Does Bernie and O'Malley know that the (federal reserve) is a private entity ?

It is not private. It is independent, there is a difference. I can explain it all using reliable references of information, such as the law, if you are willing to actually learn something.

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 through the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. Its structure and operation can be determined by reading the law. Any claims that disagree with the law are wrong. The law can be found in 12 USC Chapter 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-... The belief of some people that it is private usually comes from misunderstanding its structure or taking quotes from officials and court cases out of context.

At the top of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors. Each member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors does not issue stock and is not owned. The Chairman of the Board of Governors has to periodically report to Congress on the state of the economy and whenever Congress wants testimony. The Board of Governors also presents an annual report on the Federal Reserve to Congress each year. So any claim that it is not accountable is demonstrably false. Several sections concerning requirements and responsibilities of the Board of Governors can be read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-...

The Board of Governors is the controlling portion of the system. The Board meets regularly and discusses economic and monetary policy issues. The members of the Board are also the controlling members of the Federal Open Market Committee where monetary policy decisions are finalized and implemented.

Beneath the Board of Governors are the 12 Federal Reserve district banks. Each of the Federal Reserve district banks do issue stock, but that stock is much different from typical corporate stock. Only nationally chartered banks and some state chartered banks may hold this stock. National banks are required by law to subscribe to a certain amount of stock in one of the district banks. State banks are not required to become members but may do so if they meet certain requirements and subscribe to the required amount of stock. Therefore, any claims that certain foreign banks or individuals somehow "own" the Federal Reserve is also obviously false. Each member bank may hold no more and no less than the required amount. They may not sell or trade this stock. If the Federal Reserve really were private or "owned", a member bank would be able to buy and sell the stock at will and they cannot. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/282

The stock confers no rights of ownership either. There are only a few benefits of holding this stock which can be determined by reading the law. While the law does have a section regarding the public issue of stock, NO PUBLIC STOCK HAS EVER BEEN ISSUED. That is simply an outdated section of law that was never used. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-... and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-...

If a Federal Reserve district bank were to be dissolved, all assets and liabilities would become the responsibility of the U.S. Government. If the Federal Reserve were private, excess assets would become the property of the shareholders. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/290

Other than the small dividend on the district bank stock, all of the Federal Reserve's net earnings are paid back to the U.S. Treasury every year. So, it is definitely NOT a "for-profit" bank as some may claim. In 2014, the Federal Reserve transferred $96.9 billion to the U.S. Treasury. http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2015/01/... This can clearly be seen on the INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED financial statements of the Federal Reserve which are public record. The belief that the Federal Reserve has never been audited is also a myth. Here is the section of the law requiring annual independent audits: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/248b

You may believe that the Federal Reserve or the individual Federal Reserve banks are not U.S. Government institutions because of what you may have read about Lewis v. U.S (680 F.2d 1239 (1982)). Unfortunately, that case is widely cited and often misinterpreted. In short, Lewis was involved in a car accident with a vehicle owned and operated by one of the Federal Reserve district banks. So, he sued the U.S. Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Normally, governments cannot be sued unless they agree to be sued. The FTCA was passed to allow people and organizations to sue the U.S. Government for tort claims in case of negligence on the part of federal employees. However, some agencies and departments of the government already have sections of law that specify how tort claims are handled against those agencies. In those instances, the proper party to sue is the agency itself and not the United States. The Federal Reserve Act includes a section that covers tort claims against it. Therefore, Lewis should have sued the Federal Reserve and not the U.S. Government. That is what the court meant when it said that the Federal Reserve district banks are private institutions IN REGARDS TO THE FTCA. Another quote from the case that is frequently overlooked is the court also stated that the Federal Reserve district banks have been properly held to be federal instrumentalities in other situations.

There is a lot of nonsense about the Federal Reserve on the Internet. Just remember that any moron can make a website or video and post it on the Internet, that doesn't mean the moron knows WTF he is talking about.

It's not. The Fed's governors are appointed by His Excellency the President of the United States of America.

It was created by Congress.

http://www.federalreserveonline.org/

Probably not.