The institutional criminality is getting worse, as predicted and expected when bullies and criminals are allowed to profit from their intentional violations with impunity.
Institutional fraud, theft, murders, and destroying incriminating documents are on the rise and now perpetual war is the policy as new mass surveillance security measures are aimed at whistleblowers and other uses that benefits the criminal banking and political elite clubs. I am thankful for the courageous whistleblowers like Carmen Segarra.
Her court case fights to reveal her secret recordings of New York Federal Reserve Bank and Goldman Sachs’ violations…
What we know about the New York Federal Reserve Bank:
- The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank uniquely sits permanently on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).
- It is the only regional Federal Reserve Bank to have its own trading floor and speed dials to the largest firms on Wall Street
- It is the only regional Fed Bank to be allowed to intervene in foreign exchange markets (a market where cartel activity is currently under criminal investigation)
- it uniquely among the regional Fed Banks, stores gold for foreign central banks, governments and international agencies
- The New York Fed uniquely managed relationships with Wall Street banks during the financial crisis from 2007 to 2010 by making secret, below-market rate loans to the tune of trillions of dollars to the banks that were collapsing as a result of its unwatchful regulatory eye
- AND there is more suspicious international activities…
Help us continue to shine the light of Truth.
Follow the Money. ~Ron
[…] the plan the global oligarchy intends to put into place during the next crisis are quite possible, if not probable. Knowing the tactics of those who wish to oppress you and lock you into perpetual serfdom is half the battle. We must get inside of the devious minds of these people so that we are prepared for their next assault, which without question, is coming our way. –financialsurvivalnetwork.com
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: September 26, 2014
Jake Bernstein has a financial blockbuster up today at ProPublica on the secret tape recordings made inside the New York Fed and Goldman Sachs by bank examiner turned whistleblower, Carmen Segarra, who was fired by the New York Fed after she refused to change her examination findings on Goldman Sachs.
Segarra is one gutsy bank examiner and lawyer: according to the article, she went to the Spy Store, bought a tiny microphone, and proceeded to tape record two of the most powerful financial institutions in the world — 46 hours worth of tapes.
Read our past coverage of the Carmen Segarra story and the deeply conflicted New York Fed at these links:
By Pam Martens: May 7, 2014 http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/05/the-carmen-segarra-case-welcome-to-new-york-wall-street-and-mcjustice/
There is one key thing you need to know from the get-go about bank examiner Carmen Segarra’s Federal whistleblower lawsuit over being fired for her finding that Goldman Sach’s had no firm wide conflict of interests policy and landing in a Federal courtroom with even worse conflicts: this kind of McJustice has been tolerated in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York for at least the past 20 years.
Segarra was a bank examiner with a law degree at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, one of Wall Street’s key regulators, who charged in a Federal lawsuit filed in October 2013 that she was told to change her negative examination of Goldman Sachs by colleagues, who also obstructed and interfered with her investigation. When she refused to alter her findings, she was terminated in retaliation and escorted from the Fed premises according to her lawsuit. The folks telling her to change her opinion at the New York Fed are called “relationship managers.”
It’s easy to see why the New York Fed, a study in conflicts, doesn’t consider conflicts a biggie at Goldman Sachs. The New York Fed is just one of 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks – but it is strangely unique among its peers. Here’s just a sampling of its uniqueness and outrageous conflicts:
The President of the New York Fed sits permanently on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Presidents of the other 11 regional banks rotate on the FOMC;
Although there is no law requiring that the New York Fed should be the sole regional Federal Reserve Bank to conduct the open market operations of the FOMC, it has uniquely served in this function since 1935;
It is the only regional Federal Reserve Bank to have its own trading floor and speed dials to the largest firms on Wall Street;
It is the only regional Fed Bank to be allowed to intervene in foreign exchange markets (a market where cartel activity is currently under criminal investigation);
In July of 2012, Wall Street On Parade reported on how a Barclays’ employee told a Senior Financial Economist at the New York Fed that his bank was not “posting um, an honest LIBOR.” That 2008 conversation denoted one of the biggest cartel frauds in history, and yet, no one at the New York Fed thought it necessary to alert the U.S. Justice Department that one of the benchmark interest rates used to index financial products around the world was being intentionally rigged.
