Initiate Change

[Brentastic]

FYI

I'm reading this book now, btw and it's everything I expected - which is more evidence that the system is a sham. What's interesting also is that it explains how the international bankers persuaded laws to favor them even during times when there was no central bank. It's a bit of a tough read but you should check it out, weigie. I'll send you my copy when I'm done if you like.

[Brentastic]

Here's further factual, court-documented evidence that the Fed is a privately owned agency. Of course, in some instances the Fed is considered a federal agency. "When?" You might ask. When they are exempt from paying taxes, like paragraph 16 in the below document. Anyways, if you care, read this and tell me what you think.

 

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appell...80/1239/200393/

 

680 F.2d 1239: John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/appellee

Share | United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 680 F.2d 1239

Submitted March 2, 1982.Decided April 19, 1982.As Amended June 24, 1982

Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

 

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

 

Before POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.*

 

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

 

¶1

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

¶2

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976). Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(, 2671. "Federal agency" is defined as:

¶3

the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States.

 

¶4

28 U.S.C. § 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under § 2671.

¶5

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973). Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation, Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F.Supp. 955 (W.D.Okla.1962), aff'd per curiam, 326 F.2d 971 (10th Cir. 1963), whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961), Freeling v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 221 F.Supp. 955, and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d at 345. 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, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

¶6

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.

¶7

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

¶8

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

¶9

It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

 

¶10

H.R. Report No. 69, 63 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

¶11

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

¶12

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

¶13

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961) (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of the Act in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)

¶14

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

¶15

The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962), reprinted in (1962) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a). The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

¶16

The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S.Ct. 1, 5, 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 450, 62 L.Ed.2d 376 (1979). The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

¶17

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956). State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 294 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S.Ct. 705, 708, 79 L.Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), United States v. Logue, 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973).

¶18

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

¶19

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

¶20

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

¶21

AFFIRMED.

[Brentastic]

Anyone notice who is taking over in Greece and Italy? Yep, bankers!

 

Read the bios of these newly elected officials.

 

Lucas Papademos - New PM of Greece

Mario Monti - New PM of Italy

Mario Draghi - New President of the European Central Bank

[wiegie]

Anyone notice who is taking over in Greece and Italy? Yep, economists!

 

smart move for once

[Ursa Majoris]

Anyone notice who is taking over in Greece and Italy? Yep, bankers!

 

Read the bios of these newly elected officials.

 

Lucas Papademos - New PM of Greece

Mario Monti - New PM of Italy

Mario Draghi - New President of the European Central Bank

The whole point is to focus entirely on rescuing the economies and do it outside of politics. I see this as a very healthy step to take.

[Brentastic]

The whole point is to focus entirely on rescuing the economies and do it outside of politics. I see this as a very healthy step to take.

You are joking, right? I thought you turned the corner. Recently, you appear to see the harm done by bankers. Please tell me you're kidding.

[SheikYerbuti]

You are joking, right? I thought you turned the corner. Recently, you appear to see the harm done by bankers. Please tell me you're kidding.

 

Do you suggest that professional politicians are better qualified to negotiate the near term financial problems of these nations? If not, what profession do you think is best suited to lead Greece and Italy under current conditions?

 

ETA: not here. . .asking an honest question.

Edited November 16, 2011 by SheikYerbuti

[Avernus]

Do you suggest that professional politicians are better qualified to negotiate the near term financial problems of these nations? If not, what profession do you think is best suited to lead Greece and Italy under current conditions?

 

ETA: not here. . .asking an honest question.

 

it's not about profession, imo it's about someone who does or does not have a conflict of interest....if bankers are part the problem (which they are...not an opinion) why put one in place to "fix" the problem?

 

I don't think anyone here can tell you who would be a better choice without meeting the options personally....but I can sure as hell tell you that a banker is not the answer to correct the situation.....

 

not to mention that my bullchit detectors go off when bankers take over as the new PM in Italy and Greece....I'd like to see what happens in Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Spain.....or what has happened recently as I've been out of the loop...

[Brentastic]

it's not about profession, imo it's about someone who does or does not have a conflict of interest....if bankers are part the problem (which they are...not an opinion) why put one in place to "fix" the problem?

 

I don't think anyone here can tell you who would be a better choice without meeting the options personally....but I can sure as hell tell you that a banker is not the answer to correct the situation.....

 

not to mention that my bullchit detectors go off when bankers take over as the new PM in Italy and Greece....I'd like to see what happens in Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Spain.....or what has happened recently as I've been out of the loop...

^^^^^ This is the correct answer.

 

Like Avernus mentioned, the bankers ARE the root of the entire financial mess in the world. Big investment banks like GS get a lot of the negative pub and rightfully so as they have abused the system - but it's the central banks and the fractional reserve system that is the root cause of it all.

