This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Fed And Clearing House Association File Second Appeal To "Pittman" Disclosure Ruling
After seeing its demands for secrecy rejected soundly twice, once in district court and once in appellate, the Fed is now appealing the "Pittman" decision yet again. As Bloomberg reports, "attorneys for the Fed today asked the full U.S. Court of
Appeals in New York to reconsider a unanimous ruling by a three-
judge panel." On the other side of the Fed is, as usual, the Clearing House Association: the organization of bankers that stands to lose the most should its secretive bailouts by the Fed no longer be subject to unconstitutional secrecy. There is no reason to expect that the second appeal will work. However, it is the escalation from there that will be most critical. " If the court refuses the request, the Fed may
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court." That Supreme Court Decision, which will likely come around the time of Obama's mid-term elections, may prove to be more critical for Obama' reelection chances than unemployment, healthcare and regulatory "reform" combined. If the Supreme Court does ultimately side with the Fed, it will become clear once and for all who truly runs this country (and the world), and the the US constitution is at best something the oligarchy uses when it runs out of one ply Treasury Paper.
More from Bloomberg, in which we get a tacit lesson of Racketeering 102:
“The decision is of exceptional importance,” the Fed’s lawyers wrote in a legal brief. “The real-world consequence of the panel’s decision will be serious, perhaps irreparable harm to the institutional borrowers whose information will be revealed.”
The Court of Appeals panel ruled March 19 that the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched primarily after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The ruling upheld a decision of a lower- court judge, who in August ordered that the information be released.
The Fed argued in the case, which was launched by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, that disclosure of the documents threatens to stigmatize borrowers and cause them “severe and irreparable competitive injury,” discouraging banks in distress from seeking help. The appeals court panel rejected that argument.
Those most impaired by the ruling to finallyl bring information to those who were reponsible for Wall Street's record bonus year, the CHA, consists of the following:
The Clearing House Association, which processes payments
among banks, joined the case and sided with the Fed. The group
includes ABN Amro Bank NV, a unit of Royal Bank of Scotland Plc,
Bank of America Corp., The Bank of New York Mellon Corp.,
Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan
Chase & Co., US Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co.
The initial lawsuit is the last great deed of Mark Pittman, who passed away last Thanksgiving. Hopefully, if there is some justice in the world, and the Supreme Court sides with the wronged party, than the world will have much to be Thankful for to Pittman.
Bloomberg, majority-owned by New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, sued after the Fed refused to name the firms it lent
to or disclose loan amounts or assets used as collateral under
its lending programs. Most of the loans were made in response to
the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.Lawyers for Bloomberg argued in court that the public has
the right to know basic information about the “unprecedented
and highly controversial use” of public money.
We are confident that were Mark alive today, he would be very much enjoying the global media circus that the firm at the epicenter of the Fed's largesse has becone.
»
- 4734 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I've known registered nurses (R.N.'s) who loved their job, if it wasn't for all the d*mn sick people. Teachers who loved their jobs, if it wasn't for all the d*mn students.
The Treserve people seem to love their job, if it wasn't for all those annoying taxpayers that are expected to just shut up and pay for everything the Treserve decides it wants to buy.
Mark's work, efforts and vision will not be forgotten..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0dLj4AKpoo
Hey Miles...
Looks like the Clearing House Association is footing the bill for a bronze statue to grace the Fed (Eccles) Building in appreciation of ZIRP.
The protective she-wolf is the Fed... the rest are just banksters!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Millesgarden_Romulus-Remus.jpg
You have to admit that the statue is a wonderful metaphor for government and the banksters sucking at the public teat. The fact that the two guys underneath look like Bernanke and Geithner is simply an unintended bonus by the sculptor.
Great minds Mitchman... although for me Dimon and Bankfine come to mind...
Perhaps an annual Romulus and Ream-Us Awards ceremony for outrageous banksterism could follow...
