Joshua 1:9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you whereve
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.
jtimothyhoward
January 17, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Justin
January 17, 2017 at 2:03 pm
Just a quick question I can’t find an answer on. In fairholme, we are waiting on the mandamus appeal result. When will that come about? Will that finally get all the privileged documents to see the light of day or is there some other legal delay step that is likely to come after that? I sense that whatever is in those 11,000 documents will spur new lawsuits altogether that challenge the original conservatorship, much less the net worth sweep in today’s lawsuits. At which point, I assume Mnuchin will not be able to use the warrants as leverage as you described above in any settlement talks. Anyone have a date on mandamus and thoughts on above?
jtimothyhoward?
January 17, 2017 at 6:38 pm
There is no timetable for a decision from the Federal Court of Appeals on the writ of mandamus, nor is there a timetable for a decision from U.S. Court of Appeals in the Perry Capital case.
I have no non-public information about either, but I believe both courts of appeals are waiting for the inauguration—so as to only have to deal with a response from the Trump Treasury and Justice Department—and I also expect a decision on, or resolution of, the writ of mandamus before we see a ruling in the Perry Capital case.
The question on the writ of mandamus is whether the Trump Treasury and Justice Department will even continue to seek it. The Obama Treasury and Justice Departments have come under heavy criticism for the obsessive secrecy with which they have attempted to shroud all documents even remotely related to the net worth sweep cases. It’s not at all clear why the Trump Treasury and DOJ would want to take this on. I personally doubt they will.
But that still leaves open the issue of timing. It is possible that Secretary-designate Mnuchin will tip his hand on this topic at his confirmation hearing on Thursday, but I don’t think he will. And I don’t think the judges on the Federal Court of Appeals will wait indefinitely before they rule. My hunch is that we’ll get a decision in favor of the plaintiffs’ opposition to the writ of mandamus within a month of inauguration day (but that’s pure speculation on my part). All that means, however, is that the 56 documents in question will be made available to the plaintiffs (and likely to the U.S. Court of Appeals as well, for the Perry Capital case). They won’t be made public, unless Treasury agrees to it, or Judge Sweeney issues an order requiring disclosure of some or all of them.
And even if the documents are made public, the notion that they will “spur new lawsuits … that challenge the original conservatorship” is unrealistic. First, the statute of limitations on suits from 2008 has already run. And second, if the Trump administration is going to settle the lawsuits it will want to do so quickly. New documents damaging to the government will strengthen the plaintiffs’ hand in settlement negotiations, but beyond that simple statement it’s hard to say anything more definitive (including anything related to the possible cancellation of the warrants).
?
Like
[color=red][/color]
Yes Brown appears to be positive toward FnF. However, he will probably be combative on other finance issues. You know the old Dem vs Rep thing.
There could be some mistakes on this list. I was just reading somewhere else this is the list for the 114th congress and the new committee assignments haven't been assigned. I'm pretty sure most of them are correct.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSFI
This is the committee for Steve Mnuchin hearing this Thurs.
Members, 115th Congress Senate Finance Committee
Majority
Orrin Hatch, Utah, Chairman
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Mike Crapo, Idaho
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Mike Enzi, Wyoming
John Cornyn, Texas
John Thune, South Dakota
Richard Burr, North Carolina
Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Rob Portman, Ohio
Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania
Dean Heller, Nevada
Tim Scott, South Carolina
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Minority
Ron Wyden, Oregon Ranking Dem
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Bill Nelson, Florida
Bob Menendez, New Jersey
Tom Carper, Delaware
Ben Cardin, Maryland
Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Michael Bennet, Colorado
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania
Mark Warner, Virginia
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
https://www.finance.senate.gov/about/membership
Thanks to you and Navycmdr for your service!! :)
Absolutely. We don't need no banker....
I agree with you...
Looks like FHFA is desperate to find out what is in that settlement agreement.
ChiefSeattle said:
October 14, 2016 at 10:42 pm
.
The US government is the meanest, baddest monster out there on the planet. If you are going to slay that grand monster with one careful shot, your patience must be supreme. Your shot must be keen and on the money, or you will not be able to avoid failure. To date, I believe that to be Sweeney’s strategy. Do not let your impatience and penchant for distrust get the better of you now. We are all here to get our best lethal shot, not to shoot a bunch of buckshot. Consider the might of your opponent, even in your sleep!
