Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Please give me skinny. You are much better at deciphering boring documents than I.
Take it as homework.
P.S. Unlike current 3rd hand whistle-blowers every convo I've had or participated in with TSY was recorded or concurrent minutes taken. #justsayin.
Can those personal experiences be empirically generalized to the personnel of the entire US Treasury and ALL phone calls made within Treasury and between Treasury personnel and the personnel of federal executive, legislative and judicial agencies?
As many as it takes to WIN with a comfortable cushion...
Ok. Take Googolplexian points.
Not so fast bub. We KNOW TSY requires ALL phone calls to be recorded.
We? How does one know that ALL Treasury phone calls are recorded? Is this a stated Treasury policy?
Are transcripts of phone calls relating to FnF-FHFA-wallstreet included in the 11,000+ docs?
Please review first.
https://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FHFA-final-master-privilege-log-6-1-2015.pdf
Rats. I forgot the most important part.
If Congress believes there are phone transcripts relating to #45 malfeasance with FnF on the super-secret-WH-server. They may ask to see ALL the transcripts. See where this is going??? Then we get the transcripts of 44's TSY-FHFA-rico-malfeasance too! And volá. We have our case.
Objection - Speculative. This request requires a response composed of guessing and speculation.
At least give me points for creativity.
How many points would you like?
Oh hi ObD. I had my bullet-proof-coffee this morning. Did you?
The 'phone transcripts' are the ones which may -- or may not -- exist at TSY and include calls relating to FnF. I was wondering who has them. Since both 44 and 45 have a super-secret WH server where 'privileged' phone calls are moved and stored. I was thinking perhaps some TSY-Obama-FHFA-FnF-wallstreet convos might be 'safe-guarded' there. Just spit-balling here. Cuz it might be nice to SEE such transcripts. Then perhaps we'd know INTENT. Ya dig?
Objection - Speculative. This request requires a response composed of guessing and speculation.
Does one need Security Clearance to see the 'privileged' documents?
At the moment, one must be a Fairholme et al. case attorney with judicial approved access to see the full range of these bank examination and deliberative process privilege documents. If and when these documents enter the public record, public access to these documents may become possible.
What about phone transcripts.
What phone transcripts?
Are they housed on the super-secret White House Server too!?
Too? What is the super-secret White House Server?
Can we get Congress to include them in Impeachment Discovery????
Fairholme et al. v. US discovery documents? Impeachment Discovery?
I can remember, middle of 2018 here at the Board it was discussed the Sweeney only received 9,000 Docs of 11,000 and shown with Links and beginning of 2019 to Spring it was by Links shown and here also discussed of only again just incomplete Received 1,500 Docs and this by the Trump Administration surprisingly.
The record of the numbers of documents seen by Plaintiffs' Attorneys is as follows.
1. 11,000-12,000 documents were withheld by Defendants. These numbers are found in filings already posted to you.
2. The US Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) provided exemplars (56 documents) of bank examination and deliberative process privilege. After legal combat, only 48 of these 56 exemplars were allowed to be used to select documents from the 11,000-12,000 cache. All presidential communication privilege documents were barred from disclosure.
3. The Defendant turned over 3,000-3,500 documents to the Plaintiffs. This left 8,000-9,000 undisclosed documents.
4. Plaintiffs' attorneys requested a specific sub-set of these 8,000-9,000 documents. The attorneys requested 1,500 documents that were made three months prior to the net worth sweep.
5. These 1,500 documents were seen by the attorneys after being ordered to do so by Sweeney.
6. It is not known how many of the remaining 6,500-7,500 documents were seen by the Plaintiffs' attorneys.
All of this is found in court documents and in a teleconference call with David Thompson. These items are listed below.
Thank You for your efforts for clarity.
You are welcome.
Happy Weekend
Same to you Doc.007
Sources:
Relevant Court Documents
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1122-0018.pdf
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0392.pdf
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0394.pdf
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0395.pdf
FHFA Privilege Log - Master List
https://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FHFA-final-master-privilege-log-6-1-2015.pdf
David Thompson Teleconference - Update on Document Discovery - 11/2017 - Listen: 13:36 to 16:25
https://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GSE-110117.mp3
I have presently no Sweeney case number or Link and can only well remember the matter about Rest 2,000 Docs which Sweeney demanded and then as disappointment by Trump Admin received only 1,500 instead and that gave me the idea possibly Trump like to use 500 Docs For Election Purposes. To me it Told must be the once with Dynamite inside and Gov Attorneys maybe busy with masking names for Privacy Protection.
