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.
got it. thank you.
You are welcome.
1.Do we have any clues as to what % (other than 48/56=85.7%) of the remaining 11,000-12,000 documents represent the bank examination privilege since that is the subsection of the executive privilege that was disallowed (at least that's my understanding based on your post).
No.
Also IIRC there have been depositions from witnesses that claimed executive privilege, rather than the 5th - presumably (based on your prior post) the mandamus ruling protected those witnesses from having to actually give any information to the courts yes? I don't know what subsection their testimonies would have been wrapped under - process, communications or bank examination - I would assume it would be one of the first 2 rather than the bank examination that the plaintiffs won access to.
Depositions taken during this litigation were not labeled or considered as having executive privilege of one kind or another. All depositions were considered protected information by Judge Sweeney in her amended and second amended protective orders.
Source:
AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0217.pdf
SECOND AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0256.pdf
Protected Information
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130318282
? --- is there any other judge (other than the lone dissenter on the circuit appeal) who has been as much on our side (or as open to allowing us to stay in court and battle another day?)
The 5th Amendment Takings cases in the US Court of Federal Claims are different than the declaratory, injunctive and breach of contract, fiduciary duty and covenant of implied good faith and fair dealing cases.
The takings cases are presently still engaged in the pre-trial discovery proceedings. Until the discovery process is complete and final briefings and oral arguments presented, there will not be a decision. That decision will be next year, 2018, and sometime in April.
So it may not a matter of being on the side of the Plaintiffs. It may be morea matter of the difference in pre-trail proceedings and procedures in the different types of cases. The discovery process in the takings cases is a key difference in the length of the pre-trial proceedings. This procedural extension of time has little to do with Judge Sweeney allowing the Plaintiffs stay longer in court.
Source:
See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - TITLE V. DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY
https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/
But how do you challenge any of the withheld documents if you haven't a clue as to their content?
........
OBIT - can you opine on this question?
The Plaintiffs, Defendants, Judge Sweeney and the CAFC work with these privileged documents via a privilege log available to all parties and protective order allowing certain documents to be seen directly by the judges with in camera review. In camera review is a review of documents undertaken by a judge off the record in the judge’s chambers.
The Judges and parties have much more than a clue about the content of documents.
For evidence that can help with the understanding of this, see Judge Sweeney's September 20, 2016 order where Judge Sweeney reviews 56 documents and declares them all to be produced. Examples from the privilege log are given.
The Defendants petitioned this decision with a Writ of Mandamus. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), denied the petition for 48 of the 58 documents that Judge Sweeney's cleared of privilege and compelled production of the these documents and excluded 8 of 58 documents as retaining "executive privilege." See the CAFC's decision linked below for how the CAFC decided which documents are privileged and which were not.
All the information required to understand document issue is there for review.
Source:
Judge Sweeney's September 20, 2016 order
http://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/10-3-16-Sweeney-Order-Granting-Fairholme-Motion-to-Compel.pdf
CAFC's January 30, 2017 order
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1122-0018.pdf
In Camera Review
http://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/what-is-an--in-camera--review-by-a-judge-.cfm
You are welcome Release us.
Thanks Obit - so it was my (probably incorrect) understanding that the Mandamus ruling prevented all types of privilege other than Executive - which obviously doesn't align with your comment here. I realize that Sweeney said that all the docs were fair game but the mandamus said that all the docs save for the Executive priv. docs.
The correct understanding is that “executive privilege” collectively refers to the deliberative process privilege, presidential communications, privilege, and bank examination privilege.
The CAFC examined 56 documents and found that 48 documents were free from privilege. All bank examination privilege documents were released from privilege.
Those 48 represent the model criteria that all remaining documents including the 11,000-12,000 documents, must be compared to. If a document matches the model, it is to be submitted.
Source:
CAFC 01/30/2017 Order
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/17-1122-0018.pdf
So in casual terms, Sweeney is pissed at the plaintiffs and is letting defendants use the "honor" system so plaintiffs can't say Sweeney showed bias in production of documents?
Judge Sweeney's emotional states are unknown from here. Since it is not her task to sift through the 11,000-12,000 documents to select which ones fit the acceptable court criteria given, that leaves either the Plaintiffs or the Defendants to do the job. The Plaintiffs suggestion for "quick peek" was rejected as inappropriate procedurally and that left only the Defendants to do it on the "honor system." The omitted documents can be challenged by the the Plaintiffs.
Thanks.
Welcome.
It is clear, but I think Judge will grant this delay as always. It is still better than nothing.
If Judge Sweeney grants the Defendant's motion for enlargement of time as requested, there will be a rolling production of documents beginning on April 14, 2017.
