Suing the FED for FRAUD - Is it Time?

30
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pittman

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: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=183887.0;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.
As support for his conclusions, Carter relies on the 2009 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, the SEPTEMBER 2009 TREASURY BULLETIN, the CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO THE 2010 FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, the GAO FINANCIAL AUDIT:

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, www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/
Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/federal_reserve.htm
). 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, www.freepatriot-press.com/2011/06/rip-off-by-federal-reserve.html.”

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 EndoftheUSA.com, Scribd.com, RTR.org, TheMarketOracle.co.uk, RonPaulForums.com, TheDebtWeOwe.com, NolanChart.com, and ConspiracyArchive.com. 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: https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/077314-2010-10-20-rip-off-by-the-fe... which takes you here: https://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle592-20101017-05.html , or here: https://ppjg.me/tag/federal-reserve-swindle/ 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.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Howard F. Sachs
HOWARD F. SACHS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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).

Conclusion

Qui Tam = certain dismissal.

FED = govt instrumentality, sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity = motion to dismiss GRANTED.

Thus,

Suing fed = waste of time.

However:

Reading TFMR = excellent use of time.

Prepare accordingly.

About the Author

  30 Comments

  Refresh
James Crightonnovember4
Mar 15, 2016 - 2:08am

November4 - Bernie and The Fed

Well, November 4, you clearly were not aware that Bernie Saunders voted against auditing The Fed. Any person who voted thus (i.e. against auditing The Fed) is either a profound fool or dishonest.

jc

november4Fred Hayek
Mar 14, 2016 - 7:23pm

fred hayek

As a matter record, according to the NY Times this morning, Bernie "shared (Ron Paul's) zeal for monitoring the Federal Reserve."

Fred Hayek
Mar 14, 2016 - 6:35pm

Bernie voted against Ron Paul's audit bill

Before you go thinking that Bernie's really against the Fed, ask why he would vote against Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed if he was. Socialism absolutely requires fiat currency.

november4Doctor J
Mar 14, 2016 - 3:22pm

falsification?

Vote for Bernie. He's the only present candidate with a demonstrated record of opposing the FRS.

BarnacleBill
Mar 13, 2016 - 2:56pm

@Dingo

Should such a case be won, the penalty would be all of the physical gold held in JPM's account. Haha!

Dingo
Mar 13, 2016 - 11:22am

A hypothetical win??

Since we're imagining the machinations of suing the makers of imaginary money - I thought it would be fun to imagine winning a law suit against them. Would the judge be forced to make the Fed pay out in real or imaginary money. Receiving imaginary fiat that the Fed can just conjure into existence is somewhat self defeating. Alternatively, receiving the winnings in gold is essentially receiving stolen goods. I don't really know where I'm going with this, however, Geoffrey Robertson QC used to host an entertaining legal hypothetical TV show. I'm sure that this hypothetical case would have provided excellent material for entertaining the audience. Furthermore digressing - I might just watch a YouTube show of his to refresh my memory of it.

Thanks Cal - I enjoyed your post and definitely wouldn't enjoy you being an adversary in a court room - yikes.

lakedweller2
Mar 13, 2016 - 10:39am

Sorry

Above typed on phone.

lakedweller2
Mar 13, 2016 - 10:14am

Federal Remedies

Organizations within the Executive Branch such as the CFTC, SEC, FBI,The Justice department were established to monitor and control behavior within Federal Agencies. Just as your local DA pursues criminal actions within your county, The US Attorney General, your state AG are the lead police officers at the state and federal level.

At the Federal Level the SEC regulates "Civil" actions concerning the markets. If they encounter "criminal" act, they have a duty to forward those cases for criminal investigation to an agency like the FBI or Justice. Failing to forward such cases of merit or selectively forwarding cases is a criminal act in and of itself. Justice failing to investigate, act on, or selectively act on cases of a criminal nature can be a criminal a t itself.

The problem becomes when the President appoints and then directs the leadership of the various Regulatory agencies to stand down and not pursue criminal activities of a class of people or for specific institutional activities. That is a criminal act but the Agencies designed to Regulate work for the President.

