This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Presentation By David Yerushalmi Suing The Fed On Grounds AIG Takeover Was Illegal Money Laundering Scheme
- AIG
- American International Group
- Bank of New York
- Comptroller of the Currency
- Credit Rating Agencies
- Department of the Treasury
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Federal Reserve
- Federal Reserve Bank
- Federal Reserve Bank of New York
- First Amendment
- Michigan
- national security
- Obamacare
- Rating Agencies
- Reality
- SIGTARP
- TARP
- Testimony
- Timothy Geithner
- Treasury Department
Some time ago, the law office of David Yerushlami, which a week ago filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, sued the Fed over its takeover of AIG claiming the entire transaction was illegal and was in essence a money laundering scheme. Below we present the powerpoint presentation prepared by the law firm. Here is how Yerushalmi explains his motive: "The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. presents an online PowerPoint presentation fully narrated illustrating rather graphically just how Timothy Geithner, who was then (Sept. 2008) the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, orchestrated the illegal acquisition of 77.9% of AIG's equity and voting rights. As the presentation makes clear, while the FED certainly had authority to loan AIG billions and to take all of the company's assets as collateral, which it did, it had no legal authority to acquire nearly 80% of AIG's shares and voting rights. But this is exactly what it did when it created with great fanfare what is called the AIG Credit Facility Trust." Attached also is a latter by David to SIGTARP Barofsky, discussing the same.
From: David Yerushalmi [mailto:david.yerushalmi@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:52 AM
To: 'sigtarp@do.treas.gov'
Cc: 'Frank Gaffney'; 'Robert Muise'Subject: Is the AIG Credit Facility Agreement Trust legal?
Dear Mr. Barofsky: I am an attorney who has worked in the securities litigation arena for more than 25 years and I also serve as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy, a highly-respected think tank in Washington, D.C., headed up by former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney, which focuses on matters of national security. I have cc’d Mr. Gaffney on this email.
In this capacity, I am representing Kevin Murray in a First Amendment/Establishment Clause case against the Fed and the Sec. of the Treasury in his official capacity as head of the Treas. Dept. We have alleged that the takeover of AIG by the US Government encourages, promotes and indeed sustains AIG’s advocacy of Shariah-Islamic insurance products worldwide in violation of the First Amendment. The government filed a motion to dismiss which was denied. I have attached that opinion. Currently, we are in the throes of discovery and awaiting the court’s ruling on our motion to compel Secretary Geithner’s deposition, which was necessitated by the fact that the Fed and Treasury Rule 30(b)(6) deponents either testified inaccurately or feigned ignorance (no surprise to you I am sure). I have attached our Motion to Compel and our companion Response to the government’s Motion for Protective Order.
I write to you today because in the course of our discovery investigation, we effectively uncovered a fraudulent artifice which allowed the Fed/FRBNY and the Treasury (using TARP funds) to accomplish that which it could not accomplish legally at the time (pre-EESA)—the acquisition of 77.9% of AIG’s equity and voting rights. We discovered this because we were looking at “standing” issues relative to the Fed/FRBNY funds provided to AIG under the Credit Facility approved in the latter half of Sept. 2008. But, what we learned was quite simply astounding.
The FRBNY wanted more than just a standard debt deal; it wanted absolute control and ownership of AIG. But, it was illegal for the FRBNY to hold equity and the Treasury Dept. did not yet have the legislative authority, later granted under EESA, to do so. But this didn’t stop then-President Geithner or his general counsel Thomas Baxter. They crafted the AIG Trust to accomplish the same goal. But the Trust was transparently invalid and illegal for two fundamental reasons: One, the FED maintained absolute control over the Trust’s existence, its terms, and the Trustees through Section 1.03 of the Trust Agreement. This, as we explain in our Response papers attached, invalidates the trust; yet the government continues to speak about this as an “independent” Trust.