So, if the Defendant's motion is granted, yes, it is better than nothing.
1. Obit, is there any indication of which documents will be produced and when?
No. The original April 17th date still stands and the number and type of documents selected by the Defendants from the 11,000-12,000 documents that would appear on that date in accordance with Judge Sweeney's March 7th order and criteria is unknown.
2. Will we be able to see it
Depends on Judge Sweeney.
3. or will the plaintiffs make any indication as to what is in them?
If they are allowed to do so by the court.
4. Anyway for us to know how damning these are?
That is what is waited for.
5. Also, " privilege log documents ". Which documents are these? The 11,000?
Yes.
6. Do they have to submit all 11,000 now?
No. The Defendants were never ordered to submit all the privilege log documents. The Defendants were allowed to select which privilege log documents fit the criteria of the March 7th order.
That has changed. The motion from Judge Sweeney's court yesterday said the Government will start with the production on 4-14-17.
Release us, the Defendants have proposed a motion requesting 43 days of additional time to review and submit privilege log documents on a rolling production schedule to begin April 14, 2017 and to extend through May 30, 2017.
The motion has not been granted as of this date and time.
Source:
DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0369.pdf
This board is like fishing for "wicked tuna"
Its boring, boring boring - then all of a sudden......
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/embed/661eb8a1-6fe8-483c-8132-9415e0a50a00
Now if only we could accurately describe how the money got disbursed from the Treasury.
That will take an approved forensic accounting action.
Well, do you... Punk?
Just more Gov accounting trickery.
As far the accounting goes, The "trickery" is in the Third Amendment to the SPSPAs. The rest is simply basic operating procedures of cash deposits to the US Treasury and their disbursement as allowed.
Gov still ended up with the money.
Yes and that is the end point.
How the cash made its way to the US Treasury can be accurately described.
1. I did not expect a review of combinations and permutations. But, I hardly think of our solution as being binary. It is not Yes or No. The scale is 0 pps to 100 pps, now where are we most likely to come out?
Expected events are binary. Events occur or events do not occur. In terms of legal cases, the four possible permutations were given.
Price per share is correlated with significant legal outcomes that are binary. Outcomes occur (decision) or not (no decision). Significant legal outcomes (decisions), for example, include Lamberth (Loss) and Millett and Ginsburg (Loss and Win).
Share price is on a continuum. Share price also is binary when considering that there will be an increase or decrease. In the cases mentioned, share price plummeted in decreases that hit bottom at $1.48 on 10/2/17 and at $2.47 on 2/21/17. There is now a downward trend.
There is no way to predict with certainty the amount of increase or decrease with the next significant legal outcome. A positive outcome is correlated with an increase. A negative outcome is correlated with a decrease.
2. The lawyer in me (there is none)would have a perspective of the legal situation that has been developing for 8 years. No question there is evidence of prejudice for the defendants and limited quiet support for the plaintiffs. The "wall of secrecy" falling could be a case breaker for the plaintiffs but knowing the govt fiscal motives to do anything to not lose could see them cut a deal. So a settlement. DOJ and us shareholders could both be satisfied with a split of some sort-a mix of fiscal and political.
The third possible permutation given was Yes and No or Win and Loss and is equivalent to settlement. The fourth permutation equals a moot case. The first permutation is a Win. The second indicates a Loss. Any of the four possibilities may occur for the injunctive cases - Win, Loss Settlement, Moot. However, for the class plaintiffs cases and the cases seeking damages, only the first three possibilities apply.
3. I came out with a win-win which I think is logical.
That is one possible outcome. What would you do if the other possibilities occur?
Further, from the point of view of the Plaintiff, a settlement is a Win-Loss. From the point of view of Defendant, a settlement is also a Win-Loss. Taking the Win aspect alone of the Win-Loss reality of a settlement compromise is inaccurate.
For example, in the settlements made between the FHFA/GSEs and the various institutions that "cheated" the the GSEs, the settlement amounts were pennies on the dollar paid to the GSEs by the institutions and there was no admission of guilt or recognition and disclosures of breaking laws or other consequences for the institutional officers, brokers, etc. The GSEs received a fraction of what was lost through delinquencies and foreclosures and the amount was nowhere near what was sought. The FHFA/GSEs "attack" on the "cheats" ended up with them scampering away being a little light in the pocket without further consequence. The Losses for either party cannot not be omitted. If the institutions lost in a full trial, the payments, (compensation and punitive damages) would have tripled, the GSEs would have received greater payments, and criminal indictments may have been brought forward against identified participants.
4. I am not being argumentative.
This is not being argumentative. This is being persistent.