 

The real solution is to start over but nobody wants to hear that because it's too big a change. However, if we don't start over, we the people will soon be slaves of the new one world government that is fast approaching. People don't want to believe that but it's more obvious now than ever before. If people remain third eye blind to this situation we're all frucked.

[SheikYerbuti]

You guys should be happy to hear Monti is not only PM of Italy, he's named himself Minister of Finance, too.

[Brentastic]

David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission:

 

The Commission was founded in 1973 by the infamous banker and power-broker David Rockefeller. "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will,” Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 autobiography. “If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

 

There are plenty more quotes out there from several powerful people. The New World Order is real and they aren't even hiding it because they know people know. Their best move is to play dumb with answers like "yeah, of course that's what we're doing. It's going to be great for everyone".

[Duchess Jack]

"Some even believe ....If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

 

This is not the type of language people use when admitting to something. Its kind of like saying, some folk believe that I am making my daughter satanic through music. If that's what burning a couple Chili Pepper's CDs for her means to them so be it.

[SEC=UGA]

This is not the type of language people use when admitting to something. Its kind of like saying, some folk believe that I am making my daughter satanic through music. If that's what burning a couple Chili Pepper's CDs for her means to them so be it.

 

I saw a girl walking down the block, named Apache Rose Peacock, I could not speak, I was in shock, I told my knees to please not knock...

 

God, they were good at one time...

[Avernus]

This is not the type of language people use when admitting to something. Its kind of like saying, some folk believe that I am making my daughter satanic through music. If that's what burning a couple Chili Pepper's CDs for her means to them so be it.

 

I disagree because there is pretty clear evidence in one and the other is a belief.....

[SheikYerbuti]

I saw a girl walking down the block, named Apache Rose Peacock, I could not speak, I was in shock, I told my knees to please not knock...

 

God, they were good at one time...

 

Stadium Arcadium is probably their 2nd best album behind only Blood Sugar Sex Magic. One was released in 1991, the other in 2006. I'm sceptical of their future now that John's left the group, but 15 years between your 2 strongest albums is remarkable.

 

Sorry to hijack.... please return to the conspiracy theories.

[Brentastic]

This is not the type of language people use when admitting to something. Its kind of like saying, some folk believe that I am making my daughter satanic through music. If that's what burning a couple Chili Pepper's CDs for her means to them so be it.

No, not really. You're making too many assumptions and need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

 

He's very clearly saying this:

 

"If that's the charge" - we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will - "I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

[Duchess Jack]

No, not really. You're making too many assumptions and need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

 

He's very clearly saying this:

 

"If that's the charge" - we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will - "I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

 

why don't you stop being such a dick about things. I don't think this is an issue of reading comprehension, but rather, an issue of some folk looking for evidence to support their boogieman/lizardman theories while others are reading things without this drive. I just see a lot of disqualifiers in the statement. It causes me to ask myself - if he is going to come out and say it, than why not just come out and say it.

[Avernus]

why don't you stop being such a dick about things. I don't think this is an issue of reading comprehension, but rather, an issue of some folk looking for evidence to support their boogieman/lizardman theories while others are reading things without this drive. I just see a lot of disqualifiers in the statement. It causes me to ask myself - if he is going to come out and say it, than why not just come out and say it.

 

are you really trying to make people out to be complete crackpots with the word lizardman?....boogieman, I get because only little kids believe in that, but there is an actual conspiracy theory out there about lizard people or whatever that I even take offense to when you try to lump people who see the banking cartel as the root of the problem with people who believe that lizard people run the planet....

 

it's kind of a low blow in terms of arguing because I agree with Brent about the bankers having a strong influence in things we see today....but seeing the word lizardman intentionally forced into your response kinda struck a cord with me for some reason because that is one of the many conspiracy theories I find utterly ridiculous.....and there are a bunch that are ridiculous and that's why they are conspiracy theories and not conspiracies...

 

over the last 8 years or so, I've come to the conclusion that the bankers are the problem considering the one thing Afghanistan and Iraq have in common since our invasion is that they both have a Rothschild owned central bank after the effect.....something they were against and Ghadafi didn't want this either, he actually wanted the Arab nation to have a gold backed currency to rival the Dollar and the Euro - needless to say, that's not gonna happen...

 

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=629302

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/08/21/ba...ederal-reserve/

 

now these articles obviously have a slanted view that I ignore...I base my reading on the facts and then I go to the opposite view by checking out maybe CNN.....and this is the video that comes up which I find ironic...

