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.
From comments on seeking alpha:
steven haffner
Jun 21 04:24 PM
I'm only a humble attorney, but don't believe the federal Sovereign Immunity Act trumps the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Also, numerous statutory exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act and Tucker Act exist which might provide support for plaintiffs.
steven haffner
Jun 24 08:43 AM
I meant to say "... statutory exceptions to federal sovereign immunity, including the Federal Tort Claims Act and Tucker Act ...." Sorry for the confusion, but I believe all here understood what I meant. Also, though it's been a long time, I recall a well-established doctrine that the government loses its immunity when it acts in a proprietary capacity. Frankly, I'm puzzled and concerned these cases have gotten so complicated. I fear plaintiffs' attorneys have allowed Treasury to distract the courts with collateral issues -- a common tactic employed by counsel representing a defendant lacking a defense on the merits
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3189936-appeals-court-questions-plaintiffs-gse-case#/email_link
From comments on timhoward717.com
Anonymous on June 24, 2016 at 6:02 pm
1. The congress authorized HERA immunity from judicial review does not apply if the conservator has trumped the HERA because of sweep. As conservator Mr. Watt himself told in senate hearing that law is trumped. Did lawyer of plaintiff ever mentioned the statement of Mr. Watt in the court?
2. SI also does not apply because of conservator status or even due to tort law.
Like
Reply
From comments on www.timhoward717.com
Anonymous on June 24, 2016 at 11:58 am
It is not that simple.
In FnF case, for defendants to win, courts have to exempt them from every law.
That is why defendants are fighting tooth and nail to avoid trial.
In the end, defendants would settle the lawsuits rather than go to the trial.
Being powerful Gov agencies, defendants have this advantage. No plaintiff wants to take on these agencies.
So far Defendants have used self-contradictory approaches to defend different cases; Defendants have made up their defense arguments as they go without thinking much about consequences of false and misleading statements. So far they have avoided going to trial using these strategies.
At some stage defendants will lose their credibility in courts. Then courts will no choice but to favor plaintiffs.
Sovereign immunity(SI) and SMJ should only be used by Gov agencies when performing Sovereign functions.
SI and SMJ should never be used when performing non-sovereign commercial functions or to hide wrong doings. It would be perverse abuse of SI and SMJ if used in FnF case.
Like
Reply
Exactly and very well said.
Wow in ETrade it's showing 0 as day high and 0 as day low ?? Am I looking right ?? Please confirm. Thanks.
History decides whether it's wise or foolishness.
Can some expert comment on this posted by Donotunderstand please.
"Tell us why you can sue
(A court that has no problem with the suit (request for injunction and relief) - does not ask a second time)
Not good news
Now - that said - the court could have ruled no suit is possible and as I read this English (and it seems pretty straightforward) the court is instead of saying case dismissed (motion to dismiss granted) -- is asking the plaintiffs lawyers (a subset) to try again"
From comments on www.timhoward717.com
Anonymous on June 21, 2016 at 10:42 pm
IMO it signals an intent to revoke. Why bother with the extra work if the decision was imminent to pass the buck back to the lower court (remand)? Defense can’t say they weren’t given every opportunity to make their case before dropping the hammer on them. Hopefully insures a clear-cut victory with no loose ends.
Like
Reply
Comments section from www.timhoward717.com
timdillen on June 21, 2016 at 8:56 pm
Seems to me that the government’s wanting to have it both ways has finally caught up with them.
They have argued that FHFA is separate for some things and they are independent for other things. Can’t have it both ways now.
Occurs to me that the Appeals Court is asking government to trap itself into choosing. If not independent then sovereign immunity, but violated HERA. If they say FHFA is independent then no sovereign immunity.
Docs however show they are not independent and run by Treasury. What would be the result of that defense? Or am I going down the wrong rabbit hole here? Confusing.