I'm usually very good at remembering matters with numbers, but sorry of not being more of help.
Fairholme et al. - US Court of Federal Claims
Case No. 13-465C
Case No. 1:13-cv-00465-MMS
It sounds like there are some of these secret documents, still undisclosed (500)?!
The number of documents that have not been disclosed or examined in camera is unknown. "Quick peek" documents numbered 1,500 out of 11,000. 3,500 additional out of the 11,000 documents were released to attorneys. Perhaps, more have been released. Case Filings indicating remaining numbers seen and unseen have not yet been found.
See: https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0392.pdf
Are these executive privilege, or classified..
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) selected exemplars of bank examination privilege and deliberative process privilege documents. These exemplars were used as a measure for the selecting similar documents out of the 11,000-12,000 documents previously undisclosed to attorneys. Presidential communication privilege documents were barred by the CAFC from disclosure. Only those type of documents cleared by CAFC are available for examination.
See: https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1122-0018.pdf
There has been no public release of most of these documents. Here is a privilege log to given an idea of the documents in Fairholme et al.
https://investorsunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FHFA-final-master-privilege-log-6-1-2015.pdf
Could Trump release them?
That would controversial under the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Release depends on the statutory provisions of the PRA and how Bush and Obama invoked the PRA regarding their Presidential Records.
See: § 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
- https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html -
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127634265
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127634393
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=127634427
So based on the facts as presented you win.
There was no contest. Just a request for specific when and how information.
As long as you are aware of ALL the facts.
Can anyone be omniscient on all matters of fact?
And only you know that answer.
There is no omniscience here.
What I see are patterns leading to outcomes you have not included in your analysis.
The response given concerned 1) the Collins et al. writ of certiorari and 2) Collins et al. as possible appellants in a Supreme Court case in 3) relation to a SCOTUS review of 11,000 undisclosed documents found in the Fairholme et al. takings case. The answer was there will be no review of those documents except via a possible supplemental notice if the Fairholme et al. case is decided before the end of a possible Collins et al. Supreme Court case.
Whether or not the Fairholme et al. case in the US Court of Federal Claims will succeed or fail is unknown. If there is success in Sweeney's court, will a petition to the Supreme Court be made? If there is a failure and Fairholme et al. files a petition for a writ of certiorari, whether it will be granted or not is still an unknown.
So, as matters of fact, what are the patterns seen and what are the outcomes that emerge from the patterns seen that mentioned?
Can you share? Post here please.
A taste.
https://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/resources/ - See Unsealed Documents
http://bankrupt.com/misc/13-465-0385-Appendix.pdf
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0340.pdf
All I know is I haven't seen them. Nary a one. Have you?
Yes.
Judge Sweeney from 11,000 Docs first received 9,000 and then complained about the missing 2,000 Docs and by that received 1,500 Docs and Now Waiting for the remaining 500 Docs the Trump Admin requested some delay to supply.
What case filing is being used here Doc007? What are the case filings or textual sources for these numbers - 9,000, 2000, 500, 10,500?
The three case filings below indicate that 3,500 out of 11,000 documents were given to the Plaintiffs and 1,500 additional documents were ordered for "quick peek." The "quick peek" procedure was completed.
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0392.pdf
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0394.pdf
https://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0395.pdf
What case filing contains Sweeney's complaint for 2,000 documents?
To my knowledge, if I'm not wrong, the 5th Circuit did have opportunities to see the 10,500 Docs by Copies.
Is this request to see these documents on a docket with a case filing? If so, please refer. If not, what is the source of this information?
Usually Court at same Parties Cases exchange Docs.
Yes.
Yes. Fear not. They will see those documents. And more.
When?
2020? 2021? 2022? 2023? 2024? 2025? 2026? etc.......?
How?
With the Collins et al. as possible appellants?
If not, what other GSE cases are currently seeking Writs of Certiorari from SCOTUS?
Will the takings case in the US Court of Federal Claims be decided in favor of the Plaintiffs or Defendants?
Nice post -
Thank you RumplePigSkin.
I’m long FNMA and I also like the record to be kept as close to reality as practical.
More power to you.
Will SCOTUS see the 11k secret documents?
No.
Does anyone here know whether SCOTUS, in their process of deciding whether or not to take up the case, will be able to, or will know about, or will even bother to decide whether they want to see the super secret 11k sealed documents?