5. I would really like your opinion from a legal perspective but respect your judgement withheld.
Given the unpredictability of individual judges' judicial discretion and future legislative (Congress) or executive action (President, Treasury and DOJ) taken before case termination, any of the four possibilities may occur for the injunctive cases - Win, Loss Settlement, Moot. However, for the class plaintiffs cases and the cases seeking damages, only the first three possibilities apply since Moot cases do not occur in some class actions and when compensatory damages for injuries suffered are sought.
Source:
Complaint gainst Morgan Stanley
https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/LegalDocuments/Documents/Litigation/FHFA_v_Morgan_Stanley_Complaint.PDF
Settlement Agreement with Morgan Stanley
https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Documents/MorganStanleySettlementAgreement.pdf
See post: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128928738
You are welcome Clark6290.
Yeah, but I want a certain, factual, and substantially GAINFUL guess. OK, are the probabilities for a plaintiff win better than .8. I am not an attorney but that is my expectation. What say you? Just kidding, not wanting to put you under any pressure.
Please excuse me from making guesses and posing probabilities of any kind.
To every question or event having a binary outcome, there are 4 possible outcomes.
x
-x
x & -x
Neither x nor -x
or
Yes - Win
No - Loss
Yes and No - Win and Loss
Neither Yes nor No. Neither Win nor Loss
Each outcome yields a different result in the OTC market for GSE share price movement, volatility, and trend. Given this universe of limited possibilities, and one's particular trading or investing situation within the OTC market history and patterns, one can plan for all four outcomes and then act according to plan for the actual outcome that occurs.
There is sufficient event, trade and share price history to know generally what happens to price movement, volatility, and trend with each type of significant event outcome.
So guesses are not required. One simply plans for 1,2,3, or all 4 possible outcomes, knowing one of those four will inevitably occur.
Obit-adding Mr. Barth is one only more examiner: should we expect his findings to be especially valuable to the plaintiff cause? I see that the documents are released to Rafter-Arrowood-Fisher-Perry and Washington cases. And it is noted that the documents may be freely shared with anyone for any purpose.
I wish I had a hint of the grand bargain as seen through the eyes of the DOJ. Could this be the unveiling of deceit of Congress in 2008? Could this be the repeal of HERA? Could this be the exposure that Obama did save Obamacare by paying for the insurance policies with GSE money? Instant recapitalization of F&F?
Wow, we have been waiting for the wall to come down. Now what happens?
There is no way to know presently with certainty, substantial, factual answers to any of these questions.
What happens now? As always, we wait until things happen. Of course, there are many different ways to wait for next steps to occur. We can speculate, demand, complain, worry, get pissed, pump, intimidate, inform, plan, trade, buy, sell, combinations of these and more according to individual trading and investing situations.
It is very useful to question in that way to have clarity. It is always welcome.
No - I know what if means but are you saying that Karl getting access to the protected info is low hanging fruit or that the release of the 11,000 docs is low hanging fruit for p's attorneys to find something helpful?
No. The response to Release us was made because Release us collected the same information from the same sources and our answers were somewhat duplicative. So in response to Release us' information collection and the response Good information :) I wrote: And as you know now, all of it (the currently supplied info) is low-hanging fruit put in a basket.
What do you "low hanging fruit" put in a basket? Can you elaborate?
An idiomatic expression that means: easily obtained objectives; what can be obtained by readily available means; a problem easy to solve; a task without obstacles...
The information requested was readily available and easy to collect (low-hanging fruit) and to arrange in an orderly manner (basket)
You are welcome.
Thanks Obi, Good information :)
You are welcome.
And as you know now, all of it is low-hanging fruit put in a basket.
Ok so it can be proprietary info, market sensitive info, info not subject to public disclosure...and does not include discovery material....prepared by fhfa that is available under applicable law.
The 11,000 docs arent available under applicable law correct? Available to who?
protected info can in fact include discovery material because it lists depos and "any document filed"
Protected info may be contained in any document produced, filed or served by a party to this litigation.
The timing of this notice of filing of application for access to protected info is in line with the April 17th deadline.
We see that Defendant does not oppose Karls access to the information. Is this evidence of DT admin being more cooperative?
Or is the "protected info" so heavily redacted that defendant knows it will be of little value to Karl?
If this is not related to the 11,000 docs then what is Karl looking for? Some trade secret? Fannie's secret mortgage purchase and guarantee recipe?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Barth is an attorney, "certified public accountant, certified fraud examiner, certified in financial forensics," and a "consultant at a national financial consulting firm specializing in expert witness testimony on accounting and financial issues."