Two, the Fed/FRBNY could not take legal title to the equity but neither could the Treasury Department during this pre-EESA period. So, the FRBNY named the U.S. Treasury (in the Trust Agreement) as the beneficial owner. But again, as our Response papers point out, it is elemental trust law that a beneficiary must be a person or entity that can actually hold title. While the Treasury Department can hold title, the U.S. Treasury can no more hold title than a bank account – because that is what it is. You can deposit funds or assets into a depository account but the account cannot have “ownership” because it has no more authority to do so than a tree log. But, the FRBNY had to conceal the fact that this transaction was really for the benefit of the Treasury Department (something the Treasury Dept’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent conceded under oath (also provided in our Response papers), because the Treasury department had no legal authority. And, even if it did, as under EESA a few months later, to grant the federal government voting rights would be to create a Gordian Knot of conflicts-of-interest, which is why presumably the legislation seeks to avoid the government from taking both the equity and exercising voting rights. But, at the time of the AIG Trust, there was absolutely no legislative authority for the Treas. Dept to take control of AIG. Yet, this is what the Trust purportedly accomplished.
In the world of finance, and you certainly know this as well as I, if you seek to accomplish an illegal financial transaction (“specified unlawful activity”) through false means (the Trust structure), you are in violation of federal anti-money laundering statutes (18 USC § 1956). I have attached a ppt presentation my office has prepared for oral argument in our case (although the criminal violation is not at issue insofar as we don’t have standing to raise it). Since this artifice included TARP funds, you, in your capacity as the SIGTARP, do. Please feel free to use this material as you deem best.
I will be in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday meeting with some Congressional leaders on this point, and would be more than willing to discuss this in greater detail. Thank you.
cc: Frank J. Gaffney, Jr, Pres., Center for Security Policy
Robert Muise, Esq., co-counsel to Kevin Murray in Murray v. Geithner et al., U.S. D. Ct. E.D. MI, No. 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ.
...
David Yerushalmi
Law Offices:
Washington, D.C., New York, California & Arizona
T: 646.262.0500
F: 801.760.3901
E: david.yerushalmi@verizon.net
W: www.davidyerushalmilaw.com
Full Presentation:
Understanding the Defendants’ Takeover of AIG
View more presentations or Upload your own.
The transcript for the presentation is presented below:
Slide 1
Understanding the Government’s Takeover of AIG In support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Geithner’s Deposition Testimony in Murray v. Geithner et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM (U.S. D. Ct. E.D. Michigan) © Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. All rights reserved. 2010
Slide 2
But the Fed and the FRBNY wanted more than a debt deal; they wanted absolute control over AIG and needed to come up with a way to take almost 80% of AIG’s equity and voting rights. So they decided to use $40 BN of the Credit Facility as “Placeholder” funds to accomplish through the artifice of the AIG Trust what they could not do legally. . . HOW THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER AIG--SUPPORTING AND FUNDING ITS SHARIAH-C0MPLIANT INSURANCE BUSINESS--THROUGH WHAT IS ARGUABLY AN ILLEGAL ARTIFICE While it made no sense to “fix” AIG’s debt-driven crisis by giving it $85 BN of more debt, the Credit Facility up to this part of the structure was typical and made at least structural sense. A second problem with the Trust: Q: Was it proper for the FRBNY to name a bank account—the U.S. Treasury—as a beneficiary when it cannot own anything? A: No; the Trust is invalid on its face! Geithner, FRBNY, Fed, and Treasury Dept: “The FRBNY created a truly independent Trust with non-governmental Trustees to take legal title to 77.9% of AIG’s shares to avoid illegalities and any conflicts-of-interest.” And that is why the Treasury Department’s deponent testified that the real beneficiary is the Treasury Department and why everyone agrees that the ultimate beneficiary is the U.S. tax payer. But how is the Trust and its Trustees “independent” of the U.S. Government when § 1.03 of the Trust Agreement gives the Fed absolute and unfettered control over the Trust’s existence and its terms??? § 13(3) Fed. Res. Act AIG $$$ SCF 1 SCF 2 SCF 3 SCF 4 Credit Rating Agencies Debt-driven credit rating downgrade FED Federal Reserve Bank of New York (President Geithner) $85 BN Debt Credit Facility Collateral: ≈100% of AIG Assets via Stock Pledges/Liens Transfer of Legal Interest in 77.9% of AIG Equity + Voting U.S. Treasury U.S. Department of the Treasury (Sec. Geithner) (Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent) And this leaves the final tranche of the disguised “Placeholder” structure where the “US. Tax Payer”, at the hands of the Treasury Dept., sends $40 BN to the FRBNY as a credit to AIG, which is in reality “payment” for the 77.9% of AIG received through the Credit Facility and Trust structure. AIG in crisis runs to Geithner at FRBNY Geithner runs to the FED The FED calls upon the “unusual and exigent circumstances” of FRA to permit non-member bank AIG to borrow FED funds from FRBNY
Slide 3
§ 13(3) Fed. Res. Act AIG $$$ SCF 1 SCF 2 SCF 3 SCF 4 Credit Rating Agencies Debt-driven credit rating downgrade $40 BN Portion of Debt Credit Facility $40 billion TARP paid to FRBNY but credited to AIG And now we’ll see the same illegal Placeholder transaction but without the artifice of the “independent” Trust . . . Now we eliminate the $40 BN “Placeholder” funds provided by the FRBNY Credit Facility and the bottom line deal with the true flow of the real deal’s “consideration” comes into plain view . . .