I bow and doff my cap to a more discerning artistic eye as well as to an almost unexcelled punster. May I suggest Ream-All-Us? :-)
Why not? The Clearing House Association informs me they're All-In!
Of course.. Until they realize that there has been a Hollywood switcheroo..
Classics!
<duplicate>
The supreme court is the last bastion of the constitution and I want to believe. We should all believe. If that institution fails us, then.. You all know what must be done.
Part of the reason why we are in this current state of re-inventing the constitution is because the Court failed us over the past 70ish years. The mentality that the constitution is a 'living, breathing document' beyond the amendment process has allowed them to water down our rights/ignore government abuses. Could you imagine the chaos that would ensue for the court system if all other contracts were interpreted above and beyond the words on the page?
you mean like when the chrysler bondholders got told by the US gubmint that their contracts don't matter much?
i fear we've only just begun, and the more they get away with, the more brash they'll get.
"If the Supreme Court does ultimately side with the Fed, it will become clear once and for all who truly runs this country (and the world), and the the US constitution is at best something the oligarchy uses when it runs out of one ply Treasury Paper."
It is already clear who truly runs this country. For those who don't wish to see, who are moral cowards, no amount of flashing lights, waving banners or legal pronouncements will stiffen their spines and grow hair on their balls. The intentionally blind have no problem with their sight, only with their courage to do what is necessary. Expect no help from them.
A Supreme Court ruling for the Fed simply removes all obstacles from our way.
"...perhaps irreparable harm to the institutional borrowers whose information will be revealed.” - yeah, the more harm the better! it's better to do it in court, 'cause next time there might be a blue Pathfinder parked next to 33 Liberty Lane or 85 Broad St
The court will side with the lower courts. There are probably 300 to 400 people who know who got the money, maybe even a few thousand. It is not a secret. The Fed's position is that it must remain a secret. It's reason is invalid and immaterial. Since it is not a real secret, there is no reason not to tell everyone who cares to know, who received the funds.
What will come out of it is whether or not the banks that received the funds were American banks, and if some were American, did they report the receipt of the funds to their stockholders by placing the receipt of the funds on the bank's books and records.
I for one would like to know how much long term US debt was purchased with the funds by the American banks.
Maybe this is why Bernanke does not want to disclose these names. After all, once the Fed Funds rate hits 6%, these banks are screwed; try to stop that run.
The fed will use the "in the name of national security" card. This is what is used when it is blatantly obvious that citiizens' rights are violated.
Sadly ironic, it is the way the patriot act turned the 9/11 into video cameras on every corner, and encroached further on our rights to privacy; ironic because they have the right to know everything about you , but you are not to know anything about them, even if it is your money. Fascism, if the feds get away with it
If the Fed didn't raise the "national security" argument in the lower courts, it won't be able to just show up at the Supreme Court and waive this brand new argument in the justices faces. I know TV would have you believe differently, but it doesn't work that way. Court of appeals, of which the Supreme Court is one, only review issues of law that were brought up in the lowert courts. If the Fed did make that argument in the lower court, then the Supremes could hang their hat on that, but that's the only way. Does anyone here know if the Fed raised the "national security" argument in the trial court?
I would hazard to make an educated guess that most of those in the West Wing know exactly where the $2 trillion plus went.
Since the Obama administration is so supportive of the Fed's twisted obsession with secrecy and opaqueness-- perhaps we should be asking our President where the $2 trillion went. If we cannot hold the Fed accountable by law, why can't we hold the President?
He may or may not know (plausible deniability), but the President can and should be held accountable by proxy--if the choice is to support Fed opaqueness.
I can't wait to vote a whole lot of incumbents out of office.
I don't know a single ZH'r lacking in moral courage.
I believe the demise of GS and their ilk will become Death by a thousand cuts.
The Fed and their sleazy cartel puppeteers don't want daylight on their cesspool. What could we expect ?
It is information and visibility that is chipping away at this sleaze.