The New York Fed, uniquely among the regional Fed Banks, stores gold for foreign central banks, governments and international agencies;
The New York Fed uniquely managed relationships with Wall Street banks during the financial crisis from 2007 to 2010 by making secret, below-market rate loans to the tune of trillions of dollars to the banks that were collapsing as a result of its unwatchful regulatory eye; then refused to turn over the details when the press filed suit for the information until it was ordered to do so by a court.
To carry out its monetary policy, the New York Fed must engage in open market trading operations with Primary Dealers. Primary Dealers include all of the largest Wall Street banks – the firms it is also charged with supervising.
The New York Fed supervises the largest and most dangerous global banks while their CEOs take turns sitting on its Board of Directors. Sandy Weill, Chairman and/or CEO of Citigroup at the time, served on the Board from 2001 to 2006. The New York Fed ended up funneling over $2 trillion in below market rate loans to Citigroup, a clearly insolvent bank that President Obama had ordered to be unwound, during the 2008-2010 financial collapse. That came on top of other government assistance totaling over $345 billion in equity infusions and asset guarantees to Citigroup while the President’s order was ignored.
Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fed Board from 2007 to the end of 2012. Dimon continued to serve despite a public outcry calling for him to resign. (JPMorgan was under investigation by the New York Fed for losing $6.2 billion of depositors’ money in a failed bet on exotic derivatives – the London Whale debacle – as Dimon sat on its Board.)
In 2011, the Government Accountability Office studied this Board structure and found it deeply wanting in “accountability and transparency.”
Segarra, a bank examiner at this riddled mess of conflicts, seeks justice at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2013. Her Judge is Ronnie Abrams, wife of Greg Andres, a partner at law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. The case is before the court from October 2013 until April 3, 2014 when the Judge schedules a telephone conference with both sides to share the pesky detail that “it had just come to her attention that her husband…was representing Goldman Sachs in an advisory capacity.”
This is a transcript of a portion of the telephone conference as provided as part of the Judge’s decision: (See Carmen Segarra v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, et al )
“I wanted to let you know this. And if either side—I don’t need to know who—but has any desire to have me recuse myself, I am happy to entertain that request. Again, I don’t need to know who is making the request, but before the argument tomorrow, I wanted to let you know that. I’m perfectly willing to put off the argument for a few days to give you the time to think about it. Or, Miss Stengel, if you want to talk to your client about it. But I also didn’t want to inconvenience you. And so as soon as I found this out, I tried to . . . get you on the phone to advise you of this.”
Neither side asked for recusal at this point. However, a week later, Segarra’s attorney, Linda Stengle, asks for “a more complete disclosure of both Judge Abrams’s husband’s relationship with Goldman Sachs and Judge Abrams’s prior working relationship with defense attorney Thomas Noone,” (the lawyer representing the New York Fed). Stengle wanted the “commencement date of Husband’s present work for Goldman Sachs” and “historical relationship, if any between Husband and Goldman Sachs.” Under Federal government conflict rules, the conflicts of the spouse become the conflicts of the Federal judge.
We learn from footnotes in the decision that the attorney for the New York Fed, Thomas Noone, also previously worked for the Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm, as did the Judge previously.
Twenty days after the disclosure that her husband is a lawyer to Goldman Sachs, Judge Abrams throws out Segarra’s case while refusing to provide any further details on her husband’s involvement with Goldman Sachs.
Instead, in her written decision, Judge Abrams attempts to tar the reputation of Segarra’s attorney, accusing her of “judge-shopping” for simply asking for transparency.
This is Circa 2014 in the rotten-to-the-core Big Apple financial system.
Why is Attorney General Eric Holder Resigning DOJ?
Secret Tapes Rock Federal Reserve
26 Sep 2014
Former financial regulator Bill Black says Holder’s legacy on “too big to fail” is “too big to jail”
Parliament ‘bullied’ to pass national security laws, says Greens senator Scott Ludlam
National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014
Urged senators to reconsider their vote: Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. Photo: Andrew Meares
Controversial anti-terrorism laws expected to pass in the Senate as early as this week will give spy agency ASIO the power to monitor the entire internet, the government has confirmed.
It comes as Greens senator Scott Ludlam urged senators to reconsider their vote on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2014, which is likely to pass the senate either this week or early next week.
“I think this Parliament is being bullied to pass something in the heat of a national security crisis that we will later regret, as we regretted an earlier tranche of legislation that we passed in 2005,” Senator Scott Ludlam told Fairfax Media on Wednesday evening, before debate was due to commence.
