Replies

An excellent (must read) article, posted by Freedom INF:

Crossing the Rubicon (A Must Read!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1996456/posts

Crossing the Rubicon
http://www.fpafunds.com/news_04022008_rubicon.asp

EXCERPT:

.....The Fed also resorted to a Depression-era clause, Article 13 (3) of the Federal Reserve Act that is to be used only in “unusual and exigent circumstances,” to deal with the Bear Stearns crisis. The Fed initially guaranteed $30 billion of Bear Stearns assets so that JPMorganChase could acquire the company for $2 per share. This is the first time since the Depression that the Fed will be taking brokerage firm collateral onto its balance sheet and placing itself at risk because of the excesses and unsound business practices of a brokerage firm. In an earlier era, Bear Stearns would have been left to fail. This is not the case today since there was apparently a deep fear on the part of the Fed that a failure of Bear Stearns could create a domino-like crisis infecting a wide array of financial institutions, thereby accelerating and deepening the current credit contagion. As Steven Romick said in our FPA partner meeting on March 21, “I’m more concerned about what I don’t see. Why is it that we are not being told about or seeing another bidder for Bear Stearns other than JPMorganChase? Might JPMorganChase be playing defense so as to protect its $91.7 trillion dollar derivative exposure (according to September 2007 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency data) that is supported by just $123 billion of equity? How much counter party exposure did JPMorganChase have to Bear Stearns?” In our opinion, the Bear Stearns transaction looks very suspicious. If the situation were so precarious, why shouldn’t shareholder ownership have been entirely wiped out because of the excesses and mismanagement by their firm? Why should the Fed’s balance sheet be placed at risk while shareholders are receiving some type of compensation? A week later, the bid was raised from $2 to $10 per share, increasing the value conveyed by approximately $1 billion. Again, why should there be any compensation to shareholders? This compensation is being conveyed to owners of a firm that had derivative positions, with notional amounts as of November 30, 2007, totaling $13.4 trillion. Warren Buffett has, on several occasions, described derivatives as potential “weapons of mass destruction.”....

So then you'll need to prove that (a) the Fed took money from the Treasury AND (b) that it was not lawfully appropriated.

Fed Invokes Depression-Era Law for Bear Loan

Four Federal Reserve governors voted unanimously to approve a 28-day secured Fed loan facility to Bear Stearns Friday using a rarely used Depression-era provision of the Federal Reserve Act that normally requires five governors’ approval, Fed officials said.
The Fed normally has seven governors but two seats are currently vacant and one governor was traveling and unavailable to vote.
Officials said while the loan is being made via J.P. Morgan Chase, the risk is being borne by the Fed. That means if Bear Stearns fails and the collateral is insufficient to repay the loan, the Fed would incur a loss.
* * *
Under Section 13-3 of the Federal Reserve Act, added in 1932, it can lend to "individuals, partnerships, or corporations" with the approval of not less than five governors, provided "such individual, partnership, or corporation is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions."
However, under Section 11(r)(3)(ii)(I), approval can be granted with fewer than five governors in office if the “available members unanimously determine that … unusual and exigent circumstances exist and the borrower is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other sources” and “despite the use of all means available (including all available telephonic, telegraphic, and other electronic means), the other members of the Board have not been able to be contacted on the matter.”

Except, within the letter from Paulson, it states:

"...and acknowledge that if any losses arise out of the special facility extended by the FRBNY to JPMCB, the loss will be treated by the FRBNY as an expense that may reduce the net earnings transfered by the FRBNY to the Treasury general fund."

And see:

Treasury Agrees to Absorb any Losses to the Fed from Bear Stearns

Video from CNBC (hat tip idoc)
CNBC's Steve Liesman reports on a letter from Treasury Secretary Paulson to New York Fed President Tim Geithner (PDF). In the letter, Treasury agrees that the Fed can bill Treasury for any losses from the Bear Stearns deal. Null and void: "Translation: the tax payers will get stuck with the bill."

And...did JP Morgan and/or Bear Stearns seek to use CREDIT PREVIOUSLY EXTENDED TO IT? The Fed should prove that neither BEAR STEARNS nor JPM had ANY CREDIT available from which to borrow prior to being able to obtain a "bail out". The Fed should also PROVE that "the borrower [wa]s unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other sources." I happen to believe that such a huge corporation, that was "too big to fail" HAD to have CREDIT it did NOT use to bail itself out. What "major corporation" that's "too big to fail" would NOT have had millions available in credit?

Why....even STUPID J6P were able to obtain credit for million dollar homes they couldn't even afford.