Congress could in investigate themselves and direct action by the Administrative Branch, or they could do Impeachment hearings and expose criminal activity that was done in Watergate eventually resulting in the President stepping down and key White House Staff going to prison. But, it appears Congress has elected to go down the Criminal Road also, thereby negating the checks and balances, Fed regulation, Fed statutes, Agency Directives including those that are extensively written on the duties, responsibilities of those engaged and entrusted performing duties as "Prosecutors"

intentionally and negligently performing your duties as an elected or appointed official is clearly defined.

However the highest levels of leadership have chosen to criminally perform their duties of public office and the Rest of the Criminals work for those leaders and chose to maintain their criminal support of their bosses rather than destroy their carreers.

Visit the FAQ page to learn how to track your last read comment, add images, embed videos, tweets, and animated gifs, and more.

Lemming
Mar 13, 2016 - 6:47am

There Is No Government Or Law

Several years ago a group that I was affiliated with discovered that, at minimum, there are 13 states which have no legally installed elected officials. In each state we reviewed, the state constitution requires that elected officials take an oath of office and produce a bond before they may legally assume their elected office. The revocation of bond is the only constitutional means other than impeachment by which an elected official can be ejected from office for malfeasance prior to expiration of their term.

In our state we discovered a case from 1938 in which a fellow who was elected county sheriff didn't have the funds or assets necessary to acquire the bond. In this case the prior incumbent remained in office.

The state constitution also requires the secretary of state to keep a ledger as to who has posted bond, for what period, and ascertain whether the bond is for the proper amount. We were able to obtain a signed document from the then current secretary stating that she has not maintained that ledger, nor has any secretary since 1968!

The state has simply substituted a blanket liability bond, funded of course, by the taxpayers which covers all elected state officials. This of course, removes the ability of the taxpayers to eject individual criminals which may hold state office.

Since there have been no legally installed officers in our state since 1968, there has been no one legally in office to certify the vote for the last 48 years. Therefore none of the federal officials are legally in office.

Our lawsuit was of course dismissed by the (vacant) federal district court and remanded to the (vacant) state courts which as described above have no legally installed judges.

Catch 22 as usual. Your friends still don't understand that we live in "The Matrix?"

Fred Hayek
Mar 12, 2016 - 9:45pm

Cali . . thank you very much, but . . .

I wasn't thinking there was any remedy whereby any sort of penalty would be applied to any federal agency. What I was thinking, from the explanation of a writ that I once got, is that you would file asking for a writ to be issued by which a judge would force an agency, be it the border patrol or SEC or CFTC or whoever to do their job.

Look judge, here's what they're doing -- long and detailed citation of actions and/or omissions by a Federal agency including testimony of employees. Here's what they're supposed to do -- citation of law. We request that you issue a writ compelling the CFTC to do its job. Something like that.

I agree with you, in general, that change will not come from within the system. What sort of surprises me is that those who do seek to change it from within never try this particular remedy. The person who told me of it made it sound like the reason was simply that it was out of favor, old fashioned, simply wasn't used, not that it shouldn't have some useful application.

Subscribe or login to read all comments.

Contribute

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 10/19

10/19 11:45 ET Goon Chlamydia
10/20 8:30 ET Housing Starts
10/20 1:00 pm ET Goon Evans
10/21 10:00 ET Goon Mester
10/21 2:00 pm ET Fed Beige Book
10/22 8:30 ET Initial Jobless Claims
10/23 9:45 ET Markit Oct flash PMIs

Key Economic Events Week of 10/12

10/13 8:30 ET CPI and Core CPI
10/14 8:30 ET PPI
10/14 9:00 ET Goon Chlamydia
10/15 8:30 ET Philly Fed
10/15 8:30 ET Empire State Idx
10/15 8:30 ET Import Price Idx
10/16 8:30 ET Retail Sales
10/16 9:15 ET Cap Ute & Ind Prod
10/16 10:00 ET Business Inv

Key Economic Events Week of 10/5

10/5 9:45 ET Markit Svc PMI
10/5 10:00 ET ISM Svc PMI
10/5 10:45 ET Goon Evans
10/6 8:30 ET Trade Deficit
10/6 10:00 ET JOLTS job openings
10/6 10:45 ET Chief Goon Powell
10/7 2:00 ET Sept FOMC minutes
10/7 3:00 ET Goon Williams
10/8 8:30 ET Initial jobless claims
10/9 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories
10/9 12:10 ET Goon Rosengren