We cannot stop now. Name and shame the Politicians of every stripe.
Tag everyone of these deceitful, arrogant, anti-democratic thugs.
And do not, ever, let up.
I ran out of 'moral courage' back in the 80's... been operating on outrage ever since!
I think this is the kind of "invisible hand" the Treserve likes.
awesome. I hope the rats get crushed in the end.
"the the US constitution is at best something the oligarchy uses when it runs out of one ply Treasury Paper." Now doesn't just paint an unappetizing picture?
Supreme Court decision by November? You've got to be joking. This will be drawn out for years.
This is the very first time I have heard of this case. I had simply thought we were just sold down the river on this one and the system had crushed all dissent. On one hand, I am glad to see that we at least have a chance, on the other, I am a little disappointed in myself that I did not know about the Pittman case and in addition that it is most likely that we are going to be sold down the river anyway. In any case, I believe that this is a very serious matter. If the fed loses this one, I believe that the puppet masters will be seeking their typical dose of theatrical retribution which will include biting the taxpayer host that feeds it. Perhaps they may want more than the typical dose, who knows. We are dealing with sociopaths here.
Hooray, justice will prevail... just after you wait for 5 more months, then another 6 months after that, then probably another 13-14 months after that. But just wait, and the American people will be vindicated... eventually. What a bunch of shit.
The full Appeals Court will not overturn a unanimous judgment by three of its members. John Roberts strikes me as the type of guy who would fast track an opportunity to make history like this and he's not going to turn down the ability to hear this case unless he just simply lets the decision of the full Appeals Court stand. Let's get those slimeballs out in the open!
The Roberts' court always sides with institutional and corporate power. That doesn't mean it carries the marjority with Steven's still there. Still I'd rate the chances of the SC siding with the Fed in this case this year at 90%. I would not be surprised however if the full NY Court sides with them first.
I would be dismayed to learn that taxpayers are paying the Fed's legal fees. Anyone know?
Of course we are. The Solicitor General of the United States has been charged with personally handling this case for the government.
The original Statutory Authorization Act of June 22, 1870, states, "There shall be in the Department of Justice an officer learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties to be called the Solicitor General." The Office of the Solicitor General is tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts. The general functions of the Office can be found at 28 CFR 0.20.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/
Any appeal would have to be mounted by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who reports to President Barack Obama through Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/New_York_District_Court_and_the_Feder...
FB - Here is a Scribd link to Bloomberg's and Mark Pittman's requests... All of the back and forth and has much of the direct 411 you might be looking for, even with the redactions. peace
http://www.scribd.com/full/12760404?access_key=key-f98oqjwn45p02xh8kki
"The Fed argued in the case, which was launched by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, that disclosure of the documents threatens to stigmatize borrowers and cause them “severe and irreparable competitive injury,” discouraging banks in distress from seeking help. "
LOL!! Faced with inssolvency and getting free cash from the Fed, I doubt that anyone is going to worry about disclosure because they care about what people will think of them after the fact.
And btw, the SC is *not* going to side with the Fed on this one. This entire case already stretches even the current Alice-in-Wonderland scenario into a completely different dimension. The Supreme Court is not going to want to add any credibility to it. If the Fed had any intelligence whatsoever, it would just give in and make sure that the case never gets to the SC so that they have something to bullshit about when they bail the banks out on the next down leg...(Actually, if I were in the SC, I don't think I'd even bother hearing the case)
In answer to your CAPTCHA question, I don't think the log in prevents the same things the CAPTCHA prevents. Anyone can sign up for an ID and then use a computer program to spam the board without requiring a math problem to be solved. ZH could then delete the ID if it was used in such a manner but why should they have to bother deleting IDs for abuse? The CAPTCHA solves the problem...for now.
We need to think outside the box with respect to the hand the FED will play in order to avoid having to disclose. I can't imagine that they have the right to invoke National Security as a reason. They will do anything to avoid disclosing regardless what the courts require them to do. Burn the house down and destroy all records?
