Court rules against Fed secrecy

[HalfLotus]

In a 47-page opinion, Chief District Judge Loretta Preska of the federal court in Manhattan said the central bank failed to show that disclosure would cause borrowers in the Federal Reserve System to suffer "imminent competitive harm," by stigmatizing them for using Fed lending programs.

"The board essentially speculates on how a borrower might enter a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed," she wrote. "Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the board's burden."

...

Preska concluded the Fed "improperly withheld agency records in response to a FOIA request by conducting an inadequate search," she wrote."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57O03P20090825

[Darius871]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57O03P20090825

Pfft, crazy district-level judges. Everyone knows the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is "in on it."

[HalfLotus]

2nd circuit isn't likely to hear their appeal, more likely SCOTUS, and we all know the Fed doesn't want that kind of exposure. Looks like this one might stick.

And at a good time too, as Dodd tries to cram his PoS banking 'reform' bill down the throats of Congresscritters.

[Ecofarm]

HL, you are insanely obsessed with hating the US. If I was a fed, I'd look into you.

[HalfLotus]

I try to hate all governments equally.

[Ecofarm]

No, you don't. Just search threads by you. There is one thread about France, two threads about Ron Paul and the rest is crapping on the US with invented BS.


Stop lying.

[HalfLotus]

I am most concerned about my own government, for obvious reasons. Doesn't mean I don't dislike all the rest.

[Ecofarm]

You have an obvious agenda against the US.

You go beyond being "concerned" and you actively invent BS to make the US look bad or to support your conspiracy theories.


Do I need to link to the other thread to show evidence of how you just flat-out invent stuff to support your lunacy?


Here, you get caught inventing stuff and then you spew some Muslim booga booga crap when caught.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=190670

[HalfLotus]

You have an obvious agenda against the US.

I'm really glad you reneged on your promise to not respond to me anymore. My handlers at the Pentagon consider anything less than 2 pages to be an unsuccessful forum disinfo infiltration. At this rate, I'll be promoted to Huffington Post provocateur in no time!

[Darius871]

2nd circuit isn't likely to hear their appeal

Evidently you missed my sarcasm, because the Second Circuit already did hear their appeal; the news link you posted was regarding the 8/24/2009 district court opinion (on which there was already a thread here), whereas what happened 3/19/2010 was the Second Circuit's affirmance of that opinion. The remaining steps are 1) requesting en banc review of this 3-judge Circuit panel decision, 2) then petitioning for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, and 3) then having their little congresscritters retroactively tweak FOIA Exemption 4 or even more inconspicuously use Exemption 3's back door. It'll be some time before we see any finality on this.

more likely SCOTUS, and we all know the Fed doesn't want that kind of exposure.

Do we? If this information's important enough to hide, what difference does it make going to another court? The legal arguments made would be identical, so there's nothing to expose.

In any event, the extent of appeals apparently isn't entirely up to the Fed, since the banks with their privacy interests at stake are now associated as an intervenor party rather than amicus:

The Clearing House Association, which is a consortium of the largest banks and which intervened on behalf of the Fed, released a statement saying it was disappointed by the ruling.

It said that an appeal to the Supreme Court would be considered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/ny...bloomberg.html

[HalfLotus]

Ooh, I stand corrected. I was under the impression that 2nd circuit might hear it again via the en banc procedure, but that it was unlikely.

No finality yet, but still a victory for open government advocates.

edit: As for exposure, if it goes to the SupCo, it will certainly garner far more attention than it has at the district level.

I don't think the Fed wants a well-publicized case that challenges the foundation of its reasoning for secrecy.