Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

thanks for the input obi.

You are welcome camacho.

1. so defendants denied having an admin rec in perry/lamberth (although they weren't ordered to produce one), and now in saxton/reade they are being ordered to produce in one month?

Yes. One month.

The Lamberth court did not order the entire administrative record and declared it irrelevant in that decision to dismiss on 9/30/14. (See: FHFA’s Justifications for Executing the Third Amendment and, Consequently, the Accompanying Administrative Record, Are Irrelevant for § 4617(f) Analysis - http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/13-cv-01025-0051.pdf pp. 21-22)

However, prior to that decision on 9/18/2014, the Plaintiffs' made a motion (Plaintiff Perry Capital LLC's Motion for the Supplementation of Defendants' Administrative Records) to obtain a full administrative record that should exist as required by law.

"The APA requires courts to review the “whole record,” 5 U.S.C. § 706, meaning “neither more nor less than what was before the agency at the time it made its decision.” Marcum v. Salazar, 751 F. Supp. 2d 74, 78 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing IMS, P.C. v. Alvarez, 129 F.3d 618, 623 (D.C. Cir. 1997))." p. 1

Instead this was noted in that motion:

Also, in December 2013, FHFA filed with this Court certain documents that purportedly support FHFA’s execution of the Sweep Amendment. However, FHFA asserted that it was not required to compile or to file an “Administrative Record”; instead, FHFA filed a self-styled “Document Compilation” that did not purport to satisfy the requirements for an administrative record. p. 9. See: https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/91814-plaintiff-perry-capital-llc_s-motion-for-supplementation-of-defendants_-administrative-records-2.pdf

2. could defendant simply claim 'we dont have an admin rec'-the end?

Such a bald admission would indicate a violation of APA law (5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 5 U.S.C. § 706 - see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5/subchapter-II and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706). The FHFA's has referred to a "Document Compilation" and has not admitted to having a "whole" administrative record related to the Net Worth Sweep. The Defendants, thereby, straddle a complete denial of a "whole" administrative record related to the Net Worth Sweep while making submission of certain documents that "stand in" for the administrative record (a partial set "administrative records" that are not equal to a whole administrative record). So, no, something must be produced that qualifies as the "whole" administrative record that is related to the formation of the third amendment to the PSPAs.

3. sure, it s very odd that there wouldnt be one all things considered, but this isnt an ordinary situation clearly. if defendent wasnt tsy, how lenient would a judge be in such a situation? Judge Judy wouldn't be happy that s for sure.

A court order was made that straightforwardly requires the Defendants to produce an administrative record. The response to that order will come no later than March 10, 2016. After that response, studied consideration of Chief Judge Linda R. Reade's possible responses to it can be engaged.