I disagree. The fed and many of its actions were either implicitly or explicitly authorized by Executive Order for National Security. The case in essence hinges on IF the SCOTUS goes along with the premise that all that is required to lead the country by executive decree is another executive decree saying that the executive felt there were circumstances sufficient to warrant the action... That's it. Whatever hubbub the government and banks might be tossing up over the basic elements of FOIA are just stalling tactics as the two previous decisions and the judicial history on point make clear. The real essence of the case will come once it reaches The SCOTUS and how The SCOTUS chooses to handle the issue of the Unitary Executive and the reach of its power. As previously noted on these pages, there will be mounting pressure for a decision by The SCOTUS on this matter in time for the November mid term elections.
"The fed and many of its actions were either implicitly or explicitly authorized by Executive Order for National Security. "
source?
It's still a case of 'asking the systm to work for the little guy'. ..The accounting was marked to myth, then the Fed used unlimited money to make that myth. like some French cartoon.
One way or another, at the end of the day, an economy still needs a facility to increase the money supply- a process that quite probably needs a certain degree of confidentiality.
The problem is... Fed created 'Zero interest rate policy' which stayed at the banks and didn't get transmitted to the country. Heck, moving interest cards to 3% for a five year period on existing balances, new expenditures at 10% would have been one way to transmit the policy- but what really happened? ,'Consumer banking is too expensive'
Zerohedge, would you think about helping set up a nation-by-nation petition on the Volcker rule?
1) I am surprised the list has not leaked.
2) Why do so many of you think the Supreme Court would side with the Fed in when a Democrat is in the White House? And the Fed is now Obama's Fed.
3) With quotes like this:
The U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, “sets forth no basis for the exemption the Board asks us to read into it,” U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote in the opinion. “If the Board believes such an exemption would better serve the national interest, it should ask Congress to amend the statute.” (My emphasis)
I would be more than surprised if the Supremes backed the Fed. I just cannot see it happening as a matter of law nor can I see it happening given the political make up of the Court. The "powers" of Wall Street have to spend hundreds of millions to influence Congress. I doubt the majority of the Court can be bought. Moreover, I really doubt a majority of this Court will try to find a way to help the Obama administration.
i agree with a lot of that except that it would be helping the Obama administration. A decision overturning the appeals court would help the richest people in this nation and the banks and of most importance....the central banking system which is at the center of the spokes of everything mentioned before. At that point, there are no DEM/GOP politics in my mind. That's power and money. All those CLO's that were bought in March 08. That's a who's who list of investors who got bailed out. If anything, the appeals court is passing the buck to scotus. This is a monster case. Such a monster, i wouldn't be surprised that if at some point, the Fed invoked some bizarre procedures seeking alternative secrecy remedies.
is arguing irreparable harm an admission of ongoing insolvency of the lenders, the borrowers or both?
A SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Fed should be the signal to burn it all to the ground, and the court should be made aware of that fact.
We are not just a republic. There is a place for democracy as demanded by the people.
Funny you say that, some people think the FED is making the court aware of the same fact the other way around. In their first argument, it sounded like they were threatening the court with being responsible for the end of western civilization. As a wise man said, 'if that ends it, I shouldn't have liked it anyway.'
Congress and DC bureaucrats have routinely ignored public opinion..that is not a democratic republic..that is not representation..that is tyranny plain and simple..
We understand the above facts but we continue to ignore the implications of our knowledge..for down that road Dragons lie.
now all here go back to sleep, it's not good to keep flagellating yourselves with the truth, while
not doing the one thing that is implied in that truth..
We pledge our scared honor, lives and wealth comes to mind.
George Orwell, we hardly knew yee.
Currently, SP500 futures indicate that the March 2009 bear market rally may be ending. We should get confirmation this week.
MARKET UPDATES:
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/latest-market-outlook-0