No for all. The 11,000 documents are not in the Collins et al. case record. They are not even mentioned. There was no discovery conducted in the Collins et al. which is not a "takings" case.
Or is that something they would only possibly do after they decide to hear the case?
A writ of certiorari, if granted, requests the Supreme Court to order the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to send up the en banc record of the Collins et al. case for review.
Since the 11,000 documents are not an issue or present in the record of Collins et al. case, there can be no review of what is not present in record.
The 11,000 documents are present and still in contention in the US Court of Federal Claims. If the 11,000 documents are revealed by the US Court of Federal Claims, and Judge Sweeney renders an opinion or has a judgment entered into the docket, supplemental notice on these documents and any judicial opinions and judgments related to them can be filed with SCOTUS by the Collins et al. "Appellants."
Hopefully FnF don't stay here much longer, but I think VW has been on the OTC for a long time, no?
Yes. And though VWAGY trades on OTC Markets Pink Open Market, it is not a penny stock. Under SEC definition and rules, VWAGY is exempt from the label of penny stock.
Always nice to see you posting obi.
Thanks not one red cent.
excellent
makes sense that it focuses on #4
and I love that it wants the entire NWS - all money ? (or >10%?) put aside
Yes, the whole enchilada. Not half or less.
Sorry, some of them cannot buy on the pink sheets OTC !!
Yes. There is no denial that some will not buy on the OTCQB Market or cannot buy because of internal rules adhered to by an institution(s) as stated.
There are no legal or financial regulatory rules or requirements preventing institutional buying of FNMA or FMCC.
If there are legal or financial regulatory rules or requirements preventing institutional buying of FNMA or FMCC, please let it be known what they are.
How long will it take for us to know if the Supreme court will hear this case??
The first consideration is the success rate for attorney-submitted petitions (not pro se) to be granted, which is about 5%-6%.
The second consideration is that the petition is filed by a "prevailing party." That is, the Plaintiffs "prevailed" in the en banc case in having the single-director structure of the FHFA declared unconstitutional. This usually considered an impediment to receiving a writ of certiorari. The Petitioners acknowledge this and argue that they are not really a prevailing party since they did not receive a retrospective remedy (vacatur of the NWS).
We've been saying for weeks that Institutional buying will be allowed at 5.00 bucks.
Yes. That most likely will occur.
However, there are no legal or regulatory rules preventing institutional buyers from purchasing penny stocks ($5.00 or less). Institutional buyers can purchase penny stocks, $5.00 or less, without legal or regulatory sanction.
Financial institutions may have internal rules that prohibit purchasing penny stocks. This is specific to individual institutions.
Perhaps the greatest barrier to institutional buying of penny stocks are SEC reporting broker-dealer/client and rules requirements found in Section 15(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules §240.3a51-1 and §240.15g-1 through §240.15g-100.
Financial institutions with large numbers of individual investors can find that compliance with these requirements and rules is onerous and expensive. In short, not worth the effort.
See:
PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title17/17cfr240_main_02.tpl
what went to SCOTUS
what - purpose - why
(#4 of the EN BANC ?)
What: En Banc - Count IV.
Purpose: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari wherein the Petitioners (Plaintiffs) seek answers to:
1: the constitutionality of the single-director structure of the FHFA.
2. whether retrospective relief should be granted by vacating the net worth sweep and severing the removal for cause statutory provision.
too confusing for donotundertand
What is confusing donotunderstand?
It is actually very simple.
You are welcome car123.
Obi, there are lot of legal views and terms I will never understand no matter how good you try to explain to me.
Yes. The two legal terms are, perhaps, Purchase and Consideration.
It seems there is a hesitancy to accept that the senior preferred stock and warrant purchase did not require the use of cash money in an initial transaction to pay for and obtain 1 million shares with an initial liquidation preference equal to $1000 per share or to pay in cash money for the warrants for 79.9% of the common stock of each GSE.
In the 2008 SPSPAs, Treasury did not use cash money to pay for the 1 million shares or to pay for the warrants.
Instead of using cash money to purchase the stock and warrants, consideration in the form of a $100 billion funding commitment to each GSE by Treasury was used to purchase the stock and warrants from the GSEs. The GSEs via the FHFA as conservator assented to this consideration as stated per agreement.
