TARP has Coerced Participation
One of the dangers I mentioned BEFORE this became law is that participation in TARP prevents any court review even if the participation is not voluntary.
Yesterday, on the Glen Beck show, the ex-director of the St. Louis Federal Reserve admitted that forced confiscation of assets is the power exercised under TARP.
See for yourself.
The naiveté of the Mr. Poole is stunning. At the end of the segment he mentions that one of the 9 banks refusing to participate in the hostile takeover should take the matter to court. The courts will save the day.
Clearly, Mr. Poole has not read the TARP legislation and Section 119 in particular. Section 119 (a)(3) reads
- No action or claims may be brought against the Secretary by any person that divests its assets with respect to its participation in a program under this Act, except as provided in paragraph (1), other than as expressly provided in a written contract with the Secretary.
If a bank were to pursue Mr. Poole's recommendation and go to court here is what will happen:
- In Federal district court, he Emperor of the Treasury will file a motion for summary dismissal based on section 119
- Regardless of the ruling on the motion to dismiss, the bank will file a motion for injunctive relief to block the Emperor of the Treasury from confiscating the bank's assets or confiscating ownership in the bank. Section 119 also prevents such the district judge from issuing such an injunction.
- Regardless of the ruling by the federal district judge on both motions (the motion to dismiss and the motion for injunctive relief), both rulings will be appealed to Federal circuit court
- Regardless of the how the appellate judge rules on the two matters, again, both matters will be appealed to US Supreme Court
- If the SCOTUS grants the writ of certiorari, then and only then will the matter finally be before a court not bound by the Congressional portion of the establishment clause in Article III section 1.
- Even then the US Supreme Court may rule in favor of Power instead of Justice as the court did in both Kelo v New London and Gonzales V. Raich.
During all of this time, the bank will have its arm caught in the gear works of the American federal court system. Regardless of whether the injunctive relief is granted or denied (Treasury is denied the confiscation or not), the damage to the business interests of the bank while caught in the gear works will be substantial.
The proper expletive for the bank is TANJ