Slide 4
Understanding the Defendants’ Takeover of AIG § 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments (3) Whoever, with the intent— (A) to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; (B) to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or (C) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law, conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section. © Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. All rights reserved. Under § 1956(c)(7)(D), “specified unlawful activity” is defined as a violation of § 1005.
Slide 5
Understanding the Defendants’ Takeover of AIG § 1005. Bank entries, reports and transactions Whoever makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of such bank [FED member bank], company, branch, agency, or organization with intent to injure or defraud such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or any agent or examiner appointed to examine the affairs of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; © Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. All rights reserved. This “any other company” is AIG, which was forced by the FRBNY and the FED to give up 80% of its equity/voting rights when it was illegal for the FRBNY to even hold equity.
Slide 6
Understanding the Defendants’ Takeover of AIG § 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments (3) Whoever, with the intent— (A) to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; (B) to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or (C) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law, conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section. © Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. All rights reserved.
Slide 7
Transfer of Legal Interest in 77.9% of AIG Equity + Voting § 13(3) Fed. Res. Act AIG $$$ SCF 1 SCF 2 SCF 3 SCF 4 Credit Rating Agencies Debt-driven credit rating downgrade FED Federal Reserve Bank of New York (President Geithner) $85 BN Debt Credit Facility Collateral: ≈100% of AIG Assets via Stock Pledges/Liens U.S. Treasury Absolute FED Control: § 1.03 Trust Agreement U.S. Department of the Treasury (Sec. Geithner) (Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent) AIG in crisis runs to Geithner at FRBNY Geithner runs to the FED The FED calls upon the “unusual and exigent circumstances” of FRA to permit non-member bank AIG to borrow FED funds from FRBNY It is at this point, that this Placeholder artifice becomes a money laundering scheme in violation of Title 18 § 1956 of the federal criminal code. How? Because the FRBNY and the FED want absolute control of AIG (meaning its equity and voting rights), but neither they nor the Treas. Dept. have any legal authority, to do so. The taking of 77.9% of AIG is the “specified unlawful activity” and the Trust is the fraud to accomplish it. This emergency action was perfectly legal and understandable. The Credit Facility was also perfectly legal, albeit stupid. Giving debt to a company drowning in debt simply makes no sense unless it was a necessary step to accomplish that which the FED could not accomplish directly.
»
- 8291 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Lawsuits are coming. It is time to fill up the Supreme Court with Obama goons or if it can not be done fast enough threaten to increase the number of judges and dilute out the oldtimers.
Obama goons ... like Hank Paulson
Who are the plaintiffs?
by Steroid
on Thu, 04/15/2010 - 16:47
#303063
Lawsuits are coming. It is time to fill up the Supreme Court with Obama goons or if it can not be done fast enough threaten to increase the number of judges and dilute out the oldtimers.
Steroid,
The difference between the Republicans (Federalist’s) or the Democrats would be?
Abortion?
Other than that “O” so important hot button issue that keeps the ignorant masses entangled with each other while the Country gets robbed blind… what is the difference?
Obama will fill one seat which will still leave the Federalists in power? So what’s the difference?
You should read More and talk Less, maybe then you will have something other than a Fox sound bit to offer.
Dear JW,
I don't watch Fox. I was referring to O's idol FDR. He, upon constitutional challenge did the same.
If you win Mr Yerushalmi, can you just ask for our gold back.
Where is our gold at?
Kevin Murray - whoever you are - I salute you.
+1
I wonder if this guy knows Eliot Spitzer.