?
Liked by 1 person
I agree with the Chief
Let me take a crack at this. Here are my answers for you as the way I believe them to be. I'm not a lawyer. Any help would be appreciated. We do need to get some of these basic questions answered.
Does the order to compel extend to all docs that the plaintiffs have requested? Yes
And or does the order extend to documents that may be requested in the future? Yes
Does the order to compel only refer to this sampling of documents? No
Must the judge review each document requested if the government claims this or that privelege? No I believe she has ruled by reviewing those sample documents
Did the judge threaten the defendants with paying for plaintiffs attorney fees in order to keep defendants from making future frivolous claims of various protection when documents are requested by plaintiffs? Unknown
I try to keep up and understand but hell this is vague to a laymanYes it is
Sammons has posted 3484 posts on IHUB. Why no posts on this board or any GSE board that I can find...
If he went to all the trouble to file a letter to the court of Judge Sweeney. Surely he would have voiced some concerns on this board over the months and years before his filing.
good luck
A few comments from TH717
Joao said:
September 29, 2016 at 8:42 pm
.
“It appears that the company just can’t make it through even this congressional hearing without us learning more and more information about what is going on at Wells Fargo,” Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat of California, said as word began to spread of the coming sanctions over military lending.”
Sure – bankrupt the GSES who have been providing mortgages for almost a century to all Americans and give the business to the TBTF banks like Wells Fargo!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/business/dealbook/wells-fargo-ceo-john-stumpf-house-hearing.html?_r=0
?
Like
Reply
Joao said:
September 29, 2016 at 8:44 pm
.
“As for those who did take the fall for the illegal account openings, Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat of California, was particularly acerbic. “You fired 5,300 people,” he said at the hearing. “You took 5,300 good Americans and turned them into felons.” It is time, he concluded, to break up the big banks.”
?
Like
Reply
FnF said:
September 29, 2016 at 8:46 pm
.
Tim is right, this is god sent for GSE’s.
no way GSE business will now go to TBTF banks
?
Like
Reply
Yet again, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Margaret Sweeney’s response to the government’s plea to keep its machinations on the Net Worth Sweep under lock and key is a principled “No!”
Judge Sweeney today granted Fairholme Funds’ motion to compel the government to produce some 50 documents that government lawyers wanted withheld under the guise of executive privilege. It appears that Judge Sweeney, after reviewing documents herself, rejected the government’s claims of privilege on all of them and granted in full the motion to compel the government to hand the over to plaintiff’s lawyers
For now, the documents will remain under the “protective order.” This means only the plaintiff’s lawyers can actually see them. But these documents will certainly provide lawyers with new insights into what the government was thinking when it devised the plan to confiscate Fannie and Freddie’s revenues. Eventually, the documents will be the subject of legal briefs and unsealed.
Judge Sweeney has consistently rejected the government’s sweeping and aggressive efforts to keep its deliberations a secret. Back in April, she unsealed seven documents sought by plaintiffs, Perry Capital, Inc. In May, she decided it was time to take the lid off 53 documents in a case brought by Fairholme Funds. A trove of unsealed documents is posted at FannieFreddiesecrets.org. Many revealed damaging evidence just as oral arguments were getting under way in an appeal of Judge Royce Lamberth’s dismissal of Perry’s suit. The Appeals Court decision is expected soon.
In her April ruling, Sweeney signaled skepticism bordering on annoyance with the government’s penchant for secrecy. She scoffed at the notion that the disclosure of the information in the documents that go back several years could harm financial markets today. The only “harm” that could result would be criticism of an agency, institution, and decision-makers. “The court will not condone the misuse of a protective order as a shield to insulate public officials from criticism in the way they execute their public duties,” she declared.
She amplified this, writing, “Thus, avoidance of “second-guessing” an agency’s decisions several years after the fact, as described by Mr. Watt, is, with the passage of time no longer a legitimate basis to maintain documents under a protective order.” This excerpt from that ruling appears to continue to inform her judgement:
Moreover, there can be no serious dispute that it is extremely rare for a document filed under seal in a civil case to remain so for all time. There is no suggestion that the documents subject to the protective order are classified as relating to national security. Nor do these documents contain trade secrets or proprietary information. However, even cases in which trade secrets and proprietary information are filed under seal and subject to a protective order, it is not unusual that after the passage of time, that same information is eventually unsealed because the protective order has outlived its usefulness. Indeed, because the government does not argue that information that it requests remain protected concerns matters involving national security, trade secrets, or proprietary information, or that specific privileges attach to any of the seven documents, it is clear that there is no longer a need to maintain the protected designation for them.