Key Economic Events Week of 9/28

9/29 8:30 ET Advance trade in goods
9/29 9:00 ET Case-Shiller home prices
9/29 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
9/30 8:15 ET ADP employment report
9/30 9:45 ET Chicago PMI
10/1 8:30 ET Personal Income and Spending
10/1 8:30 ET Core Inflation
10/1 9:45 ET Markit Manu PMI
10/1 10:00 ET ISM Manu PMI
10/2 8:30 ET BLSBS
10/2 10:00 ET Factory Orders

Key Economic Events Week of 9/21

9/21 8:00 ET Goon Kaplan
9/21 10:00 ET Goon Evans
9/21 Noon ET Goon Brainard
9/21 6:00 pm ET Goon Williams & Goon Bostic
9/22 10:30 ET Chief Goon Powell on Capitol Hill
9/22 Noon ET Goon Barkin
9/22 3:00 pm ET Goon Bostic again
9/23 9:00 ET Goon Mester
9/23 9:45 ET Markit flash PMIs for September
9/23 10:00 ET Chief Goon Powell on Capitol Hill
9/23 11:00 ET Goon Evans again
9/23 Noon ET Goon Rosengren
9/24 1:00 pm ET Goon Bostic #3
9/24 2:00 pm ET Goon Quarles
9/24 10:00 ET Chief Goon Powell on Capitol Hill
9/24 Noon ET Goon Bullard
9/24 1:00 pm ET Goon Barkin again & Goon Evans #3
9/24 2:00 pm ET Goon Bostic #4
9/25 8:30 ET Durable Goods
9/25 11:00 ET Goon Evans #4
9/25 3:00 pm ET Goon Williams again

Key Economic Events Week of 9/14

9/15 8:30 ET Empire State and Import Price Idx
9/15 9:15 ET Cap Ute and Ind Prod
9/16 8:30 ET Retail Sales
9/16 10:00 ET Business Inventories
9/16 2:00 ET FOMC Fedlines
9/16 2:30 ET Powell Presser
9/17 8:30 ET Philly Fed
9/18 8:30 ET Current Acct Deficit

Key Economic Events Week of 9/7

9/9 10:00 ET JOLTS job openings
9/10 8:30 ET Initial jobless claims
9/10 8:30 ET PPI
9/10 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories
9/11 8:30 ET CPI
9/11 9:45 ET Core CPI

Key Economic Events Week of 8/31

9/1 9:45 ET Markit Manu Index
9/1 10:00 ET ISM Manu Index
9/1 10:00 ET Construction Spending
9/2 8:15 ET ADP employment
9/2 10:00 ET Goon Williams
9/2 10:00 ET Factory Orders
9/3 8:30 ET Initial jobless claims
9/3 8:30 ET Trade Deficit
9/3 12:30 ET Goon Evans
9/4 8:30 ET BLSBS

Key Economic Events Week of 8/24

8/24 8:30 ET Chicago Fed Idx
8/25 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
8/26 8:30 ET Durable Goods
8/27 8:30 ET Q2 GDP 2nd guess
8/27 9:10 ET Chief Goon Powell Jackson Hole
8/28 8:30 ET Pers Inc and Consumer Spend
8/28 8:30 ET Core Inflation
8/28 9:45 ET Chicago PMI

Key Economic Events Week of 8/17

8/17 8:30 ET Empire State Manu Idx
8/17 Noon ET Goon Bostic
8/18 8:30 ET Housing Starts
8/19 2:00 pm ET July FOMC minutes
8/20 8:30 ET Jobless claims
8/20 8:30 ET Philly Fed
8/20 10:00 ET LEIII
8/21 9:45 ET Markit flash PMIs July

Recent Comments

by mack, 22 min 13 sec ago
by TheYeomanFarmer, 35 min 11 sec ago
by Turd Ferguson, 2 hours 5 min ago
by pc, 2 hours 12 min ago

Forum Discussion