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.
You are welcome.
Why would they have waited this long and pursued other appeals, rather than going straight to en banc? Just trying to understand the process, new to this. Thanks
It is useful to consider that the Plaintiffs are composed of Institutional Plaintiffs (Perry, Fairholme, Arrowood) and Class Plaintiffs (American European Insurance Company, Cacciapalle, et al., John Cane, Francis Dennis, Marneu Holdings Co., Michelle M. Miller, United Equities Commodities, Co., 111 John Realty Corp., Barry P. Borodkin and Mary Meiya Liao). These two types of Plaintiffs had different claims and different prayers of relief. The difference between these Plaintiffs can be found in the this document: http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201608.pdf
The significant difference between the two types was that the Institutional Plaintiffs sought, in the main, declaratory and injunctive relief by requesting the court to vacate and set aside the Third Amendment. The Class Plaintiffs, sought, in the main, disgorgement and return of GSE profits to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and compensatory relief for class shareholders on the account that the Third Amendment was a breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty. Some plaintiffs of both types argued both ways. Perry Capital, however, argued only for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The result as we know was that the Institutional Plaintiffs arguments to vacate the Third Amendment were denied while the Class and Institutional Plaintiffs contract-based claims regarding common and preferred shareholders liquidation preferences and dividend rights were remanded to the US District, DC. for further proceedings.
As can be readily understood, CADC panel decision, split the Plaintiffs internally. There is little reason and impetus for any of the Class Plaintiffs to seek a CADC rehearing en banc for vacating and setting aside the Third Amendment. That was not their fundamental argument. In one sense, the Class Plaintiffs came out on top in the CADC decision and are now going for the money. That is why the Class Plaintiffs are petitioning the CADC panel for a rehearing to clarify and enhance their position in the US District Court, DC.
This leaves Perry Capital in the position to decide if they could win over the CADC judges in en banc rehearing. Could they convince the CADC judges to take Judge Brown's dissenting opinion, and perhaps, offer new arguments to overturn the two previous losses?
If a petition is not filed by the deadline date, then it will be assumed by many that Perry Capital considered and decided that another appeal 1) is foreclosed by the previous opinions, 2) is over determined by the composition of judges of the CADC (their political leanings, personal biases, legal intelligence, etc.) and 3) that the chances of overturning the previous judgment is significantly less than 50-50.
A decision already may have been made by Perry Capital. There is time to file. We will see what was decided.
Perhaps, they will aim higher and approach SCOTUS.
Source:
CADC OPINION AND ORDER
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1662090.pdf
CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1668958.pdf
Thanks (and always appreciate the links you provide).
You are welcome.
As a lay person, I'm not sure they would really risk anything if they file, but if the remand to Lamberth keeps their contracts/takings claim alive, then they may not have much to gain either.
We will soon know what is being done, and perhaps, the reasons for whatever occurs.
Thanks (and always appreciate the links you provide).
You are welcome.
As a lay person, I'm not sure they would really risk anything if they file, but if the remand to Lamberth keeps their contracts/takings claim alive, then they may not have much to gain either.
We will soon know what is being done, and perhaps, the reasons for whatever occurs.
Why aren't they requesting this?
We do not know if they are or are not going to file a petition for a rehearing en banc. We will know when the time for filing has passed or if an announcement made about this.
is it still true that by 4/7 Perry could ask for an en banc hearing to challenge the apparently unconstrained powers of a "conservator"?
Yes, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure See FRAP 35(c) and 40.
Source:
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap
My pleasure.
You are welcome ZZFannie.
You are welcome Jason-H.
Does anyone know how many shares does ackman own?
There is no definitive public source of that information about Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.'s current (today) GSE common share holdings. William Ackman and those on the inside at Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. would know. Perhaps, contacting Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. may provide a clear answer.
The most recent information on Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.'s (William Ackman) GSE common share holdings is found in:
1. 1/26/2017 Annual Performance Report for Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. that includes more details on the GSEs and Pershing Square's investment (pages 54-60).