In the course of the many shareholder lawsuits brought against the government as a result of the Net Worth Sweep, roughly 12,000 documents have been hidden by invocation of some form of executive privilege and about 63,000 because of invocation of the protective order. This is unprecedented.
As Judge Sweeney continues to crack the government’s wall of secrecy, it appears her patience is wearing thin. Last spring, she chided the government for its contradictory position. She wrote, “The court notes that from the inception of this litigation, the government has consistently maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction over this case because the United States had no control over the enterprises. Taking the government at its word, it is surprising that defendant is concerned with the unsealing of government officials’ deposition testimony.”
In today’s ruling, she called on the government to explain why it should not have to pay Fairholme’s legal fees for this motion. This suggests that she found the government’s argument’s particularly meritless. In essence, she wants to know why shareholders are bearing the cost of fighting for access to documents that should have been accessible in the first place.
Indeed, the Sweep has been costly for shareholders. Enough is enough.
Sorry if this is a repost
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/09/judge-sweeney-insists-government-produce-documents/
I've been following these posts about the large block trades after hours. I haven't kept count but I would say it is easily over 1 million shares now. Maybe 2 million. Very interesting.
If it's going to be "after hours" announcement. I don't believe it will be posted on the website before then. I mean if you're going to wait till after hours to announce why would you post at 11am?
Nailed it.
It was Judge Sweeney. It looked like several PDF's no telling how many pages. She may be getting ready to release a big batch. I hope she roils their a$$es.
I'm surprised by the lack of discussion on the newly released documents today. It looks like some really good news to me. Oh well, maybe they're still going thru all of them....
I found this link on another site that is a good listing of most all of the court cases and their current status
http://bit.ly/2aycMjb
Expanding Fannie/Freddie Duty to Serve...Without Money?
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the agency in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, continues to push the GSEs to do more loans for low and very low-income borrowers. The problem is that people with very low income often find it difficult to make payments and are the first ones to go when job cuts are announced. This means losses are more likely. At the same time, FHFA is pushing Fannie and Freddie to the 2018 goal of having no liquidity. Something has to give.
http://www.nationalmortgageprofessional.com/blog/news-namb-july-2016-1
I think Judge Swinney could rule before Court of Appeals decision.
I hope so too. I would love to try one of their T-bones cooked medium rear and a great celebration with my fannie friends. Go FnF
I hope the ruling comes before then. August 1st is my daughters birthday. I hope it comes on that day. We'll either be eating Steak & Shrimp or bologna.
I believe everything that was requested has now been filed. We should be on verdict watch now.... Unless something else comes up.
"Unsealed Documents" have been released...Peter Chapman further notes, "One factoid in Fairholme's papers unsealed this week that's new to me is:
Fairholme's Motion (Doc. 1565601), at page 13, says:
"Treasury's administrative record fails to reveal that Treasury was in possession of newer projections indicating that the Net Worth Sweep was
not necessary to prevent the Companies from running through the available Treasury funding commitment."
Fairholme's Reply (Doc. 1572909), at page 10, says:
'[I]n adopting the Net Worth Sweep, Defendants relied on financial projections based on 11 month old data, and those projections were by then known to be inaccurate and unreliable.' "
The unsealed document links are posted on http://gselinks.com/
Yes that's what I thought. It's going to be a long 3 and a half months. I hope we can get a favorable ruling from the courts soon. GLTA
Thanks Mike...I'm going to listen to the whole thing.
Mr. Hume clearly stated “I only need one way to win” and “They need to have it both ways for me not to win.”
MR. HUME: — two Government agencies colluding, but they can’t have it both ways, okay, they can’t say we’re not the Government, you can’t sure us for takings –
JUDGE MILLETT: Nor can you.
MR. HUME: — but over here in District Court —
JUDGE MILLETT: Right, but you can’t have it both ways, either, so if we’re going to assume —
MR. HUME: I’m pretty sure if I get it one way I’ll win.