Here are a few short articles on Consideration that may be useful. Each one offers information and wording not found in the other:
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/why-is-consideration-needed-in-a-contract.html
https://www.upcounsel.com/contract-consideration
https://www.l4sb.com/blog/what-is-consideration-in-contract-law/
https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/what-is-consideration-and-how-much-is-required.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/consideration-every-contract-needs-33361.html
http://jec.unm.edu/education/online-training/contract-law-tutorial/contract-fundamentals-part-2
I only know under SPSPA agreement, UST agree to purchase two things, one is SPS and the other is the warrants.
Treasury did make a purchase. The GSEs did make a sale. However, cash money was not used to make the purchase of senior preferred stock and warrants. Treasury's promise to provide a $100 billion funding commitment to each GSE was the consideration used for the purchase. The Treasury received the stock and warrants from the GSEs in exchange for providing the GSEs in the future with a $100 billion funding commitment.
Seems purchase can mean owning of something by exchanging something or a gift.
Yes. However, purchase is not a gift, if gift means "something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance."
The differences in meaning mean a lot to the warrant. I think, in some stage, we may need to ask the courts to interpret what is the meaning of "purchase".
Purchase and consideration in US contract law is well-defined. There is no need to ask a court. If the initial 2008 stock purchase agreements were badly made (i.e. one-sided, disproportionate consideration), and thereby, unenforceable, shareholders would be able to easily sue Treasury and FHFA and the US.
The 2012 amended SPSPAs that enacts the net worth sweep provided little to no consideration to the GSEs in exchange for sweeping all the GSEs profits in perpetuity. The NWS is an illegal exaction and destruction of the GSEs and GSE shareholders' monetary benefits by the FHFA and Treasury and is an unconstitutional taking under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.
It seems the word "PURCHASE", according to your post, is owning of something by exchange of something or as a gift. But never means "PURCHASE" something to compensate of other act.
That characterization of what was stated is inaccurate
What was stated is clear:
Purchase in legal terms and when not considering inheritances means the transfer or acquiring the ownership of property of one entity to another by an agreement giving an accepted consideration - https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/consideration.html.
This can occur by sale ($), contract, agreement, negotiation, investment. redemption, exchange, mortgage, lien, issue, reissue, gift, and other voluntary transactions.These are examples of the many ways a purchase can occur. The SPSPAs are contractual agreements.
The legal term consideration means: "something (as an act or forbearance or the promise thereof) done or given by one party for the act or promise of another." The SPSPAs were written contracts offering consideration. Consideration is not only monetary. Consideration can be promises to act to not act, services, personal and real property, intangible property such as stock (see more below).
1) if the word "purchase" is put in front of courts, can u guess how many court cases lawyers/judges can dig out referring "purchase" as exchange of something (most likely $), and how many court cases referring "purchase" as "a gift"?
Since that is not what was stated, it is not applicable. What was stated was: Purchase in legal terms and when not considering inheritances means the transfer or acquiring the ownership of property of one entity to another by an agreement giving an accepted consideration.
As a legal term, to purchase is to obtain by paying money or giving other valuable consideration.
In the SPSPAs, consideration was given. If the quote from the SPSPA is fully revealed, this fact is apparent.
3. PURCHASE OF SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK AND WARRANT; FEES
3.1. Initial Commitment Fee. In consideration of the Commitment, and for no additional consideration, on the Effective Date (or as soon thereafter as is practicable) Seller shall sell and issue to Purchaser, and Purchaser shall purchase from Seller, (a) one million 1,000,000) shares of Senior Preferred Stock, with an initial liquidation preference equal to $1,000 per share ($1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) liquidation preference in the aggregate), and (b) the Warrant.
What is the Commitment?
2. COMMITMENT
2.1. Commitment. Purchaser hereby commits to provide to Seller, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, immediately available funds in an amount up to but not in excess of the Available Amount, as determined from time to time (the “Commitment”); provided, that in no event shall the aggregate amount funded under the Commitment exceed $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion dollars).
The consideration given to Treasury, (a) one million 1,000,000) shares of Senior Preferred Stock, with an initial liquidation preference equal to $1,000 per share ($1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) liquidation preference in the aggregate), and (b) the Warrant(s) is compensation or remuneration for providing the 100 billion dollar funding commitment to each GSE.
2) At that time, UST and FHFA believe that Conservator can do whatever they want to do. So if compensation is the reason why they want warrants, why don't they just put it in the SPSPA? Don't tell me it is a typo mistake.
There is no reason contractually to use the word compensation in the SPSPAs when consideration is the suitable legal term. It was put into the initial SPSPAs as consideration and understood as compensation or remuneration for providing the funding commitment as stated in the SPSPAs, Fact Sheet and FAQ.