2.The 2016 10-Ks that was published in February 2017. See page 183 in Fannie Mae's 10-K and page 388 in Freddie Mac's 10-K. Freddie Mac does not know Pershing’s current beneficial ownership of FMCC common stock.
This is the current evidence for Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.'s (William Ackman) holdings of FNMA and FMCC at the original cost basis reported to the SEC on November 15, 2013.
For Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. current SEC filings see: http://bit.ly/2oCTnVZ
Pershing Square's 2016 annual report has a brief accounting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on pages 14-15.
https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/media/2014/09/28204101/PSH-Annual-Report_12.31.16.pdf
Source:
FNMA 2016 10-K
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/quarterly-annual-results/2016/10k_2016.pdf
FMCC 2016 10-K
http://www.freddiemac.com/investors/er/pdf/10k_021617.pdf
Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. Annual Update Presentation
http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2016-PSH-Annual-Update-Presentation-FOR-DISTRIBUTION-1.pdf
FNMA - Original Purchase Info and Trading Data
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336528/000119312513443212/0001193125-13-443212-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/310522/000119312513443212/d630953dex992.htm - List
FMCC - Original Purchase Info and Trading Data
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336528/000119312513443208/0001193125-13-443208-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026214/000119312513443208/d630961dex992.htm - List
So, how do we know if it did or din't go through / sent? So many different point of views. Thanks ! GLTA !
See the yellow highlighted line of the Daily Treasury Statement, 3/31/2017 linked below to see the 1st quarter deposit of GSE Dividends in the amount of $9.947 billion.
Daily Treasury Statement - 3/31/2017
ObiWan,...We must be getting close to a resolution.....lots of activity on Saturday night---shorts and longs
Maybe not Patswil... because of this:
rgd1350, as a self-acknowledged mortgage broker at one time following the lending guidelines from lenders such as SunTrust, were you aware of the massive underwriting fraud perpetrated on Fannie and Freddie and FHA by SunTrust?
Is it possible that mortgage brokers working with SunTrust were mislead and convinced of falsely asserted Fannie and Freddie selling guidelines?
Source:
Note to New S.E.C. Chief: The Clock Is Ticking
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/business/dear-sec-chief-clock-is-ticking-on-mortgage-cases.html?ref=business&_r=0
SunTrust Pays a Billion for cheating Fannie & Freddie on Mortgage Loans
http://www.teribuhl.com/2013/10/11/suntrust-pays-a-billion-for-cheating-gse-on-mortgage-loans/
Federal Government and State Attorneys General Reach Nearly $1 Billion Agreement with SunTrust to Address Mortgage Loan Origination as Well as Servicing and Foreclosure Abuses
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-and-state-attorneys-general-reach-nearly-1-billion-agreement-suntrust
I see your point...F&F purchased, and made a market for them. I thought they originated the programs...I still think they did, because we had to follow their Lending guidelines...I will continue searching..They did promote them, and purchased them...
Fannie and Freddie did not make a market for them. The market for these type of risky loans in 2006 and 2007 already existed. Fannie and Freddie were latecomers to this market and were trying to establish a greater market share by purchasing. All types of risky loans were already floating in the mortgage market space and gobbled up by investment banks like Goldman Sachs.
The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac selling guides and loan approval program data does not support the thesis presented that the GSEs created and promoted NINA loan programs with no income and no asset features.
Obiterdictum..More F&F involvement with Sub-prime (AKA Alt-A)
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/bloomberg-to-ows-congress-caused-the-mortgage-crisis-not-the-banks/
It can be realized (or not) that this article and the whole catalog of similar articles that were cut and pasted from a few core ones and influenced by think tank papers are repeated deflections away from banks, lenders and brokers and, in this case, even Fannie and Freddie, in order to blame the US Government, Bill Clinton, the expansion and enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, Democrats and so on for the housing crisis.
