and more importantly, factually and legally. The only exception I am aware of is for a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which can, and has been successfully done. See here:

But, this is not a post about getting documents under a FOIA request from the FED.

This is a post about the propriety, or really, the absurdity, of suing the FED for harm that they ostensibly cause from their operations itself.

An attempt to sue the FED, or Bernanke, or Yellen, or any of the FED Governors, will be met with swift opposition, an order granting the dismissal motion, then certain consequences against the attorney who foolishly tries to embark on such a lawsuit (Rule 11 Sanctions, State Bar ethics complaint, etc.)

So, thinking about suing the FED? Is it a good idea?

The short answer is NO, not now, not ever.

Instead, do something productive. Focus on accumulating tangible resources and assets, shed liabilities and debts, prepare and help others.

There is a reason why attorneys are not filing these cases, at least here in the USA (one brave Chinese attorney is pioneering a case in China. I’ll take long odds against him that the case goes nowhere, but I won’t go so far as to say they execute the poor lawyer for having the temerity to sue! See here:;imode )

The short answer to the question why the FED cannot be successfully sued is simple. And, it is unlikely to change anytime soon, so move on to more productive things to think about.

The FED is an “instrumentality” of the Federal Government. It enjoys sovereign immunity. It, and its people, like Bernanke and Yellen are represented by the deepest pocket attorneys on the planet, the US Justice Department. U.S. Department of Justice represents the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in civil litigation: see, e.g., TCF National Bank v. Bernanke, 643 F.3d 1158 (8th Cir. 2011); McKinley v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 647 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Fox News Network, LLC v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 601 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010). They will certainly oppose any lawsuit, swiftly, and the Federal Judge will inevitably grant the motion to dismiss, ending the foolish lark. Don’t do it.

For proof, look no further than a recent case right out of the USA heartland in Missouri.

I point to this recent example, for definitive guidance, lest anyone think differently.

Example of An Ill-Fated Quest to Sue the FED

United States of America ex. rel. James Carter, Plaintiffs, vs. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, et al., Defendants, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Western Division, Case Number 4:12-cv-00129-HFS. It is available on Pacer, as is the docket sheet listing the proceedings.

The Complaint is filed under seal, as is required in a Qui Tam action. However, the motion to dismiss and order are right out there for the world to see.

In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff, a gentleman in Missouri, James Carter, filed suit against the FED for fraud. His theories are all set forth in detail, in many documents, and websites, scattered all over the internet, that basically argue the same thing.

The theories are unsound, and are factually and legally without merit.

Let’s take a look in detail at the lawsuit and aftermath.

From the federal court motion to dismiss, filed by Acting US Attorney David Ketchmark and Jeffrey P. Ray, Deputy US Attorney, from the Charles Evan Whittaker Courthouse, 400 E. 9th Street, Fifth Floor, Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 426-3130, //jeffrey[dot]ray[at]usdoj[dot]gov">jeffrey[dot]ray[at]usdoj[dot]gov :

“In his QUI TAM COMPLAINT, Carter alleges that the Federal Reserve systematically and
improperly obtains a “purloined profit” that is concealed from the federal government by the
Federal Reserve through “euphemistic smoke and mirrors.” QUI TAM COMPLAINT, Exhibit A.
Carter estimates that the total amount of funds concealed since 2006 is approximately $7 trillion.

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT’S FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2009 SCHEDULES OF FEDERAL DEBT, and other public documents. Indeed, the idea that the Federal Reserve is engaging in an ongoing “Ponzi scheme” and utilizes “creative accounting” so that “profit can easily be reclassified as expense,” has been advanced publicly by other theorists. See, e.g., C. EDWARD GRIFFIN, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND,
). And in actuality, Carter himself – in an
earlier publication1 of the document he attaches to and principally relies upon in the QUI TAM
COMPLAINT – has noted that, once the public records are examined, “the rest of the analysis is an inescapable mathematical progression.” JAMES CARTER, RIP-OFF BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE,”

There are many websites that have his and others’ theories, just go look. (With only very minor variations, Carter’s Exhibit A (“Rip-Off by the Federal Reserve”) has been previously published on numerous Internet web sites, including,,,,,,, and These are generally published under screen names such as “Olde Reb,” “Jim,” “Sartre,” “OldeReb1,” and “Liberty.” An example of one of these publications, dated January 10, 2011, was attached to the motion to dismiss).

