By What Authority, Mr. Feinberg?

On July 4th, 2010’s "FOX NEWS SUNDAY", the substitute host was Major Garrett, sitting in for Chris Wallace.

One of the principle guests was “KENNETH FEINBERG, ADMINISTRATOR, GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY” who was specially appointed by President Barack Obama in June of 2010 to control, oversee and distribute the $20 billion in funds placed into escrow by BP to compensate injuries and losses experienced by claimants in the Gulf of Mexico – BP oil spill.

[Recall that on October 22 2009 “White House Bans FOX News from Press Pool Interview — Then Relents After Protest (Video) Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, October 22, 2009, 8:19 PM” Garrett tried to interview Feinberg on to determine by what authority Feinberg could regulate the pay of private executives. Garrett was blocked by the White House.]

The first question for Kenneth Feinberg was one Major Garrett attributed as the number one question polled by viewers to be asked of Mr. Feinberg: 

[Garrett:]  “From what power or authority, sir, do you derive the power to pay claims? Who do you work for? And how can you be viewed by the American public [as independent] when you were hired by President Obama and are being paid by BP?”

Feinberg’s answer was as clear as it was ambiguous:

[Feinberg:] “I work for the people of the Gulf region. That’s who I work for—.”

In late-June 2010 testimony before Congress, Feinberg testified that the Obama Administration and BP entered into a legal agreement to establish the Facility as a completely independent entity to process claims and distribute funds.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLT4BdV9k

But as Garrett asked on Fox News Sunday, Feinberg conceded that there is no written formal agreement between the Administration and BP on the Facility, nor is there any documentation available for public review by citizens or by Congress. Feinberg was not even sure if such agreement documentation exists.

[Garrett:]  “I’ve asked the White House several times. Unlike the 9-11 fund, which you administered that was Congressionally chartered, this [Facility] is not. This is an agreemtn between a sitting White House and a multi-national corporation. Should the American public see this written document?”

[Feinberg:] “First, I don’t even know if there is such a document.”

[Garrett:]  “Should there be?”

[Feinberg:] “I assume there will be”… [and] “This is not on my watch.”

In other words, “It’s not my job, man. I am just here to spend the money.”

Feinberg also testified that he was not the administrator of the whole $20 billion escrow fund, rather he is the administrator of all private claims for damage compensation of which the Gulf Coast Claims Facility “will draw on part of that $20 billion fund.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLT4BdV9k     [time 3:14].

A fund of which “I will design and administer.” [3 min 35 sec].

The answers from Feinberg are as clear as the legal authority exercised by President Obama in pressuring BP to place $20 billion in escrow: none.

Also in the interview Feinberg asserted with certainty his absolute moral authority on the righteousness of his plan to distribute the monies in escrow to oil-spill victims. When asked about who are the victims and how will the claims be evaluated for equitable compensation? Feinberg explains by illustrating who will not get compensated:

"You have to look at each and every case," Feinberg said on Fox News Sunday. "Are you losing business this year because you can't take charter fishermen out to fish? You can't take a charter boat for sightseeing? You can't go into the marshes of Louisiana?"

Feinberg emphasized that not everyone in the gulf would receive aid and that potential victims would have to prove damages.

"Oil, physical presence of oil, should not and will not be the only requirement" for help, he said. "There are going to have to be some tough decisions made as to who is eligible and who is not eligible. And so I will look at the claims; I'll look at the underlying facts of those claims."

In other reports [not Fox], Feinberg announced that although about $130 million had been paid out by BP to help businesses, employees, and others hurt by the oil spill, the list of those paid is not available to the public.

An Expert in Fairness and Experience in Distributing Other People’s Money

What are the credentials that give Mr. Feinberg the supreme moral authority to compensate and define victim status as an administrator to a fund created by a private compact between the White House and a multi-national corporation? His personal experience.

Feinberg, is a lawyer who specializes in mediation, who was Senator Ted Kennedy’s Chief of Staff, and who previously oversaw the compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

More recently, he was called on by Barack Obama to “administer compensation” for top business executives of private companies that both received federal bailout money, and those deemed “unfair” by an Administration that believes in extra-Constitutional powers to regulate the pay of “Fat Cat Bankers” and the executives of other private industries.

Completely Independent? Hardly…

Feinberg was quick to point out to Garrett the degree to which the Gulf Coast Claims Facility was completely and totally independent from both the Administration and BP in the execution of its tasks. To date there is no legal documentation for the Facility’s formation, any charter, any system of independent audits nor any Congressional oversight. If the definition of “completely independent” means untraceable flow of money, then the Facility qualifies, for if Feinberg is completely and totally independent, then he is answerable to no one and neither is the disposition of part or all of the $20 billion.

Obama - BP - Gulf Coast Claims Facility – Feinberg Culpability?

If the $20 billion dollars was extorted from BP by virtue of the delayed or withheld threat of lawful criminal prosecution by the Justice Department, under the direct instructions of the President, and thus the Gulf Coast Claims Facility was created to ‘independently’ and arbitrarily distribute the $20 billion dollars without any oversight, restraint, or audit trail; and if anyone derives direct benefit from such distribution, then: 

  1. Has the president acted outside of his legal authority in withholding law enforcement to extort money?
  2. Has the president through the direct use of the authority of his office benefited others directly, thus violating the law?
  3. When the Facility’s fund is established, does an escrow fiduciary agency [like, say, Goldman Sachs] stand to benefit fro the holding of $20 billion in escrow?
  4. If the President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts [Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)], does this extra-Constitutional act define itself as a private act, since it is an act that relied upon the weight of his title as president, but has in fact directed $20 billion into a “totally independent”, private compact between the authority of the White House and BP, and created a Facility that is answerable to no one?
  5. Following number 4: Since the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office, does a forced extortion of private money into an independent fund qualify as an “outer perimeter” of his duties?
  6. If the President is immune, does this immunity extend to cover the officially unofficial acts of Mr. Feinberg? Or if Mr. Feinberg, hired by Obama [either personally or by and official presidential act], yet paid by BP, represent a conflict of interest to the so-called “people of the Gulf”, for whom Feinberg claims to be working for?
  7. Finally, is this not Chicago-styled politics at its finest? The threat of prosecution used to gain monetary favors, which are then placed into an escrow of an untouchable-private-entity acting under the cover of an implied governmental authority?

Then There is the Standing Issue…

Couple all of the above to the issue of Standing, where charges of Constitutional violations by government officials were not given the meritorious “time-of-day” by lower federal courts.

The neo-judicial doctrine of Standing requires that a suing party demonstrably show a specific and particular injury, in fact. ‘Standing’ has thus been successfully used as a club to beat any person or entity that challenges anyone in public office, the merits of the case be damned. Indeed, the doctrine of Standing is now being argued before federal courts, as states such as Virginia are said to not have any Standing in suing over the harmful effects of Obamacare.

Where Does It End?

Where does the exercise of presidential, extra-Constitutional powers end?

There seems to be no end in sight. Illegal GM Bond Holder negation, Arizona border enforcement negligence, Bank Bail Outs, non-prosecution of voter Civil Rights laws, circumvention of Article 2 Section 1 eligibility requirements, Congressional failure to pass a budget, violation of the “emoluments clause”, and more seem to be the arrogantly asserted norms.

With no Constitution in effect, is there any Representative Law left in the land? It appears not.