The Plaintiffs in Washington Federal v. United States have hired Barth to examine the current documents and the soon to be newly revealed documents that will be available on April 17, 2017.
Thus, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs filed an application for Barth for access to protected information.
The Defendants have no reason to oppose Barth or the application. Such applications are commonplace and ordinarily do not face opposition from an opposing party. The lack of opposition to the person and application does not indicate anything particular about the Defendants other than the lack of opposition.
Barth will examine all protected and not protected information in the litigation included the subset of document selected by the Defendants from the 11,000-12,000 documents.
Source:
Karl Barth
https://www.hbsslaw.com/attorneys/of-counsel/karl-barth-of-counsel
Notice of Appearance of Additional Attorney for Plaintiffs
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Washington_Federal/13-385-0052.pdf
NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATION OF KARL P. BARTH FOR ACCESS TO PROTECTED INFORMATION
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fairholme.pdf
Karl Barth Listed as Having Access - as of 04/06/2017
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Individuals-With-Access-to-Protected-Information-in-Fairho%E2%80%A6-6.pdf
What is the protected information?
Protected information is defined in the Second Amended Protective Order filed by Judge Sweeney of the US Court of Federal Claims on November 9, 2015. The definition is below.
Big task for you. The tripe written by Carney bulges with distortion, outright lies, and presents a dishonest story of the GSE saga. I would write a critical review of his story correcting every misstatement if I had the factual information. However, you guys do and could provide a great service to us 14,000 shareholders if you would do the job. That is a lot to ask but I think the 1700 ihub posters would be better able to tell our story correctly and pass it along correctly. Please consider it. Thanks in advance.
Frankly, an attempt to correct and rehabilitate Carney's convoluted, confused, and conspiratorial writing on the GSEs with a well reasoned critique and factual supplement is not worth the effort. The product of that effort would be of little help to anyone, especially investors.
If one needs a factual narrative to follow, carefully reading the narratives found in the Plaintiffs' original complaints and briefs of the major GSE cases is far more useful. Knowing and understanding those time-based narratives will help to clarify basic GSE shareholder positions and provide a baseline account to compare, question and determine the accuracy of other, unfavorable accounts of the past 8 years of the GSE conservatorships.
There is more to know than what is present in those narratives. But, that is the place to start for anyone playing catch up.
Note: the $1.25 Billion settlement, like all the other settlements, went to the Federal Gov, NOT FANNIE & FREDDIE. There have been folks here saying the settlements went to F&F.
My pleasure.
You are also always welcome.
Can you help explain why FHFA has not been substituted as plaintiff in the Fairholme case as they have done in so many of these GSE cases?
To my knowledge, an FHFA motion to substitute FHFA as plaintiff in the Fairholme case has not been made. No motion to substitute, no ruling to substitute.
Why is there no FHFA motion to substitute itself as Plaintiff? The Fairholme Plaintiffs are not suing a third party (i. e. Deloitte) where the FHFA can substitute itself claiming that it is the correct Plaintiff legally allowed and having the legal right to assert claims against the third party. The Plaintiffs are suing the United States of America, and FHFA is part of the US Government. FHFA cannot make a motion to substitute and claim that it is the only and correct Plaintiff having the legal right to assert claims against the USA.
Compare Fairholme, et al. v. US and Edwards v. Deloitte on GSE Links - http://gselinks.com/Archive/Court_Filings.html.
Source:
The Federal Housing Finance Agency's (A) Joinder to Motion to Stay and (B) Motion to Substitute as Plaintiff and Supporting Memorandum of Law
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/PWC/16-cv-21224-0007.pdf
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Renewed Motion to Substitute as Plaintiff and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Deloitte/16-cv-21221-0020.pdf
Order Denying Motion to Remand and Granting Motion to Substitute
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Deloitte/16-cv-21221-0050.pdf
so the court said these documents weren't properly being withheld from us, the court. But maybe they're properly being withheld from you the plaintiff?
it seems odd that there would even be a need for step 2 if step 1 is already gone...
but whatever legal proceedings seemed designed to make everyone die from old age before anything actually gets done.
Clarifications for this Discussion
Sweeney denied the Plaintiffs' request for "a "quick peek" procedure that is authorized by Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) to survey and select from the 11,000 to 12,000 documents on the privilege log a subset of documents to use to support their claim.
Instead, Judge Sweeney is allowed the Defendants, on the "honor system," to choose and submit additional documents according to US Court of Federal Claims and CADC rulings to the Court pursuant to the March 7th order. This includes selecting from among the 11,000 to 12,000 documents on the privilege log that are no longer privileged and those that are privileged. The Defendants' selection will be a subset of the 11,000 to 12,000 documents. The number and condition of the subset of documents is unknown. The number and condition of the subset of documents selected by the Defendants will be known on April 17, 2017.