The lawsuit was premised upon the theories Carter espoused on one of his lengthy web rants, such as “Rip-Off by the Federal Reserve (a mathematical analysis). See here: which takes you here: , or here: which perpetrates this information circulation that gives rise to these questions for which I am hoping to put to rest.

The US Justice Department attorneys responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint. They laid out the compelling case against the theories, all of them, and the court granted the motion dismissing the case.

From that case, one has all the answers one needs to the questions that typically arise about suing the FED, etc.

Since the case was from Missouri, in that spirit, let me “show you” and let me answer them all in the words of the US Justice Department attorneys, with official blessing by the Federal Judge’s Order dismissing the case.

Question: Can someone sue the FED for theft, fraud, debasement of the currency, etc.?

No. Not even under the extremely creative, but legally unsound theory of Qui Tam.

From the Order dismissing the case:

“James Carter filed this qui tam complaint on January 27, 2012. The essence of Carter’s
complaint is that the Federal Reserve is engaged in an ongoing accounting and financing scheme related to deficit spending and Carter seeks the return of “purloined profits” in excess of 7 trillion dollars. (Complaint ¶ 8 - 15). On March 30, 2012, the United States filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 4). The government argued that dismissal is appropriate because: (1) Carter’s allegations fall outside the scope of the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act; (2) the proposed defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity; and (3) this action cannot be maintained by a pro se litigant. . . . ORDERED that the government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court provide a copy of this order by regular and certified mail to James Carter at the following address: 33905 East State Route Two, Harrisonville, Missouri 64701.


/s/ Howard F. Sachs
Dated: May 1, 2013
Kansas City, Missouri”

Question: Was there any merit to any of the claims? No. The Qui Tam action was doomed as unsound factually and legally from the start.

The Qui Tam action failed for both factual and legal reasons. Factually, it was doomed because it was based on information previously publicly disclosed, and the plaintiff did not have independent knowledge. These are fatal factual flaws and easily defeated the case.

Legally it also failed because the federal government cannot sue itself, as such a lawsuit is what is referred to as a “non justiciable case or controversy.” Further, one MUST have an attorney to sue under Qui Tam, but Carter did not and his case was doomed under that theory because he had no attorney (“Carter has brought his qui tam action against the Federal Reserve as a pro se litigant.")

By its plain language, the FCA is silent on whether a private individual not utilizing the services of an attorney can bring a qui tam suit. Nonetheless, several federal courts, including the Eighth Circuit, have concluded that pro se litigants may not maintain a qui tam action under the FCA. See, e.g., Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008); Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-28 (9th Cir. 2007); United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773, 775-76 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6-7 (8th Cir. 1951).”). No competent attorney will ever take such a case, as to do so would guarantee some sort of disbarment action.

Question: Can a Qui Tam case EVER succeed against the FED? NO. Qui Tam fails against the FED because the US Govt cannot sue itself for fraud.

Qui tam is short for the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.” The phrase dates from at least the time of Blackstone. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769 n.1,
120 S.Ct. 1858, 1860 n.1 (2000)

From the motion to dismiss: “The False Claims Act (“FCA”) establishes a unique form of litigation through the qui tam mechanism. The qui tam provisions of the FCA provide a special means for the United States to recover damages suffered as a result of fraud or false claims, through the assistance of private parties (“relators”) who file suit “for the person and for the United States Government.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b). Under this statute, the relator initially files a complaint under seal and serves it and a statement of evidence on the United States. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(1), (2). The United States thereafter has 60 days (and any extensions granted by the district court) to investigate the allegations and elect whether or not to intervene in the litigation. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(2), (3). The Act provides for trebling of the damages the Government has sustained, and civil penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 for each false claim submitted. 31 U.S.C. 3729(a); 64 Fed. Reg. 47,099, 47,104 (1999). Damages are liberally calculated to make certain that they “afford the government complete indemnity for the injuries done it.” United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 549, 63 S.Ct. 379, 387 (1943).”