FactSheet is not part of SPSPA and can only be considered as background supporting document.
That is correct. However, these official Treasury documents are used as evidence in GSE shareholder legal cases before the courts. Those official documents make it clear to the public taxpayer that compensation from the GSEs, in the sense of remuneration, occurred as consideration for Treasury's funding commitment at no cost to the taxpayer.
You are welcome and my pleasure bcde.
Obi,
Have UST paid for the Warrant?
What is the price of warrant?
Which price? The exercise price is $0.00001 (one-thousandth of a cent) per share.
Have UST paid for the Warrant?
No. The warrants were issued to the US Treasury by the GSEs as compensation for entering into the SPSPAs.
FYI
Fannie Mae Warrant
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/warrantfnm3.pdf
Freddie Mac Warrant
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/warrantfrec.pdf
obiterdictum,
Every one clearly knows or understands the fact that 5th circuit did not reverse 3rd amendment for Collins but sent it back to District court to rule on this making clear its views on 3rd amendment and NWS. The comments were written given this understanding.
The response was made to this statement:
I am - and will remain -confused by the different majorities and how one decides what all of that means
There were two different majorities. One majority, DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge, joined by JONES, SMITH, OWEN, ELROD, HO, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges decided Count 1 (pp. 1-53) and the other majority, HAYNES, Circuit Judge, joined by STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS, OWEN, SOUTHWICK, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, COSTA, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges decided Count IV (pp. 53-60). All decisions are in pages 1-60. The remaining pages are dissenters.
I do agree with this summary
Notice that there is no invalidation of the net worth sweep. There is a reversal of the Defendants motion to dismiss the APA net worth sweep claim and the case is remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings (trial or summary judgment).
As I understand it and understood it for years - the GOV has won motions to dismiss based 100% or 80-99% on 4617(f).
Yes. That is so.
Here the appeals court says the action WAS outside any scope of conservator (action being NWS) that a motion to dismiss is wrong and there needs to be a hearing
Yes. An en banc majority stated:
!st off your contributions to this board are immeasurable
Thank you.
2nd, my take on this letter at the end of the month will be another nothingburger kick the f can some more and im 100% commons
In a short while, we may be able see that letter and its contents.
they will increase the liquidation pref and raise buffer just like in 17' basically not owning up to the loss in court or the fact that the man that wrote the law is still breaking the law
If so, it will soon be apparent.
we may rise but not to 10 15 like many claim
Share price is "fickle" when there degrees of uncertainty and fear are present. So, the share price is subject to shorting, day trading, short term trading, proprietary trading, momentum trading, market-making, profit-taking and loading, etc. on the OTCQB Market. So far, since the 9/6/2019 en banc decisions, share price has been increasing with a few bumps down from the high on 9/18/2019.
Its quite possible the article is wrong. I have read so many wrong interpretations on Bloomberg and WSJ on this than I care to remember.
What Calabria interview is Ackerman referring to? Ackerman does not mention a date, time, location or source. Did Calabria say "about $20 billion" or is that Ackerman's estimate?
In a September 16, 2019 interview with Vonnie Quinn on "Bloomberg Markets" Calabria did say that the forthcoming letter of agreement will allow the GSEs to retain earnings for "a year and half, two years". However, Calabria scrupulously avoided giving a retained earnings number despite persistent questioning.
See: 1:04-1:35 - https://finance.yahoo.com/video/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-wont-170013562.html
There is no empirical evidence that Calabria announced or estimated the amount of retained earnings to be noted in a letter agreement to be "about 20 billion." In a week or so, we will know the number or perhaps not.
You are welcome Guido2.
You are welcome action8101.
Hi Obit. Do you have an insight on the so called “ginnie mae wrap”? Is this the Mbs insurance wrap for a potential government back stop on all MBS going forward?
Hi action8101,
A "Ginnie Mae wrap" is specific to Ginnie Mae. However, the idea of it can be used by other guarantors such as Fannie and Freddie. A Ginnie Mae wrap is a single security that is composed of bundled loans issued by different issuers. The bundle of loans is "wrapped" with a federal government guarantee, in this case by Ginnie Mae, and distributed as a single mortgage-backed security.
This idea has been recommended for legislative treatment in the Treasury Housing Reform Plan as means to provide a federal guarantee for GSE mortgage-backed securities or the MBS of other chartered guarantors.
You are welcome Lotto65.