JUDGE MILLETT: Well, that’s what I’m asking you is if you, on an applied —
MR. HUME: I only need one way to win.
JUDGE MILLETT: So —
MR. HUME: They need to have it both ways for me not to win.
https://th717.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/this-is-very-encouraging-as-we-wait-patiently-for-a-ruling/#comments
I don't believe Judge Swinney is finished yet. I believe she will release more documents. Maybe all of them. I just hope the next ones are "damning" to the governments case. They should not be able to hide these type of documents in the first place. Are they hiding them from the Russians? Or from the American people?
Exactly, I will say that I do still read his board. There are a few good commenters that I like. He very seldom comments on anything.
Wow...So there are more conservatives on these chat boards now and that is reason things are bad for Fannie and Freddie?? That's liberal logic alright!!
I've lost a lot of respect for Fake Tim Howard. He is just a liberal hack who appears to be angry. He knows nothing.
Jeremy Cain ?@jeremycain_usc · 5h5 hours ago
Jeremy Cain Retweeted David Fiderer
On what planet does it make sense 4 the @FHFA to be suing itself to see GSE records it can already see? #EpicFailure
Jeremy Cain added,
David Fiderer ?@Ny1david · 5h5 hours ago
@DoNotLose FHFA doesn't need court permission to see GSE records. Its request to substitute itself for plaintiff Tim Pagliara is silly.
I read some comments on another board. It was mostly considered a stall tactic. I'm no lawyer but if Tim Pagliara tells the judge that he respectfully would like him to deny this motion because he is the original plantiff and that he doesn't believe FHFA has his best interest at heart... That'll do it.
Peter Chapman writes, "In an attempt to neuter Mr. Pagliara's books and records demand in Delaware, FHFA has moved to substitute itself for Mr. Pagliara. Copies of FHFA's Motion and Memorandum in Support filed today are (linked above)." http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/PagliaraDE/16-00193-0009.pdf
This a must read for sure. He really breaks it all down. Thanks for posting. This article should help our cause...GLTA
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2016/06/30/the-novel-procedural-complexities-in-perry-capital-v-lew/#50313e3c51a8
You are correct sir, and as she continues to release more and more documents, the Gov case is painting itself into a corner of which there is no escape. The thing that gets me is Gov is spending millions to defend this lawless act. We the taxpayer are paying for that too.
This is from Tim Howard 717.....
Tex said:
June 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm
.
Tim,
Anyone give any game changing information to warrant claiming that $1,000,000 reward?
?
Like
Reply
Anonymous said:
June 23, 2016 at 2:21 pm
.
on the Linda Luk article, there was a Fannie employee commenting along with others. a couple of folks (including myself) tried to encourage him/her to be a whistle blower. perhaps that $1 million that 717 has might be able to persuade him/her.
?
Like
Reply
timhoward717 said:
June 23, 2016 at 2:28 pm
.
We have received a variety of information from a wide range of sources and yes the reward was instrumental in bringing new facts to light. We always encourage anyone who thinks they know something to come forward in strict confidence. There have been situations where the information from one source did not become valuable until it was joined with information from other sources. Much of what has come out of discovery thus far confirms what we have learned through our investigations.
It is for these reasons that I can assure everyone with great confidence that the docs they are withholding under various privilege claims will be very damaging to the defense.We must let the legal process proceed and trust that justice will be served.
If one reads many of the past posts, they will have a very clear understanding of what has transpired. I have had to walk a tightrope at times to avoid giving the impression that we have access to sealed discovery or other confidential material. We all saw the results when we cross that line. The fact is that I am aware of facets of this that have not seen the light of day yet. You have my word that before the last chapter is written every key fact will be known, certain names, however, will never be. The latter is not my choice to make, and I would never betray anyone who has come forward to assist in our cause.
?
Liked by 2 people
Reply
I don't trust the polls. I think you are going to see people vote in this election who normally don't vote. I think they see the importance of having someone (Trump) who is going to put America first.
From a commenter on Google Groups:
when you keep saying that we are not a government entity, then why is there even a question of immunity? merkhet analyzes it well
"Okay, so I took some time to go over some of the case law, and I think that we will win the "other claims" or Section (2) of the order.
