I have just one problem with that. Contracts in bankruptcy or restructuring actions have never been ruled as "inviolate" when individuals are seeking bankruptcy protection, nor corporations, through the federal court system.
In fact, many contracts are set aside in such procedures depending on the assets, and future obligations are also scrutinized carefully since it is the trustee and court's job to protect the creditors primarily in getting the debts satisfied in whole or in part through whatever assets remain of the debtor and distributed accordingly at the time of filing. What can be protected by the debtor is also set by state and federal statute in order not to knock the legs totally out from under the debtor.
Also, the timing of execution of those contracts is also examined carefully, since there is a time frame prior to bankruptcy which must be met before that contract can be held valid in order to also protect the creditors - many a debtor has attempted to transfer assets using contracts in avoid their inclusion in the bankruptcy action which may be entered into when it appears bankruptcy is inevitable as an protection and avoidance tactic. How do I know this? I have had both friends and family members who have had to file bankruptcy both personally, and for their small businesses. I also worked as a contract law paralegal for many years.
Below is a copy of my letter to the Judge after viewing this segment:
Dear Judge Napolitano:
I just finished watching another interview on Fox regarding the AIG bonuses and Geithner's actions.
I am very, very confused as to where you are actually coming from.
Mr. Geithner, with respect to AIG at this point, since he was unlawfully transferred the trusteeship for this in effect bankruptcy action of a "global" corporation by Congress when they had no Constitutional authority to do so for this "restructuring" outside the federal court's jurisdiction, is in essence acting as trustee for the stockholders and shareholders and the American people.
Contracts are not inviolate under our Constitution nor under the common law and existing case law. As a matter of fact, many, many contracts are "set aside" for various reasons, especially in bankruptcy actions depending on just when those contracts were executed, whether they are "excessive" in their terms, and depending on the assets of the person or business claiming bankruptcy.
Corporations are not "persons" they are "property." They can be bought and sold. In a normal bankruptcy for an individual, all of their assets are up for grabs in order to satisfy the debts - which would include also any future obligations.
You can "contract" for a hit man, but that doesn't make that contract valid.
So just why does the media and the media representatives continue with all this smoke and mirrors with respect to the validity of this entire "bankruptcy," not to mention those bonuses - for a global corporation outside Constitutional authority to begin with?