Timmy, you've been a naughty, naughty boy.
We The People demand our money back from GS, DB, UBS, BAC/ML and the rest of them, plus all the gains from the use of these funds, which pretty much means, everything snce you were bailed out.
"He's not the Messiah, He's a very naughty boy"
we live in an impotent nation and our legal system has no guts - did you read this weird news about an Atlanta hotel that the banks don't want to foreclose because that would imply a MTM and their reserves are NOT THERE !!
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2010/04/05/daily65.html?s=industry&i=banking_financial_services
The legal system in this country has been screwed up for decades ... nothing new here. This stuff will get the heaveho just like all the other cases and buried under a mountain of paper.
When I practiced law I once brought a suit in federal court to foreclose a private mortgage and appoint a receiver. All of it was in the agreement which the court held valid. The judge refused to foreclose and appoint a receiver because the debtors had made one-half of the payments ... even though they were 6 months in default ... because, the judge said, "it would be unfair." I was pissed and I interrupted the judge during his ruling and asked him, "Judge, if I was standing here representing Wachovia Bank you would not be ruling this way would you?" He looked at me and said, "probably not ... but you can appeal it if you want to."
I quit practicing law about a year later.
It is all about who are the lawyers and who are the clients. The merits have very little meaning for many (not all mind you ... there are some great jurists in this nation, but even the great ones fold sometimes.) trial judges. The lawyers and the parties have an impact even at the appellate level.
If this case makes it beyond the trial court I will be amazed. I pray this or one like it does, but I do not hold out much hope.
Agreed, however, on the merits, this is one of the best arguments I've seen.
So attempting to get the courts to enforce the law against the financial overlords...good luck with that. Laws only exist for the little people, it's not like we even have the Magna Carta intact.
Send the little geeky pric Geithner to prison. Sociopaths in positions of power use their fancy suit and tie lifestyle to cover up their true identity. Sooner or later it comes out. And if he can't face the fact that he's a white collar crook today, society one day will stamp it on his head. At that point, he has my full support for a long and prosperous prison life.
Till then, phuk him!
Compelling argument. Good luck trying to get Timmy in the deposition chair. (I wish it would happen). Then again, you never know perhaps he, his partner or Mr. Murray may accidently get "MacGuired". Just sayin!
I smell a motion for summary judgment and denial of appeal. No court will want to go on record to either side against the Fed or put in writing whatever tortured logic would be required to side with the Fed.
BREAKING NEWS**BREAKING NEWS
Goldie files an amicus curiae brief...
Piacere. It is a deep and moving honor to discuss the waste mangement business with all of youze.
These are trying times for this thing of ours. Credit markets were saying ‘va fa napole’. The Borgata was approaching a stage of crisis…
Let us not forget the Code of Silence. Anti-Trust violations aside… Those that go oobatz get pinched.
Our capo in his esteemed wisdom gave the crew a taste without excessive vig. There was initally discord on points and even unfortunately a necessary message job for those that had not in the past paid tribute. But that jamook Fuld got his, buon’ anima.
The shylock business continues.
The necessary themes musciata are expressed by us. The cafones and poveretts, for whom the books are always closed have been told ‘col tempo la foglia digelso diventa seta’
Gentleman, this Golden Age is quickly coming to an end. It is imperative upon us to complete our spring cleaning for it is possible that there might be mannagge with the tizzun. Already the fanook is getting all chiacchierone on the shy. That NY strunz. This is causing much agita I know for there could be predicates. None of us wish to be guests of the state. This is not the time to eat alone.’
Cugine, chiudere il becco! You want to get called in? Don't be stunad. This place is hot and not all of them are meat eaters.
Despite that finoch Geithner going off the record, our thing is still good. Yerulshalmi accepted the scherole.
The tutsoon will approve the increase in the NAB. Dominique is a good earner.
Resista.
+3000 for use of Strunz. millie stonzo!!!
I got a postcard from Hank P, that "retired" friend of ours. At all costs he wants us to protect his "godson" Jimmy G...his successor in the family business as head of U.S. Treasury.
Hank has ordered an emergency sit-down at an undisclosed all-nite pizzeria and Chinese laundry, like we did in 2008 with John Mack, John Thain, Jamie Dimon, Vikram Pandit and our friends from Maiden Lane. All men of respect.