The main threaded line running this argument is that the US Government incentivize predatory lending and encouraged the making, purchasing and securitizing risky loans. Is this so? There is plenty of opinion supporting this position and plenty going against this position with the evil TBTF banks and their cohort of predatory lenders and swindling brokers as culprit. Very rarely is it pointed out that there were untold thousands of greedy, irresponsible, poor borrowers trying to get a lot of something for nothing or untold thousands struggling with underwater mortgages in once thriving neighborhoods who simply walked away from unyielding debt. Or the detailed impact of investment banks hedging bets against the housing through market exotic derivatives like credit default swaps to and more (ie. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24561376.html ). There are a very few who are well-informed, grounded in material evidence and carefully reasoned about the housing crisis. These do not take on-sided or two-sided, limited views. Instead, they adhere to what actually happened from the ground up, from the top down and sideways.
As mentioned in the previous message, Fannie and Freddie's purchasing, holding and securitizing of Alt-A and subprime mortgage loans is undeniable. This is not an issue. However, such purchasing is not equivalent to inventing and promoting NINA loan programs with no income and no asset features. What is needed is documentation of Fannie and/or Freddie NINA loan program offered to lenders. That would reasonably settle the discussion.
Sorry, I disagree: 2nd Paragraph of the article...Titled, "Other Events",
Just above the notes..No?
In 2000, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded their purchases to include “Alt-A,” A-minus,
and subprime mortgages, in addition to private-label mortgage securities.10 To accommodate their
mortgage purchases, Fannie Mae implemented the Expanded Approval system and Freddie Mac
expanded its Loan Prospector system to accommodate risk-based pricing.
7
Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s purchases that qualified for the low- and moderate-income home purchase subgoal were
42.1 and 43.5 percent of total eligible units, respectively, while their qualifying purchases for the special affordable home
purchase subgoal were 15.5 and 15.9 percent of total eligible units, respectively.
8
FHFA (2009).
9
Before automated loan systems, it was not uncommon for loan approvals to take a month or more. With the advent of
these systems, some lenders can approve a mortgage within 24 hours.
10 Alt-A mortgages have little or no borrower income and asset documentation. A-minus mortgages are loans made to
borrowers who cannot qualify for prime mortgages because of blemished credit; however, their credit is higher than that
typically found for a subprime loan. Subprime mortgages are loans made to borrowers with credit blemishes that result in
There is no evidence found in this paragraph or in the notes that Fannie and/or Freddie created, invented or promoted NINA loan programs, loan programs requiring "No income, No assets." Fannie and Freddie did purchase "Alt-A,” A-minus, and subprime mortgages and this is well documented. See: http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf
But increasing exposure to risky loans is not equivalent to inventing and promoting NINA loan programs.
And in the purchase of these loans there were lender approval requirements that needed to be fulfilled before such risky loans were selectively purchased. These types of loans were not purchased without lender responsibility for capital backup on loans, credit, capacity and collateral for borrowers, quality assurance in underwriting, sample audits, etc. And in these responsibilities, the lenders failed and misrepresented loans as well as themselves and there were 18 litigations and settlements on this account. The GSEs failed too in purchasing these risky loans without stringent checking of lenders, brokers and loan quality, that is, insuring that their own selling guidelines were strictly followed.
If there is evidence in the above writing demonstrating that Fannie and/or Freddie created, invented or promoted NINA loan programs, please point to the evidence of a Fannie and/or Freddie NINA loan program and its no income and no asset features.
Obiterdictum...Evidence of NINA loans by Fannie & Freddie...Pg 236 note 10, last paragraph
http://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol11num3/ch11.pdf
rgd1350, there is no evidence on page 236, note 10, last paragraph that Fannie and/or Freddie invented, created or promoted a NINA loan program or that indicates that Fannie and Freddie invented loan programs with "No income, No asset, 100% financing."
NWS is deposited into US Treasury Federal Reserve Account. I find this particularly interesting. 1) Does the PRIVATE, NON-GOV Federal Reserve Bank, which is unaudited and which is owned by member banks and 'regulates' (read manipulates) the economy by setting key interest rates and is the issuer of US currency, have access to these funds??? 2) If so, what are they doing with them?
