Court rules against Fed secrecy
 

Pfft, crazy district-level judges. Everyone knows the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is "in on it." http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...secretanim.gif

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

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.

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

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.

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