It is well established that a qui tam suit against a federal agency or employee presents no justiciable case or controversy, as required by the United States Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. III. See also Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 955 n.4, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 2845 n.4 (1984) (Article III’s case or controversy requirement is jurisdictional).

In any qui tam action, the United States is the real party in interest. Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, in a qui tam action naming federal agencies and officials as defendants, a relator is essentially suing the United States in the name of the United States. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105 (1985) (a suit against a federal officer acting in an official capacity is a suit against the United States); Daly v. Department of Energy, 741 F. Supp. 202, 204 (D. Colo. 1990) (a suit against a federal agency constitutes a suit against the United States). Inasmuch as such a suit is tantamount to a suit by the United States against the United States, it presents no justiciable case or controversy. [C]ourts only adjudicate justiciable controversies. They do not engage in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves. United States v. I.C.C, 337 U.S. 426, 430, 337 S.Ct. 1410, 1413 (1949).

Question: Is the FED is a government instrumentality and part of the federal government? Yes.

The Federal Reserve is a unique instrumentality of the federal government, and is a part of the federal government such that a qui tam action against the Federal Reserve is a case by the United States against the United States and, thus, presents no justiciable case or controversy.

From the motion to dismiss:

“The Federal Reserve is an instrumentality of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act established the federal reserve banks as part of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. 12 U.S.C. §§ 221, et seq. The preamble to the Federal Reserve Act states that its purpose is to “provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.” FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 (1913). The system consists of twelve federal reserve banks and a Board of Governors. Members of the Board are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. 12 U.S.C. § 241. The Board oversees the federal reserve banks and has additional enumerated powers to control the operations of the banks. 12 U.S.C. § 248.

In First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 103 S.Ct. 2591 (1983), the Supreme Court generally defined a government instrumentality:
A typical government instrumentality . . . is created by an enabling statute that prescribes the powers and duties of the instrumentality, and specifies that it is to be managed by a board selected by the government in a manner consistent with the enabling law. Id. at 624, 103 S.Ct. at 2599. The Federal Reserve conforms to the general description of government instrumentalities as enunciated in First National City Bank. It was established directly by Congressional legislation for the public purpose of increased control of the nation’s currency and banking system. Although it consists of partially-independently-owned corporations, it nonetheless exists only by virtue of the enabling statute and possesses only the powers granted by the legislation. Moreover, the individual banks are supervised by an entity that bears the hallmarks of a federal agency, in that the Board of Governors is subject to more direct political control via the Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of its members.

Consequently, it is unsurprising that the Eighth Circuit has unequivocally held: In light of the important governmental functions performed by the federal reserve banks and the United States Supreme Court's willingness to hold that financial institutions performing even fewer governmental functions are federal instrumentalities, we hold that the federal reserve banks are instrumentalities of the federal government. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Imp. Dist. No. 1, City of Little Rock, 657 F.2d 183, 186 (8th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added) (also noting that the “holding is consistent with other circuits that have faced this question.”).

Question: Is the Federal Reserve is protected by sovereign immunity. Yes. As such, even if the lawsuit is filed, it will be dismissed upon motion as the FED enjoys sovereign immunity which means it cannot be sued absent some strict statute that so allows, like, e.g., the FOIA.

The Federal Reserve enjoys the status of a non-appropriated fund instrumentality (“NAFI”) that receives no funding through congressional appropriations. Albrecht v. Committee on Employee Benefits of Federal Reserve Employee Benefits, 357 F.3d 62, 67 (D.C. App. 2004); Texas State Bank v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 815, 818 (2004). See also United States v. Hopkins, 427 U.S. 123, 125 n.2, 96 S.Ct. 2508, 2510 n.2 (1976). Although the Supreme Court has never expressly held that a NAFI, as an instrumentality of the United States government, necessarily enjoys sovereign immunity, it has established that where NAFIs are “arms of the government deemed by it essential for the performance of governmental functions” and “share in fulfilling the duties entrusted to [the federal government],” they “partake of whatever immunities it may have under the [C]onstitution and federal statutes.” Standard Oil Co. of California v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 485, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 1170 (1942). At least one court has noted that “[f]ederal agencies or instrumentalities performing federal functions always fall on the ‘sovereign’ side of [the] fault line; that is why they possess immunity that requires waiver.” Auction Co. of America v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 746, 752 (D.C. Cir.1997) (emphasis in original).

Based on these legal principles, lower federal courts repeatedly have concluded that the Federal Reserve enjoys sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Albrecht, 357 F.3d at 67 (“we have no doubt that the Board of Governors enjoys sovereign immunity”); Research Triangle Institute v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve System, 132 F.3d 985, 987-88 (4th Cir.1997). See also Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation, 499 F.2d 60, 62 (1st Cir. 1974) (“[F]ederal reserve banks . . . are plainly and predominantly fiscal arms of the federal government [and t]heir interests seem indistinguishable from those of the sovereign.”). As concluded by the Albrecht court: An integral part of the federal government, the Board conducts monetary policy, regulates banking institutions, and maintains the stability of the nation’s financial system. . . . Therefore, at least with regard to the existence of sovereign immunity, [the plaintiffs’] claim against the Board is little different from a claim against the United States. Albrecht, 357 F.3d at 67 (emphasis added).


Qui Tam = certain dismissal.

FED = govt instrumentality, sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity = motion to dismiss GRANTED.


Suing fed = waste of time.


Reading TFMR = excellent use of time.

Prepare accordingly.

About the Author


Mar 11, 2016 - 7:42pm



Mar 11, 2016 - 7:50pm

I'll try for 2nd

Did I get it?

Nope, Turd, but I made room for Marchas.

Mr. Fix
Mar 11, 2016 - 8:46pm

Can I help?

Finding a judge that hasn't already been bought and paid for is the real problem.

But in principle, I love the idea.

Dear California Lawyer,

For the past couple of months, I have been studying law. I stand accused of offenses that never occurred, and initially, thought it was rather laughable. I have since become dreadfully aware of the seriousness of the situation, as the United States is essentially lawless, and since my accuser happens to be a law-enforcement officer, creating a defense against a corrupt system is time-consuming, expensive, and probably a futile effort.

My own moral code dictates that I give it my best shot.

Proving that a government entity is guilty of fraud, in a government court, requires somebody, somewhere to have a degree of integrity, and as of yet, I find no evidence of that whatsoever.

I don't really think that anything can be fixed within our current system, the powers that be are well insulated from any legal challenge.

A systemic collapse can't come soon enough for me.

And then, maybe, just maybe, an honest system can replace it.

By the way, I can't find a lawyer willing to take on a corrupt establishment. You might be the only one that I've ever heard of even thinking about it.

How are you different?

You appear to have a moral backbone that most lawyers seem to be strangely devoid of.

Since my only viable strategy is to take on a corrupt system, a system that lawyers seem to have sworn an oath to uphold, and protect, it would appear that I am going to have to argue this case myself.

I've still got a lot to learn, but what I have found so far is appalling. Hopefully, I can get past my dismay, overcome my fears, and learn to approach this with some confidence.

Taking on the Fed, as you have described it, has many parallels.

Thank you for your efforts here. Being aware of the nature of our challenge is the first step.

What to do about it, is a work in progress. I find this article timely, and useful.

The very existence of the Fed appears to be in blatant contradiction to the United States Constitution.

I have recently learned that the United States Constitution is not the law of the land, only cases that have interpreted the constitution can be used as law. Many people are screaming "End the Fed", and yet, I don't even see a legal mechanism that makes that remotely possible, short of a serious rebellion.

What do you think?

I have been filing my own freedom of information requests for the past couple of months, and I'm amazed at the excuses they can come up with for not complying. I filed five more of them today, and was putting together discovery motions as I noticed this article was posted.

Too much legalese makes my brain feel like it's oozing out of my ears.

I've never been interested in this crap, not until it was thrown in my face. Our legal system is convoluted way beyond the point of absurdity. The system is designed to protect fraudsters, and government extortion rackets at every level. I wish more people understood this basic fact.

Is there anyone that can be sued for a fraud being misrepresented as law?

It might save some time.

Mar 11, 2016 - 9:45pm
Fred Hayek
Mar 11, 2016 - 10:39pm

Mr. Fix is right. It's not just the argument but who hears it

But how is the Fed an NAFI when there's nothing about the Fed that's essential to the functioning of the U.S. gov't as the gov't plainly functioned without it before the Fed was created?

But, yes, I think that one could do more, at this point, by filing FOIA requests asking for information from this "instrumentality" and letting the world see parts of its mendacity.

Mar 11, 2016 - 11:01pm

This is the part that gets me...

"...partially-independently-owned corporations..."

WTF does that mean? Does anyone know? Cal?

My guess, in essence: We (the partially-independent-owners) get to print money, decide what to do with it, and get paid for our troubles, and if you don't like it, go talk to my big brother (you see, we are partially-dependent on him, so long as we keep giving him money and you the people are responsible for paying it back, plus interest), and he'll tell you to either fo, or he'll btlsooy*, got it? Good!

*beat the living snot out of you

We're screwed (and have been for some time now, like, over a century and counting)

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

-Woodrow Wilson

Mar 11, 2016 - 11:42pm

Sage Advice

"Instead, do something productive. Focus on accumulating tangible resources and assets, shed liabilities and debts, prepare and help others."

Here, f'ing, Here!!!

Mar 12, 2016 - 7:31am

How do you choose a judge?

You get all the attorneys together and pick the ones with the lowest IQ's...

Mar 12, 2016 - 10:32am


Thanks Cal,

You are continuing my legal education here at TFMR.

Could fed governors or the Chair be sued or tried for lying to, or misleading Congress? Or is their public discourse so ambiguous that you simply cannot pin a false statement on them? I know it would not end the FED, but we might get some satisfaction to see these public figures have their careers ruined.

Nah... scratch all that. It'll never happen.

I am waiting for a legitimate activist or political group that has a chance to really change things. I'll join and support that kind of organization. Message me privately if any of you are a member, or know of one. That kind of organization might have a chance to emerge as a legitimate power after the financial side of this thing collapses.

Mar 12, 2016 - 11:08am

Dr. Jerome

Here is a simple thought, in explanation to your post.

I am a firm believer that eventually sound money will arise, as the fiat model is rejected. When that occurs, the circumstances of how it occurs, etc., are all unknown.

What is absolutely certain, though, in my mind, is that eventually, commerce will occur with exchange of value, that is, NOT with fiat nothingness conjured up from a central authority.

The regular folks will resume their ways using tried and true exchange mechanisms, and I firmly believe that gold and silver will play a big role.

Remember, we always end up with some entity collecting and storing the actual specie, in exchange for the convenience of circulating paper, or claim tickets, or what will soon be electronic claim tickets whether through Bitcoin, or something similar.

That eventual occurrence is guaranteed, as well, as that ALWAYS happens.

The key in my mind, is to follow the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Whoever in the time of chaos has gold, silver, means of protection and a likeminded network of associates, will absolutely be in the discussion group regarding how the new system of exchange evolves.

All I know is that I want to be in that group, and NOT in the group of banksters who will be hunted and eventually held to account for their Keynesian religious nonsense that lead to this CERTAIN eventuality.

Key Economic Events Week of 2/17

2/18 8:30 ET Empire St Manu Idx
2/19 8:30 ET Producer Price Idx
2/19 8:30 ET Housing Starts & Bldg Perms
2/19 2:00 ET January FOMC minutes
2/20 8:30 ET Philly Fed
2/21 Fed Goons all day at Chicago Conf.
2/21 9:45 ET Markit flash Feb PMIs

Subscribe or login to read all comments.


Donate Shop

Get Your Subscriber Benefits

Private iTunes feed for all TF Metals Report podcasts, and access to Vault member forum discussions!

