PDA

View Full Version : The Fed Admits To Breaking The Law




Rael
04-02-2010, 06:38 PM
Source: Market Ticker

Now how long will it be before something is done about it?

April 1 (Bloomberg) -- After months of litigation and political scrutiny, the Federal Reserve yesterday ended a policy of secrecy over its Bear Stearns Cos. bailout.

In a 4:30 p.m. announcement in a week of congressional recess and religious holidays, the central bank released details of securities bought to aid Bear Stearns’s takeover by JPMorgan Chase & Co. Bloomberg News sued the Fed for that information.

The problem is this: The Fed is not authorized to BUY anything other than those securities that have the full faith and credit of The United States.

In addition Ben Bernanke has repeatedly claimed that these deals would not cost anyone money. But the current value looks differently:

Assets in Maiden Lane II totaled $34.8 billion, according to the Fed, which set their current market value in its weekly balance sheet at $15.3 billion. That means Maiden Lane II assets are worth 44 cents on the dollar, or 44 percent of their face value, according to the Fed.

Maiden Lane III, which has $56 billion of assets at face value, is worth $22.1 billion, or 39 cents on the dollar, according to the Fed’s weekly balance sheet. A similar calculation for the Bear Stearns portfolio couldn’t be made because of outstanding derivatives trades.

In other words, they have lost more than half of their value.

This was and remains a blatantly unlawful activity.

The Fed has effectively usurped Article 1 Section 7 of The Constituion which reads in part:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Fed effectively appropriated taxpayer funds without authorization of Congress. At the time these facilities were put in place neither TARP or any other Congressional authorization existed for them to do so, and to date no bill has been put through Congress authorizing the expenditure of taxpayer funds, either through putting them at risk or via outright expense, for this purpose.

Nor does it stop with a "mere" Constitutional violation - The Federal Reserve Act's Sections 13 and 14 do not permit Fed asset purchases except, once again, for items carrying "full faith and credit" guarantees. Credit-default swaps and trash mortgages most certainly do not meet these qualifications.

I know I've harped on this for more than two years, but here we have a raw admission of exactly what was done - and there is simply no way to construe any of it in a light that conforms with either The Constitution or black-letter statutory law.

What's worse is that Tim Geithner, head of the NY Fed at the time, was very much involved in this - that is, he in effect personally, along with Ben Bernanke, usurped the power of the United States House.

The Fed has spent two years trying to hide this from the public and Congress. It has fought off both Congressional demands for disclosure and multiple FOIA lawsuits, the latter of which has resulted in a series of adverse rulings (and, it appears, was ultimately going to force disclosure anyway.)

These actions are unacceptable but promising "never to do that again" is insufficient. In a Representative Republic where the rule of law is supposed to be paramount - that is, where we do not crown Kings and relegate everyone else to the status of knaves, unlawful actions such as this demand that strong and unmistakable sanction also be applied to all wrongdoers in addition to protection against future abuse.

In this case this means that both Geithner and Bernanke must go - for starters.

Amending The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (as Chris Dodd has proposed to prevent future lending bailouts) is not sufficient in that The Fed did not lend in this case, it purchased, and by buying what we now know were trash loans it violated the black letter of existing law.

There is only one effective remedy for an institution that has proved that it will not abide the law: it must be stripped of all authority that has been in the past and can be in the future abused.

This means that The Fed, if we are to keep it at all, must be relegated to a body that only practices and provides monetary policy - nothing more or less - and that all monetary operations must be performed openly, transparently, and within those constraints.

We cannot have a republic where an unelected body is left free to violate The Constitution with wild abandon and those acts are then allowed to stand.

One final thought: If the individuals responsible for this blatant black-letter violation of the law do not face meaningful sanction for these acts, and neither does The Fed as an institution, can you fine folks over at The Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches of our government please explain to us ordinary Americans why we should obey any of the laws of this land when you will not enforce the laws that already exist?

puppetmaster
04-02-2010, 06:41 PM
We have always known they are crooks and thieves

Matt Collins
04-02-2010, 08:20 PM
They might try to claim sovereign immunity.

Rael
04-02-2010, 08:20 PM
They might try to claim sovereign immunity.

:D

Stary Hickory
04-02-2010, 08:25 PM
Off with their heads...really this is just ridiculous. And you know this is only the tip of the iceberg. They are not releasing the most damaging stuff yet...if we ever got an honest look at these crooks it would be the end.

Chester Copperpot
04-02-2010, 08:33 PM
I dont think that article has all its facts in place.. The Fed can buy any debt instrument it wants.. it doesnt have to be backed by the us govt.,...


And while I agree with the Fed usurping the constitution and the House's monopoly on granting expenditures.. their argument will be that none of the money given was taken from the treasury.. of course not, since they created it themselves...

emazur
04-02-2010, 08:39 PM
Robert Reich (leftist and ex-Clinton Sec. of Labor) wrote an article on this and actually sounded a lot like Ron Paul. Article hit the front page of digg:
http://digg.com/business_finance/Fed_in_hot_water_over_secret_bailouts

First, only Congress is supposed to risk taxpayer dollars. The Fed is not part of the legislative branch. Its secret deals, announced almost two years after they were done, violate the democratic process, if not the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson put a stop to Alexander Hamilton’s idea of a powerful central bank out of fear it would be unaccountable to the public. The Fed has just proven Jefferson’s point.

Second, if the Fed can secretly bail out big banks, the problem of “moral hazard” – bankers taking irresponsible risks because they know they’ll be rescued – is far greater than anyone assumed after Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations bailed out the banks. Big banks will always be too big to fail because they know the Fed will secretly back them up if they get into trouble, even if Congress won’t do it openly.

Third, the announcement throws a monkey wrench into the financial reform bill now on Capitol Hill, which gives the Fed additional authority by, for example, creating a consumer protection bureau inside it. Only yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) blasted the Dodd bill for expanding the Fed’s authority “even as it remains shrouded in secrecy.”

RileyE104
04-02-2010, 09:07 PM
Wait... Why did they choose to just up and END their policy of secrecy in this area..
I'm pretty sure Big Ben didn't just wake up and grow a conscience.. Otherwise he would have done what Jim Rogers suggested and Abolished the FED and fired himself..

catdd
04-03-2010, 09:24 AM
And they can't hide behind the federal reserve act this time either.

Tax the Fed
04-03-2010, 02:09 PM
As a matter of principle, or, as a penalty . . .
- it is time for this non-governmental banking cartel to lose it's tax exempt status.

surf
04-03-2010, 03:29 PM
original Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZA_RWY3IJ2I&pos=4

the words "legal" and "illegal" are not found in the Bloomberg article

i sent an email to the author suggesting that it would be a good article subject to discuss whether or not the actions the Fed took where, in fact, illegal. we'll see.