Confirmed there was “no arbitrary or artificial limit” on the number of computers ASIO could access under a single warrant: Attorney-General Senator George Brandis. Photo: Andrew Meares
The legislation has been labelled as “urgent” by Attorney-General George Brandis.
Australian Lawyers Association president Greg Barns said the new laws would allow ASIO to conduct surveillance on “anyone, any time, anywhere”.
“There are few, if any, limits now,” he said.
“And we don’t have sufficient privacy protections. We have no tort of privacy, meaning we can’t sue ASIO or anyone else if they invade our privacy in a gross sense or if they use [that information] illegally. You have no course of redress.”
So far only the Greens and Liberal Democratic Party senator David Leyonhjelm have said they will oppose the bill. Labor has said they will support it as has the Palmer United Party.
This means the bill will pass even with cross-bench opposition.
The legislation redefines what ASIO can access under a computer warrant.
On Wednesday afternoon, Senator Brandis confirmed that under the legislation, ASIO would be able to use just one warrant to access numerous devices on a network.
The warrant would be issued by the director-general of ASIO or his deputy.
“There is no arbitrary or artificial limit on the number of devices,” Senator Brandis told the senate.
This means that the entire Australian internet could be monitored by just one warrant if ASIO wanted to do so, according to experts and digital rights advocates including the Australian Lawyers Alliance, journalist union the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Electronic Frontiers Australia.
Senator Brandis argued the warrants should not be restricted, as it was not known what powers ASIO would need in the future.
“How can … Senator Ludlam stand in the Senate today and anticipate what the needs of ASIO will be in relation to warrant-based access [in the future],” he said.
Senator Ludlam said it was important the concerns were addressed.
“They have validated it,” Senator Ludlam said of the fears.
“So any device connected to any other device on the internet in the world could be tapped into [or disrupted] by a simple warrant.”
Senator Ludlam introduced amendments that addressed his concerns. But the government and Labor have said they will vote against them. Other concerns he and others have raised relate to the lack of whistleblower protections in the new laws, which jail those who “recklessly” disclose intelligence information.
That would include journalists, bloggers or officials, who could be jailed for 10 years.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon said he would support the government’s bill but had misgivings about it. It is understood he will support Senator Ludlam’s amendments, but his support is not enough to get them through Parliament.
Rights groups have expressed concern the laws will curtail journalists’ ability to write about national security matters.
When discussing the new legislation in the Senate’s “committee stage” process, Senator Ludlam and Senator Xenophon repeatedly asked Senator Brandis to explain how the laws would work.
“Australia has the weakest oversight mechanisms,” Senator Xenophon said.
“Australia lacks institutionalised review of surveillance programs.”
The senators also raised concerns that a part of the law, which allows ASIO to delegate its powers to “affiliates”, meant those outside of ASIO, like contractors, could be delegated ASIO powers.
“These are very serious concerns that the scrutiny committee has put to you,” Senator Ludlam told Senator Brandis.
Senator Brandis said he had responded to the concerns in a “public” letter that was due to be tabled in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon.
Senator Brandis refused to table his responses to the committee’s concerns earlier.
“I found it irritating and obstructionist that he wasn’t prepared to put it to us while we were debating the bill,” Senator Ludlam told Fairfax.
Senator Xenophon also expressed frustration.
But Senator Brandis said his hands were tied.
“I find it unbelievable that you would spend two hours of the committee stage of the debate on an urgent bill playing procedural games and engaging in what is starting to sound a little bit like a filibuster,” Senator Brandis said.
Liberal senator Ian MacDonald said he did not see what the fuss was all about.
“I am certainly one of those in Australia who is very keen to see these measures implemented, even if it does – even in a small way – [infringe on] freedoms that I previously expressed.
“I don’t care quite frankly who listens in to my phone and certainly I don’t have anything to hide.”
Senator Ludlam said he feared the laws were being rushed through as no one wanted a terrorist-related attack to occur on their watch.
“I think there’s a grain of truth in that,” Senator Ludlam said.
“I think no politician on any side – Labor, Liberal, Greens, Nationals and independents – wants to suffer a terrorist attack on their watch. And that’s particularly astute for the executive. Nobody wants to look back and say there were things that we could have done to make the community safer. So that’s right across politics. And in fact I would say that obligation is above politics.”
Audio interview from Tuesday: