Posted on 02/03/2010 3:24:38 PM PST by FromLori
Biggovernment has presented an explosive story related to AIG and The NY Fed in which the claim is made that the trust agreement that established AIG's "grab" by The NY Fed was in fact outright unlawful:
This afternoon on Secure Freedom Radio we announced a breaking news story concerning the Administration’s ongoing cover-up of AIG financial wrong-doing. In an interview with David Yerushalmi, senior litigator on the Murray v. Geithner et al lawsuit, we expose possible fraud, money-laundering and criminal activity.
Money laundering?!
I looked at the source document folks - and while most of it looks ok, there's one little line in the trust agreement that might be the problem referred to - specifically, here:
Section 1.03. Trust is Irrevocable. This Trust Agreement and the Trust shall be irrevocable and, except as provided in Section 5.01 hereof, unamendable except that the Board of Governors may terminate or amend its authorization pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, thereby revoking or amending the Trust in accordance with Federal law, provided, however, that a Trustee’s rights to resign as a trustee hereunder and to compensation and indemnification with respect to acts or omissions occurring prior to any such revocation or amendment may not be modified without the written consent of that Trustee.
A trust of this sort, to be lawful, has to be irrevocable - you can't reserve the ability to modify it later. The NY Fed knew they didn't have the authority to take equity - thus, these "trust" agreements.
I'll note for the peanut gallery that I'm not an attorney, but I do have a reasonable understanding of the requirements for an irrevocable trust of this general sort to be valid. A phone call with the plaintiff's attorney, David Yerushalmi this morning confirmed that this indeed was the primary problem. Mr. Yerushalmi went on to assert that this establishes a prima-facie violation of the money laundering statute - an extremely serious allegation as that law, if violated, carries very heavy criminal penalties.
There is also apparently a second issue in that the beneficiary is named as The US Treasury, which is, effectively, a bank account and not a "person or entity." That's a potential problem too although I can see the counter-claim being made that "The Treasury" is in fact The institution of The Treasury, not the account called "The US Treasury."
This is an explosive allegation - if the trust is defective then it is as if it never existed, and the entirety of the AIG bailout and everything related to it may be criminally unlawful. In addition the shareholders of AIG may have effectively had their equity interest improperly stripped!
A call to AIG's corporate offices for comment was redirected to a media contact person by email (they apparently don't take phone calls) and an inquiry to that office was not immediately returned.
Stay tuned -this has the potential to get rather interesting, as the admissions related to this agreement, if I read the transcript accurately, were revealed in a deposition - that is, with the folks doing the talking under oath.
This could get ugly. I like it.
Criminals are running our government.
The entire Federal Reserve system is a rogue element. We need to terminate it and return it’s holdings to the US.
Honestly?
I think it’s quite likely that bribery on a major scale played a role in the bailouts of Goldman Sachs and AIG.
Oh my, Oh my! I love to watch them dance, we should really see some Twist and Shout from this.
If you start referring to it as the Third Bank of the United States, it makes its (necessary) demise more comprehensible and more plausible at the same time.
These are no ordinary criminals, though. They're terrorists. They depicted a scene of economic devastation that would come about, unless their bailout was issued. If that's not terrorism, what is?
“EXPLOSIVE: AIG Bailout Flat-Out Illegal?”
Mmm ... mmm ... mmmm.
Exactly and people instead of hopping on the banks sides should look at the facts. The facts are they donated heavily to obama. The facts are Paulson hearts obama. The facts are that people have been duped into believing the banks were not at fault because they were supposedly forced to make loans to unworthy borrowers but it was the BANKS who made up these loans. If they did not exist in the first place the govt. could not have bugged them to give them to people. The Banks privatized the profits and socialized the losses unto US the Taxpayers.
Hank Paulson feared there would be a run on the dollar during the early phase of the financial crisis when global concerns were focused on the US. When the crisis escalated and went global with the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, the dollar rallied – but Mr Paulson had to grapple with a firestorm of financial failures.
He feared Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would go down along with Washington Mutual and Wachovia.
“The timing could not have been worse since we were months or weeks from the election so you had the collision of markets and politics.”
Although a Republican, Mr Paulson found it harder to deal with John McCain than Barack Obama – raising the interesting (and unanswered) question of which candidate Mr Paulson voted for.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/772748d6-0e94-11df-bd79-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/07/jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-donat.html
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146096981566339.html
tsk-tsk...getting better by the proverbial minute;)
Hints have been in the air for over six months.
This is from Bloomberg, January 29:
Today in a speech O recommended that people turn off TV and politics. He hates being exposed.
I agree a FASCIST CARTEL and American’s have been so dumbed down they don’t realize our government created them and works in conjunction with them to screw us over.
http://www.thedailybell.com/681/Nelson-Hultberg-The-Fed-is-a-Fascist-Cartel.html
Our government could take away the power but then obama couldn’t keep spending like he does or any of them for that matter.
Thanks. I hope Conservatives start doing more talking about this it is not as if WE the people wanted to bail them out we all called, e-mailed, etc.
People should also think about how this has affected their retirement plans, there everyday life.
Nothing but crooks and from the start I came right out and said I even had a problem with their bonus’s and the reason I did was because they were no more then Welfare Queens on a grander scale. I also knew they had donated heavily to BO and the way I looked at it was that in itself was enough to know whose side those pigs were on.
Bump
My sister had some kind of annuity set up with AIG. Projections in 2002 were that she would receive $900/mo. starting at age 65. Now the projections are $12/mo.
My sister had some kind of annuity set up with AIG. Projections in 2002 were that she would receive $900/mo. starting at age 65. Now the projections are $12/mo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.