First, let's tackle the source of subject matter jurisdiction since it's the simplest one. The court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/IV/85/1332) which expanded federal jurisdiction to cover class actions with:
(1) Minimal diversity- where the class comprises at least 100 plaintiffs, and where any members of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, unless at least two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed, and
(2) Amount in controversy - over $5 million
Both of these requirements were pled in the Initial Opening Brief for Class Plaintiffs on page 17. (http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Perry/14-5243-1560310.pdf) My guess is they did not fuck up on this given that it's pretty easy to fulfill.
###########################################################################################################
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Class Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), in that at least some members of the Class (including named Plaintiffs) are citizens of States different from the States in which Defendants are citizens, and the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. The District Court’s jurisdiction is also supported by 12 U.S.C. §§ 1452(c)(7) and 1723a(a).
###########################################################################################################
Next, let's tackle the issue of sovereign immunity. The main thing to realize is that there are two worlds here:
World #1, defendant is the government:
(1) You need to have some statute that allows for the suit, or
(2) Some other waiver of sovereign immunity
World #2, defendant is not the government:
(1) You can then sue
In this particular case, the argument is that the breach of contract was not regulatory in nature but rather conservatorship in nature. (If anyone can make a cogent argument for why the breach of K was regulatory, I'd be interested to hear it.)
In fact, FHFA makes this case on our behalf in their motion to dismiss in the Fairholme case in front of Judge Sweeney (
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0020.pdf) on page 13:
###########################################################################################################
Quote
Here, FHFA, as conservator for two congressionally-chartered, private institutions, stands in the shoes of the Enterprises. Plaintiffs’ claims against FHFA and its actions as conservator are effectively claims against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – neither of which are alleged to be Government entity. This Court has jurisdiction only “to hear cases in which a plaintiff seeks just compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment as such a claim is ‘against the United States founded . . . upon the Constitution.’” Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Fifth Amendment applies solely to Government action. “There clearly can be no taking when whatever acts complained of are those of private parties, not the government.” See Alves v. United States, 133 F.3d 1454, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 767 Third Ave. Assocs. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1575, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). By suing the conservatorships, plaintiffs – the Enterprises’ shareholders – are effectively suing private corporations for the decisions of their management. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ challenge to FHFA’s actions as conservator must fail.
###########################################################################################################
Importantly, the federal circuits of DC have some precedents concerning what happens when the FHFA is acting as a conservator. See Herron v. Fannie Mae for the stance from the trial level (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00943/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00943-0.pdf):
###########################################################################################################
Quote
The purpose of the conservator or receiver is to restore the entity to fiscal feasibility or to liquidate and distribute its assets. The conservator or receiver steps into the private status of the entity. For example, when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) takes over as conservator or receiver for a failed bank, it obtains the rights and powers of the bank’s shareholders, officers, and directors. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(A). As conservator or receiver, it may take over the assets and operation of the insured depository institution to conduct all of the institution’s business, in order to preserve and conserve the assets and property of Fannie Mae. Id. § 1821(d)(2)(B). FDIC in its role as conservator or receiver is placed “in the shoes of the insolvent” entity. O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 86-87 (1994) (examining 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(A) & (B)). A claim against FDIC as receiver is “a claim against the depository institution for which the FDIC is receiver.” Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Further, when acting as receiver, FDIC does not pursue the interests of the government. Atherton v. FDIC, 519 U.S. 213, 225 (1997). Courts have similarly held that FDIC as conservator was not acting for the United States. See, e.g., Ameristar Fin. Servicing Co. LLC v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 807, 811 (2007).
###########################################################################################################
Moreover, Herron repeats this again:
###########################################################################################################
Quote
As described above, a conservator or receiver steps into the shoes of the private entity — it assumes the private status of the entity. See O’Melveny, 512 U.S. at 86-87; Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 642 F.3d at 1144; Beszborn, 21 F.3d at 67-68. Fannie Mae was a private entity; when FHFA took over as conservator of Fannie Mae, it stepped into Fannie Mae’s private role. In sum, FHFA as conservator of Fannie Mae is not a government actor, and Ms. Herron’s Bivens claim will be dismissed.
###########################################################################################################
What's interesting here is the citation to American National Insurance Company happens to be a case from the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the court for the Perry Appeal)! "