FEDERAL RESERVE
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102881557
US TREASURY FEDERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128017652
1. Technically, the answer is yes, since the Federal Reserve Account is located within the Federal Reserve Bank of NY. But practically, the answer is no since the US Treasury is in charge of the Federal Reserve Account (aka Treasury's General Account or the US Government's Checking Account) in a way similar to that of a business manufacturing corporation controls its checking account located in a separate corporate bank.
2. Generally speaking, the FRB does nothing more with the funds than instructed under specific Treasury protocols. See documents linked below.
Thanks, Obit..!
You are welcome tonruf.
Have FHFA confirmed what date they have transferred the money?
Yes. See the official FHFA table linked below. The table is found on the FHFA secure web site.
Source:
Table 2: Dividends on Enterprise Draws from Treasury ($ billions)
https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Documents/Market-Data/Table_2.pdf
TREASURY AND FEDERAL RESERVE PURCHASE PROGRAMS FOR GSE AND MORTGAGE-RELATED SECURITIES
https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/Treasury-and-Federal-Reserve-Purchase-Programs-for-GSE-and-Mortgage-Related-Securities.aspx
Hi Obiterdictum,
1. The most updated treasury statement is dated 3/30/17?
Hi tonruf, Yes, the 3/30/17 DTS is the most recent. The current DTS can be checked here: https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html
2. So, the updated month end 3/31 statement will be posted on 4/3/17?
Thanks
It will be posted next week. It may be posted on 4/3/17 or in one or more days after that date.
You are welcome.
1. Can someone explain to me what is going on with the payment being posted? Ya'll are saying that on the fhfa website there are pdfs with diff dates that shows payment being made?
The official document and date of payment is found here.
Table 2: Dividends on Enterprise Draws from Treasury ($ billions)
https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Documents/Market-Data/Table_2.pdf
The March 29, 2017 screenshot is a verifiable forgery of FHFA pdf file. The March 30, 2017 screenshot of a FHFA pdf file may also have forged dates. In any case both are irrelevant as far as date of payment is concerned
2. And treasury hasnt updated their website to reflect the payment being made?
Correct as the date and time of this post. See: https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html
3. Is that where we are now? Its hard to follow all the snippet posts about proof of payment
This is the latest Fannie Mae forum update.
see this one from 12/31/2016---GES dividends --under Deposits--now the file from 3/30/2017 won't reflect GSE dividends---maybe 3/31 will---if it doesn't then where is the money going?
https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=15123100.pdf
Patswil, the DTS linked above is from December 31, 2015
The 3/30/2017 DTS does not record the GSE Dividend reportedly paid on March 31, 2017.
When the 3/31/2017 DTS is published, it can be reviewed to see if the GSE Dividend payment is recorded.
It is suggested to wait until the 3/31/2017 DTS is published to see if further research is required or to begin speculations.
Here's one for you www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html
Here are some others to consider.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128017652
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128065750
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128166386
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128960788
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129064447
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129235142
What do you think is going on? Just recording errors?
March Trick the Traders Day and April Fools Day?
It is certain that the March 29, 2017 dividend report is a screenshot of an edited FHFA PDF file fixed with a false date (March 29, 2017).
Then there is the screenshot of the original FHFA pdf file dated March 31, 2017. This could be the original date or a corrected date.
The image file with the March 30, 2017 date also appears to be screen shot from a FHFA pdf file but is of an unknown origin. Could be a falsely edited file, or an error made by the FHFA that was later corrected or....
Look--they published two Dividend reports with different dates
March 31, 2017
March 30, 2017
More News! - Here is a screenshot of yet another GSE Dividend Report. What is happening here?
March 29, 2017
Who knows if the money is gone? The Shadow knows ...
Sorry, I thought a (very) little levity was in order and couldn't pass up the play on my handle.