 

 

 

note: this is back in '09....there's more info out there and I know you argue sensibly, you and Brent have your problems....I just think you struck a chord with me when I saw the lizardman line thrown in there when I'm pretty sure nobody on these forums believes that....it's a little different than saying boogieman because one is one of the crazy conspiracy theories and the other is a story told to little children...

 

I want to see what you think after checking these links and maybe looking even deeper as I need to eat a damn breakfast now

[Ursa Majoris]

"If that's the charge" - we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will - "I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

All I get out of this statement is that Rockefeller wants to see a more integrated and workable global economic and political system. Since we already have an inextricably linked global economic system, surely it makes sense to have it work as well as it can? As for politics, why wouldn't anyone want to have the various world players talking to each other?

[Avernus]

All I get out of this statement is that Rockefeller wants to see a more integrated and workable global economic and political system. Since we already have an inextricably linked global economic system, surely it makes sense to have it work as well as it can? As for politics, why wouldn't anyone want to have the various world players talking to each other?

 

but this is being achieved through war....if this was such a great idea, why does war have to be the medium for achieving this great plan....?

 

Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya all have a Rothschild owned central bank .....is this really a coincidence?

[Ursa Majoris]

but this is being achieved through war....if this was such a great idea, why does war have to be the medium for achieving this great plan....?

 

Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya all have a Rothschild owned central bank .....is this really a coincidence?

I was generalizing much more than just banking. It seems to me an inevitability that the human progression from family to clan to tribe to city-state to nation-state is still progressing. The next step is globalization and obviously that is well under way, especially in business. Global enterprises may be notionally American or European or Asian or whatever but in reality they transcend nationality. Politics will head the same way eventually as the people themselves become more internationalized and less bounded by national borders.

 

What shape all this takes is still very much in question........but it is going to happen.

[Avernus]

I was generalizing much more than just banking. It seems to me an inevitability that the human progression from family to clan to tribe to city-state to nation-state is still progressing. The next step is globalization and obviously that is well under way, especially in business. Global enterprises may be notionally American or European or Asian or whatever but in reality they transcend nationality. Politics will head the same way eventually as the people themselves become more internationalized and less bounded by national borders.

 

What shape all this takes is still very much in question........but it is going to happen.

 

I agree, I just think the path is very ugly

[Duchess Jack]

I want to see what you think after checking these links and maybe looking even deeper as I need to eat a damn breakfast now

 

I am sorry if I stuck a chord with you. I take a little exception to Brent because of the way he goes about things - such as suggesting that he somehow has better reading comprehension than I do because I didn't take what he pasted as being proof of what he is talking about. And, I believe Brent has subscribed to the lizardman thing or at the very least gave weight to it a while back.

 

It might have been wrong of me to slip in, but I am human. I just find it insulting that if folk don't believe in what he has to say they are sheep, lack reading comprehension, etc.

 

Banks? Can't stand them. Are they looking out for me? No way. Have they hurt me financially? Sure. Once more, I was just commenting on how I saw the quote he posted in a different light.

[Avernus]

I am sorry if I stuck a chord with you. I take a little exception to Brent because of the way he goes about things - such as suggesting that he somehow has better reading comprehension than I do because I didn't take what he pasted as being proof of what he is talking about. And, I believe Brent has subscribed to the lizardman thing or at the very least gave weight to it a while back.

 

It might have been wrong of me to slip in, but I am human. I just find it insulting that if folk don't believe in what he has to say they are sheep, lack reading comprehension, etc.

 

Banks? Can't stand them. Are they looking out for me? No way. Have they hurt me financially? Sure. Once more, I was just commenting on how I saw the quote he posted in a different light.

 

I'm pretty sure he isn't into the Lizardman thing but if so then ignore my comment...

 

I agree with a lot of what Brent has to say and obviously not everything, as he would say the same about me....but if he has defended the lizardman thing, then please ignore my comment as I took it as a broad stroke to anyone who believes in certain conspiracies...or conspiracy theories which is something I try to separate myself from but still take the bait at times because other things help support it...

 

but we've talked about this before....I just really hate the reptilian/lizardman conspiracy theory and if it were true, I'd probably die from having my reality shaken

[Brentastic]

I'm pretty sure he isn't into the Lizardman thing but if so then ignore my comment...

 

I agree with a lot of what Brent has to say and obviously not everything, as he would say the same about me....but if he has defended the lizardman thing, then please ignore my comment as I took it as a broad stroke to anyone who believes in certain conspiracies...or conspiracy theories which is something I try to separate myself from but still take the bait at times because other things help support it...

 

but we've talked about this before....I just really hate the reptilian/lizardman conspiracy theory and if it were true, I'd probably die from having my reality shaken

I just ignore DJ anymore, he's enchiladay like buscwacked. He's a little more sneaky in his delivery but still enchiladay nonetheless.