Since Treasury serves as the bank for government agencies, I would think it still easy to determine the outlays, under whatever label, that went in the direction of the ACA. Although NWS money was comingled, ACA should have increased its draws during that same period. Should be easy to find, even if hidden.
jog49, I am curious. Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) a government program for which draws on the Treasury's Federal Reserve Account can be made? Or is ACA an elaborate set of health care reform rules, regulations and provisions ?
When referring to draws are you referring to Congress approved appropriations as as outlined in this post?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129066363
Source:
Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - February 7, 2017
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41301.pdf
Phil, we know the NWS is going into the coffers if the general fund. We would get more line item budget items when the NWS is halted as the programs starved for cash will comes out asking for monies and then you can ask them what happen and how much are they missing. There are more then one way to skin a cat.
The GSE Dividends - $9.947 billion - deposited in the US Treasury's Federal Reserve Account on March 31, 2017 was mushed together with another $139.644 billion in receipts received in the US Government's checking account on March 31, 2017. The total deposits made from all sources on March 31, 2017 was $149.591 billion.
The majority of the other receipts (91%) came from cash Federal Tax Deposits ($9.922 bn) and Public Debt Cash Issues ($126.148 bn). The GSE portion of total receipts was 6.6%.
Federal Tax Deposits came from:
Withheld Income and Employment Taxes
Individual Income Taxes
Railroad Retirement Taxes
Excise Taxes
Corporation Income Taxes
Federal Unemployment Taxes
Estate and Gift Taxes & Misc IRS Receipts
Public Debt Cash Issues are monies coming from the auction sale of marketable and non-marketable securities. The Office of Debt Management directs Treasury to sell these securities to the public and government agencies. These public debt issues that are sold are:
Marketable:
Treasury bills
notes
bonds
inflation protected securities
floating rate notes
Non-Marketable:
state and local government series and savings bonds
Usually, these large sums of money are deposited into the Treasury's Federal Reserve account and the end of each month to cover the much larger than usual monthly payments for government operational costs.
So, on March 31, 2017, every penny of the $149.591 billion is federal revenues was spent in the failed attempt to cover $155.923 billion in Federal Government operational costs while leaving a $6.332 billion deficit.
What were the US Government operational costs?
Commodity Credit Corporation programs
Defense Vendor Payments (EFT)
Education Department programs
Energy Department programs
Federal Employees Insurance Payments
Fed. Highway Administration programs
Federal Salaries (EFT)
Food and Nutrition Service (misc)
GSA programs
Health and Human Services Grants (misc)
Housing and Urban Development programs
Interest on Treasury Securities
IRS Tax Refunds Business (EFT)
IRS Tax Refunds Individual (EFT)
Justice Department programs
Labor Department programs (excl. unemployment)
Medicaid
Medicare and Other CMS Payments
Medicare Advantage - Part C&D
Marketplace Payments
NASA programs
Postal Service Money Orders and Other
Public Debt Cash Redemptions
Social Security Benefits (EFT)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS)
Transportation Security Admin. (DHS)
Unemployment Insurance Benefits
Veterans Affairs programs
Other Withdrawals:
Agency for International Development
Centers for Disease Control
Federal Transit Administration
HHS Deposit Fund Transfers to States
Military Active Duty Pay (EFT)
Military Retirement (EFT)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
Supple. Security Income Benefits (EFT)
Veterans Benefits (EFT)
Unclassified
The amounts for each can be found on the Daily Treasury Statement linked below. 77% of the total operational costs are Public Debt Cash Redemptions ($96.156 bn) and Medicare Advantage ($23.866 bn).
What specific operational costs did the GSE Dividends cover? The answer to this question is most likely unknown since all the monies are put into the same "checking" account and disbursed as needed without tracking.
The GSE Dividends covered 6.7% of the paid operational costs on March 31, 2017. In one day $9.947 billion in GSE Dividends were spent.
Source:
Daily Treasury Statement
https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=17033100.pdf
How Treasury Issues Debt
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40767.pdf
Tucker Carlson and Josh Rosner - Fox News, April 04, 2017
Can someone post the link of Tucker Carlson talking about Fannie and Freddie.
Tucker Carlson and Josh Rosner - Fox News, April 04, 2017
When is the deadline date?
According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, Rules 35(c) and Rule 40, the deadline date would be April 7, 2017.
Source:
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap
Thank you
You are welcome.
And to confirm
The class plaintiffs in this case are both common and preferred share holders?
Yes.