Last post of the day.
Listen to The Shadow
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
1. I think if it is real, then the question is why didn't the money show up in the DTS for yesterday?
There are possibilities that can be imagined to account for this difference. Imagined alt-plans and happenings with imaginary players can be made up since the key material facts are unknown and most do not have inside information on this discrepancy.
2. If they said they paid, they aren't holding onto the money.
Yes. That is what one would be lead to believe without further fact.
3. It's probably nothing
The March 31,2017 DTS will tell a story if GSE Dividends are not recorded there and another story, if they do appear on that record.
4. but speculators might believe that it's not being accepted into the Treasury or they put it into a recap fund.
Or that it is paying for Obamacare in a new hidden account or......
The date has been changed Both now reflect today's date
The image file's date changed?
It appears that Draw was yesterday
1. https://investorshub.advfn.com/secure/priv.aspx?r=http%3a%2f%2finvestorshub.advfn.com%2fuimage%2fuploads%2f2017%2f3%2f31%2fndhncdividend_capture_331-b.PNG
2. https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Documents/Market-Data/Table_2.pdf
So some say.
One is an image file taken from an unknown location and uploaded to Ihub and two is a pdf file from the original FHFA file address and file name.
Which is the true one? How would one know? Does it matter? If so, in what way?
do you know when they are posting it for 31st?
The Daily Treasury Statement (not monthly) is updated daily at 4:00 PM ET. Even so, the next day's DTS appears one or more days after the previous date. Since there is a weekend it may be posted next week and sometime between Monday and Friday. The only way to obtain the next DTS - March 31, 2017 - as soon as it is published, is to periodically check the DTS current and previous issues page - https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html.
How you seen this Obit? Thoughts?
Yes. This is the new one stop source. It came into being during Watt's administration. In past times, the tables had to be located by searching the FHFA site using different terms and retrieving different documents updated by date with different headings instead of a single document that changed only in the relevant details and located in the same folder with the same file name..
Here are examples of the the old way it was done.
Treasury and Federal Reserve Purchase Programs for GSE and MBS
https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Documents/Market-Data/Dividends_3312015.pdf
TSYSupport2014-04-06
https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Documents/Market-Data/TSYSupport2014-04-06.pdf
I don't see "GSE dividends" under the Treasury DTS for March 29, 30, or 31st.
Yes. There are no recordings of GSE Dividends in the Daily Treasury Statements (DTS) for March 28, 29, 30. There currently is no March 31, 2017 DTS.
"GSE dividends" is listed there for the 2016 DTS report.
See: DTS December 30, 2017 - https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=16123000.pdf
isn't this early payment outside of the schedule that they're supposed to adhere to?
Hey whip, today is the scheduled day for deposit to the US Treasury's Federal Reserve Account. So it is not early on that account. The Table 2. date, 3/31/2017, was made today since yesterday this date did not appear on Table 2. to my knowledge. The editor of this document is "alexp" and the date found in the document upon download indicated that it was created and modified with the recorded date and time as 3/31/2017 at 3:17:40 pm using Microsoft Word 2010. This may not be accurate but it is what is recorded in the document's metadata.
The recording of the actual payment date in Table 2. is earlier than usual.
The Daily Treasury Statement has not been issued. There has been no mention of a the payment on the FHFA, Treasury, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac Twitter accounts.
1. rgd was specific in his claim
Yes. The claim concerned matters of fact and are demonstrated by material fact. Opinion cannot suffice.
2. others here continue to blame F and F for lots of stuff while they remain long
That is a inalienable, personal, prerogative.
3. it confuses me
If looked upon dispassionately and with material knowledge, such contradictions are not unusual and are insignificant when considering one's own position and purpose. Different strokes, for different folks.
Obiterdictum, if you wish to know the GSE's involvement with loans and Policies, please cut and paste this site:
https://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/
Opinions are not of interest. The questions asked concern matters of fact.
