Wrong. Making a situation public does not demand that you release any and all private information.

No, but if somebody else releases material relevant to your claim then you have no complaint, since you chose to make it public. Otherwise people could make public claims about all sorts of falsities, confident that their opponent can't reveal the truth because of "privacy."

First, it's not one bank president, his case has been brought to the forefront of media scrutiny recently as his bank is considered "big" but he is not alone.

It could be Elvis Presley for all we know. Which is the whole point. We don't know. All we have is Mr "the government is not your friend" saying that somebody he knows said that the government is not my friend. So let Elvis or whoever come forward to show it isn't just FUD.

Second, we, the general public, do not need nor are entitled to a summary examination of a private company's holdings.

If the company president makes these sorts of accusations in public, yes we are. In this case, the story changes from "corrupt government" to "another <insert derogatory adjective here> banker" if the bank did need money or if there were reasonable grounds for an audit.

There's ample evidence that government interference via environmental regulation, excessive taxation/fees, bureaucratic incompetence and legal repression has directly altered the dynamics of traditional market forces to the point of fundamentally changing the way business must operate to obtain a profit.

The devil made me do it. ;-) OK.