Fed Won't Join Bank Supreme Court Appeal on Loan Disclosures

[tridim]

A group of the largest commercial banks asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let the government continue to withhold details of emergency loans the Federal Reserve made to financial firms in 2008.

The Clearing House Association LLC, a group of the biggest commercial banks filed the appeal today. The Federal Reserve won’t file its own appeal, according to Kit Wheatley, an attorney for the central bank. Under federal rules for appeals, a lower court’s order requiring disclosure remains on hold until the high court acts. David Skidmore, a spokesman for the central bank, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The bank group is appealing a federal judge’s August 2009 ruling requiring the Fed to disclose records of its emergency lending. Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, sued for the release of the documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The central bank has never disclosed the identities of borrowers since the creation in 1914 of its Discount Window lending program, which provides short-term funding to financial institutions, the Clearing House said in its petition.

“Disclosure of this information threatens to harm the borrowing banks by allowing the public to observe their borrowing patterns during the recent financial crisis and draw inferences -- whether justified or not -- about their current financial conditions,” the group said in its appeal. Calls to Paul Saltzman, general counsel for the Clearing House, were not immediately returned.

More on the bank's cover-up efforts here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/fed-won-t-join-banks-appeal-to-high-court-over-emergency-loan-disclosures.html?cmpid=yhoo

This isn't about "the public", it's about TBTF and TARP. They are now actively covering up their massive crimes committed in 2007-08.

Will "the public" allow this to happen? We'll see.

[Bitwit1234]

1. Guess they held off til they knew for sure the court was on

the side of republicans, big banks and wall street. And after Citizens United I guess they are.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[txaslftist]

3. 2007 - 2008?!?

Try 2001 to 2010.

And by the way, the Democrats involved oppose disclosure, so hush.

[jtuck004]

4. Ok, despite the fact that txaslftist made me laugh out loud, where is

there any effort to educate and organize any opposition to this?

Not attacking your post - liked it very much - but your comment

"Will "the public" allow this to happen? We'll see" makes me want to ask exactly what might precipitate this?

We've been seeing since around 1998 to the present - Sex maniacs on the supreme court. Illegal wars, torture and murder on behalf of the American people. Presidents who sign legislation that hides enough borrowed money to bring down several economies. Several administrations who sat and watched while China and other countries LITERALLY visited us, packed up whole industries, and moved 9 million jobs (along with the wealth and impetus to create millions of other jobs in new businesses) off our shores with the assistance of a growing financial sector. Focus on health care and equal pay for equal work (and several other worthy and worthwhile things by some very good and caring people) while the ranks of 30 million people unemployed or underemployed, some of whom have very likely worked the last job they will ever have before their social security kicks in, continues to grow. (Is it a more just world if both men and women are getting the same $0 for work that is no longer available?). Millions of people losing their homes, far more than were ever induced to sign up for a mortgage that they couldn't pay for. 44 million people living below federal poverty levels, A federal reserve who has hidden the profits of the 6 largest banks behind their curtains, allowing them to collect billions in taxpayer money in interest from Treasury bonds while leaving the American people with a debt of billions of dollars, (and perhaps $3.2 trillion), the same banks who have through their own actions thrown a cloud over the entire housing market. Politicians who handcuff members of a free press, or whose supporter's behavior mimics more the Brown shirts of Germany than someone who cares deeply for their state or their country. A Treasury Secretary whose life is so filled with the friends of Goldman Sachs that even the NY Times wrote an article about the frequent associations - up to and including living in their homes. Which wouldn't be a problem if he didn't keep refilling - and refilling, and refilling - their coffers with taxpayer money as fast as they can lose the contents.

Ok, let's say we can live with those things. I see a lot of people fighting for their sides, and on certain levels there are big differences. I think the Democrats have a slightly better vision. They, or their supporters, us, don't go out and put their boot on and shove someone's head into the sidewalk. But it is tempered by the fact that they have played key roles over many years in some of the financial actions that have, perhaps, done potentially irreparable harm to our country (by nothing more than inaction in some cases). To argue against that being the case would be disingenuous, maybe delusional.

What else might happen that we could think it would set off, really light a fire, under a group that would educate and organize, - which is, after all, the only real thing that has ever brought change - that could turn into a movement (the numbers that it would take to make a difference)?

Really, really not trying to start an argument, (on DU, :rofl:), but I do wonder what might motivate people to work together toward something greater if nothing has so far?

Thank you for your post...