My questions about your age and country were relevant. Do you know who, "Felix the Cat is" Who is Deputy Dawg" Do you know who "Darla" is? Age is important, because maybe you were too young to be involved in the housing crisis or know about it when it was actually taking place. When my son was 13,and learning the guitar, I asked him if he could name all of the Beatles...his response...Who are the Beatles? Age in the Mortgage Business is relevant. You don't seem to believe that F&F created the Guidelines that toppled the Mortgage Industry. They made the rules, Bankers and Lenders took advantage. I will try and find a rate sheet from the Mid 90's, not sure what I have in storage, but I will look this weekend. GLTY
Yes. Yes. Yes (Little Rascals). I was well invested in real estate stocks. Sold all stocks in June 2007 after two poor quarters.
It is not a questions of belief. It is a question of fact. Demonstrate the position by showing documentary evidence of Fannie and Freddie creating and promoting NINA loans.
Thanks for your time to answer my post.
You are welcome.
1. It appears that in addition to the 5th circuit court of appeals, Judge Sweeny herself must address the question of whether she as a legislative judge has the constitutional authority to hear the constitutional takings case.
Judge Sweeney is out of it at the moment. A remand was not ordered. The 5th Circuit is on the hook to make a decision.
2. So far the orders have only adressed that she has a statutory authority to hear the claims. It appears to me that since 1982 Congress screwed up big time by changing the Article III Court of claims created in 1800s to this current legislative Federal court of claims set up with legislative judges who are not part of the independent judiciary.
The orders from the US Court of Federal Claims and The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Mr. Sammons Motion to Intervene and affirmed Judge Sweeney's decision respectively. The opinions did not consider in any detail Mr. Sammons' constitutional claim.
3. Its like Judge Sweeny and the 5th circuit will need to argue that white is now black. \
Judge Sweeney has nothing more to do about Mr. Sammons legal actions at the moment. The 5th Circuit will have to make a decision. We will soon see what they rule and if there is a consequence for Judge Sweeney to act.
4. How can this possibly be addressed by congress? They cant legislate away Article III and the 5th amendment of the constitution. They have no say in the matter.
The Congress does not need to meddle with the Constitution. If impelled, Congress can amend the Tucker Act, Section 1491.
5. I hope she doesnt issue an order in early April staying the Fairholme case in order to figure this out. Hanging my head and shaking in despair. How can this go unnoticed for 35 years????
These appeals are not worrisome. There are many constitutionally anomalous statutes that went unnoticed for decades and there remain more constitutionally anomalous statutes today.
Source:
"Big" Tucker Act, Section 1491
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
"Little" Tucker Act
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346
It also looks like the judicial decisions to move takings claims to the court of federal claims rely on pre-1982 precedents when the court of claims was an article III court. Going to be some egg on face and explaining to do. If this novel argument (only novel since no-one appears to have noticed the switch since 1982) is upheld there is going to be an awful lot of takings claims needing to be reheard. Yikes.
Yes. It is possible if there is a team of lawyers with a different case that is presented in a timely fashion with a relevant purpose.
Obit
You called the argument Novel
Should we then assume there is little precedent ?
Yes. Besides Stern Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) none of the authorities mentioned in Mr.Sammons' briefs were strongly argued with nor considered by the deciding judge and panel in two courts in specific relation to the jurisdiction of the US Court of Federal Claims over constitutional takings claims.
Just off the top of my head (watch out) - one would think that the authority of the "other courts" (Federal Courts) has been challenged a bunch of times
Seems to be some sort of remnant of "older" systems of ? equity (or the other way?)
Again - off the top of my head I wonder if the authority of the Federal Claims Court has been through stuff like this before and its still here?
I do not know that it has with absolute certainty since the only cases I reviewed were those presented.
See: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3268&context=vlr
Baron, please note that Judge Biery mentioned in Mr. Sammons brief to the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (page 23) was not a sitting judge on US Court of Appeals for the Federal District. Judge Biery name is in parentheses in the last link. That was a copy and paste error for GSE Links.