Key Economic Events Week of 2/17

2/18 8:30 ET Empire St Manu Idx
2/19 8:30 ET Producer Price Idx
2/19 8:30 ET Housing Starts & Bldg Perms
2/19 2:00 ET January FOMC minutes
2/20 8:30 ET Philly Fed
2/21 Fed Goons all day at Chicago Conf.
2/21 9:45 ET Markit flash Feb PMIs

Key Economic Events Week of 2/10

2/11 10:00 ET Job Openings
2/11 10:00 ET CGP Hump-Hawk House
2/12 10:00 ET CGP Hump-Hawk Senate
2/13 8:30 ET CPI
2/14 8:30 ET Retail Sales
2/14 9:15 ET Cap Ute & Ind Prod
2/14 10:00 ET Business Inventories

Key Economic Events Week of 2/3

2/4 10:00 ET Factory Orders
2/5 8:15 ET ADP Employment
2/5 9:45 ET Markit Service PMI
2/5 10:00 ET ISM Service PMI
2/6 8:30 ET Productivity & Unit Labor Costs
2/7 8:30 ET BLSBS
2/7 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories

Key Economic Events Week of 1/27

1/28 8:30 ET Durable Goods
1/28 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
1/29 10:00 ET Pending Home Sales
1/29 2:00 pm ET FOMC Fedlines
1/29 2:30 pm ET Powell presser
1/30 8:30 ET Q4 GDP first guess
1/31 8:30 ET Pers Inc and Spending
1/31 9:45 ET Chicago PMI
2/2 10:00 pm ET Chiefs win SB LIV

Key Economic Events Week of 1/13

1/14 8:30 ET CPI
1/14 9:00 ET Goon Williams
1/15 8:30 ET PPI and Empire Fed
1/16 8:30 ET Retail Sales and Philly Fed
1/17 8:30 ET Housing Starts
1/17 9:15 Et Cap Ute and Ind Prod

Key Economic Events Week of 1/6

1/7 8:30 ET US trade deficit
1/7 10:00 ET ISM Services PMI
1/7 10:00 ET Factory Orders
1/8 8:15 ET ADP employment
1/9 8:00 ET Goon Chlamydia speech
1/9 1:20 ET Goon Evans 2:00 ET Goon Bullard
1/10 8:30 ET BLSBS
1/10 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories

Key Economic Events Week of 12/16

12/16 8:30 ET Empire State Manu Idx
12/16 9:45 ET Markit flash PMIs Dec
12/17 8:30 ET Housing Starts and Bldg Perms
12/17 9:15 ET Cap Ute and Ind Prod
12/19 8:30 ET Philly Fed
12/20 8:30 ET Final guess Q3 GDP
12/20 10:00 ET Pers Inc and Spending
12/20 10:00 ET Core Inflation

Key Economic Events Week of 12/9

12/10 8:30 ET Productivity and Unit Labor Costs
12/11 8:30 ET CPI
12/11 2:00 pm ET FOMC fedlines
12/11 2:30 pm ET CGP presser
12/12 8:30 ET PPI
12/13 8:30 ET Retail Sales
12/13 10:00 ET Business Inventories
12/13 11:00 ET Goon Williams speech

Key Economic Events Week of 12/2

12/2 9:45 ET Markit Manu PMI
12/2 10:00 ET ISM Manu PMI
12/2 10:00 ET Construction Spending
12/4 9:45 ET Markit Services PMI
12/4 10:00 ET ISM Services PMI
12/5 8:30 ET Trade Deficit
12/5 10:00 ET Factory Orders
12/6 8:30 ET BLSBS
12/6 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories

Key Economic Events Week of 11/25

11/25 8:30 ET Chicago Fed Nat'l Idx
11/25 7:00 pm ET CGP speech
11/26 8:30 ET Advance Trade
11/26 9:00 ET Case-Shiller home prices
11/26 10:00 ET New home sales
11/26 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
11/27 8:30 ET Q3 GDP 2nd guess
11/27 8:30 ET Durable Goods
11/27 9:45 ET Chicago PMI
11/27 10:00 ET Pers Inc & Cons Spndg
11/27 10:00 ET Core inflation
11/27 2:00 pm ET Beige Book

Forum Discussion

by Trail Trekker, 6 hours 26 min ago
by allenb, Feb 22, 2020 - 10:54pm
by sierra skier, Feb 22, 2020 - 8:48pm
by NW VIEW, Feb 22, 2020 - 6:51pm
by sierra skier, Feb 22, 2020 - 6:33pm