Like 2008, Hank will order cold scungilli as a mandatory appetizer for everyone as a test of bona fides. You remember how a couple of weak men did not have the stomach for cold scungilli and ran from the room, as Hank yelled, "Good riddance, you don't have the stomach for Wall Street." You remember how the Lehman family, trying to get back in Hank's good graces, ordered second helpings of cold scungilli. Too bad the Lehman mob did not eat the cold scungilli fast enough and with enough gusto to satisfy Hank.
Lloyd "scungilli sucker" B.
that should fix it.
If he's serious and will see it through no matter what, by that I mean indictments, arrests of geithner,orszag,
bernanke,
summers,
paulson,
greenspan,rubin,
friedman,fuld,
frank,
thain,
dodd,mozillo,o'neal
gensler, cassano, blankfein, shapiro,yellin, fink,kashkari,dugan, dudley etc ad nauseum I'd be deelighted to send him something.
Invite them and their wives for dinner in New Orleans. Apparently they have 5 thug leg breakers for every Women Republican the see... Who knows what they have available for the lot of sociopaths you mentioned.
You forgot Sheila B, Jamie D and Kerry Killinger of Wamu fame...
Invite them and their wives for dinner in New Orleans. Apparently they have 5 thug leg breakers for every Women Republican the see... Who knows what they have available for the lot of sociopaths you mentioned.
You forgot Sheila B, Jamie D and Kerry Killinger of Wamu fame...
jim rickards says the gold standard is coming back:
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/4/14_J...
I'd say the chance of this suit going anywhere are about the same as Congress deciding to balance the budget and pay off the national debt.
I love this guy . . . so far. The funny thing about the courts is that you at least have a fightin' chance of the thing being found utterly illegal. Don't assume they will cave that easily if the law and facts are simply not on Timmah's side. There is a gray area, to be sure, and ways to hide problems (especially by delay and the war of attrition) but at some level, given the facts and the law in a case like this, the outcome is often plain to see. And I suspect Mr. Yerushalmi is right. We've heard about this particular tiny slice of illegality, the AIG Credit Facility Trust, before on ZH, and it appears pretty clear to me that it is utterly invaild.
We'll see. Game on.
Game on!
Wouldn't the ruling simply be that the enabling legislation (EESA) could be applied retroactively to cover everything that was done without legal authority at the time? (Full disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, just wondering.)
Nope. Ex post facto crimes cannot be "covered up" by laws passed that prohibited prior actions.
This is not to say that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case...
gotta love cert. denied, no opinion.
I wish I had more money to send to you, but I don't. I am sending what I can. Thanks
History will write the following, Obama was not born a US citizen, Bernanke and Geithner were not criminals, but they loved their families and did what they had to do. Bill Clinton is a criminal.
I applaud his efforts, but the chance of getting very far in these times is remote. Anything can be construed as a clear and present danger to the safety of the United States.
David Yerushlami - Thank you for bringing this federal fraud to the attention of SIGTARP and Mr. Barofsky.
Since state and federal prosecutors have so far failed to bring the major prosecutions commensurate with the greatest financial crimes in U.S. history, it seems the only hope for public justice is in the actions of the private attorneys like yourself, ...and potential reactions from public prosecutors to the rampant criminality of the FRBNY and Wall Street.
Go Kevin Murray and David Yerushlami! Great team!
The Court also is a hero. They established a basis for the taxpayer to have standing.
Beyond this particular case re govt funding of religious activities thru AIG, other taxpayer(s) now have the green light and road map to take on other unconstitutional exercises of taxing and spending under the Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner Treasury Department machinations and taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and foreign banks.
"To have taxpayer standing, a person must meet a two part test: the taxpayer can only allege the unconstitutionality of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, and the taxpayer must demonstrate that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limits on the exercise of Congress’ taxing and spending powers. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 102-03. (1968). "
Thank you Kevin Murray and David Yerushlami.
everyone, stop being such downers!@ everything is ok! newsweek said so! thank god a friend sent this to me! http://www.newsweek.com/id/236190
How America pulled itself back from the brink—and why it's destined to stay on top.
WTF!@!#@
taxpayer standing is a bitch btw....
What a stupid article. Gross = tool, and here's why:
1) "a willingness to write off bad debts and restructure". Dan, Dan, Dan, you mean extend and pretend accounting fraud? Write off bad debts? The same USA that pressured FASB into legalizing accounting fraud?
2) "America still leads the world at processing failure". The mind can't process what it won't admit to
3) " less proprietary trading and more productivity-enhancing software, less debt and more capital, more exported goods and less imported energy" PLEAZE!! Did you see GS and JPM's profits? Prop trading baby!! Fed induced!! Less debt, more capital? Yep, look at the Fed's and Treasury's balance sheet. Now THAT'S less debt and I'm a fuckin unicorn!
4) "industrial ecosystems that incubate and propel growth". What on earth does this even mean? Straight out of the MBA textbook?
5) "Ben Bernanke was widely mocked for his identification of "green shoots" of recovery" The only green shoots were the ones flying out of Ben's printer. Tell that to job seekers mate.
6) "In the first quarter of 2009, the economy was shrinking at a 6.4 percent annual rate. By the fourth quarter it was growing at a 5.9 percent rate" Yes, and we are now almost $13Trn in debt at the Treasury level, and Ben has printed another $1.25Trn. All of it has bailed out bankers and corporations, and not a single private sector job has been created.
Sorry, but I could only stomach page 1 of this dross. Someone please complete this task for me, or, just go on with your life.
Pollyanna Gross wears thick rose-colored glasses as he whistles past the graveyard.
As we used to say in the '60s: you gotta fight the madness! Right on!
Good luck with this case. Probably come up in front of some lefty liberal whacko judge wearing a pink tutu and woolly underwear who has a picture of Obama tatooed on his ass next to Fidel Castro.
The nut job judge will come up with some crazy illogical logic showing beyond a preponderance of the evidence (Civil case) that the case cannot proceed to protect the big Ponzi scheme run by the bankstas who are protected by the politicians.
Bit of fun to watch.
All unintended (or maybe Intended ... who knows for sure) consequences of the mark to fastasy rule.
The doctrine of incidental unconstitutional effects or some penumbral analog which the Supreme Court will pull out of its ass will cause the suit to fail on Establishment Clause grounds. After a suitable show, that is, that bleeds the courageous Mr. Yerushlami white. But win against the Federal Reserve in Federal court? Brother, please. Like this gollem and its children will ever lay down.
AIG game the boys the perfect flow through entity through which they could feed gazillions in cash to the failing banks and to their capitalist crony friends. So they needed the stock so that they could have operating control and could then direct the cash. Heck, even Colombo could have figured that one out. I hope they all hang.
It is too bad that this lawsuit has been mixed up with a wackbird line about Sharia banking, which has less than nothing to do with the legality of the Fed scheme to control AIG.
-1,000....watch the presentation
I think the Law Suit misses an important point.
I view the takeover of AIG very similar to Eminent Domain. The Fed took Private Shareholder property and gave it to themselves. Under Eminent Domain if the Government takes Private Property they must fairly compensate the Owners for the taking of the Property. AIG Shareholders were never compensated for the taking of their Property.
I see the AIG takeover kind of like the Government giving me an FHA loan on my Home and then taking 79.9% of my Equity in exchange for that Loan. Now if they give me a straight Loan and I default they get the House. But, in the AIG example if the FHA gave me a Loan, even if I pay off the Loan the Government still owns 79.9% of my Home.
I also think the purpose of the AIG takeover was for the FED and the Banks to DUMP all of their bad debt into AIG. That way the Taxpayers suffer the losses.
With the Government in essence Owning AIG the Company could not be Audited to find out just what was going on behind the scenes. The Public would never be able to find out.
The fair value of your AIG shares was zero. Here let me get my checkbook out and help you with that....
This is yet another case that points to the fed's current condition of being considered either a; private individual, corporation, independent organization, public - independent "board", public institution, a combination of these and/or more depending upon the situation. The fact remains that once in a while definitive decision points are reached wherein intent becomes undeniable. Section 1.03 of the mentioned trust agreement is such an instance as is the speed with wich authority was granted under the EESA.
** Edited for Content **
A semi-unrelated question for the lawyers out there. Couldn't a new born baby make a legal case for opting out of Social Security and Medicare simply due to the burden of debt. In other words, argue that he was born a debt slave and that's illegal and therefore could opt out?
I know there are religious groups that have successfully made that argument. Couldn't it be successfully made by all children at this point?