Like
From seeking alpha comments:
rockinjoe
Jun 21 07:16 PM
The Questions being asked could also mean the Govt is subject to damages....trying to interpret the questions as negative is ridiculous
Aloyisus
Jun 21 08:13 PM
Article III of the US Constitution provides that the judicial power "shall extend to ... Controversies to which the United Staes shall be made a party .... " Article III thus grants the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the US.
Federal sovereign immunity does not bar restitution claims. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 US 879 (1988). Plaintiff-shareholders are not seeking damages against Treasury, but restitution.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3189936-appeals-court-questions-plaintiffs-gse-case#/email_link
From comments section on seeking alpha article:
steven haffner
Jun 21 04:24 PM
I'm only a humble attorney, but don't believe the federal Sovereign Immunity Act trumps the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Also, numerous statutory exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act and Tucker Act exist which might provide support for plaintiffs.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3189936-appeals-court-questions-plaintiffs-gse-case#/email_link
From comments on www.timhoward717.com
Anonymous on June 21, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Looks like very positive news.
Now judges are looking for any obstacles in ruling in favor of plaintiffs.
Sovereign immunity is the last obstacle.
This is about private corporations under independent (not US) conservatorship and still maintain private corporate status (not nationalized). So Sovereign immunity does not apply to FHFA or TSY.
These are all private agreements between Gov and private corporations.
When Gov signs private agreements, Gov give up sovereign immunity. Otherwise agreements are not valid and not enforceable.
HERA mandates that the agreements have to be voluntary between TSY and FnF, explicitly stripping of any sovereign immunity.
Liked by 1 person
Hi Obi, can you please explain in layman terms about today's order. Thanks in advance.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ckc12_rb/status/745269939192336388/photo/1
From Twitter
Perry Appeal Judges want to hear more from badass Hamish Hume #fanniegate
https://mobile.twitter.com/ckc12_rb/status/745269939192336388/photo/1
Perry Appeal Judges want to hear more from badass Hamish Hume #fanniegate pic.twitter.com/yjVWzOV719
— Hooded Pepe (@ckc12_rb) June 21, 2016
From www.timhoward717.com
merkhet on June 20, 2016 at 8:29 pm
No. It is very bad to do this. It could cause us to suffer a procedural issue and/or delay the case. People need to STOP doing this.
From www.timhoward717.com comments
Lou on June 20, 2016 at 8:23 pm
Can a random person submit a complaint to the court like that? Will the court consider a paper or opinion from an unaffiliated party like Dr. Cain?
Like
Reply
merkhet on June 20, 2016 at 8:29 pm
No. It is very bad to do this. It could cause us to suffer a procedural issue and/or delay the case. People need to STOP doing this.
I just saw last price as 0.0010. WOW. What's going on.
Agree.
Congrats stockman.
Thanks for sharing.
This is very low volume for FNMA. Even lower than FMCC, which traded 1.5 million today.
I am long in FnF. Thanks.
April 15th is Friday, so today, Friday, we entered into 10th week since April 15th. Thanks.
We are in the 10th week since appeal.
Not even half million yet.
Sorry, I don't know.
Tomorrow we entering into a 10th week.
From www.timhoward717.com
Trent on June 16, 2016 at 9:05 am
Can someone explain why the court system is so slow ? Thanks in advance.
Like
Reply
timhoward717 on June 16, 2016 at 9:22 am
“Millstones of Justice turn exceedingly slow, but grind exceedingly fine.”
~John Bannister Gibson (1780-1853), American jurist, Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
“Mills of the Gods,
Grind exceedingly slow,
But grind exceedingly fine…”
~Euripides (485-406 BC)
Like
Reply
Anonymous reply on June 15, 2016 at 10:26 pm on www.timhoward717.com
Last week, The defendant in Perry case has submitted narrative about 7.5% interest. The Plaintiff has not replied to that yet. I would think Judges wants to let June 30th dividend payment pass through. Then, the judges will give ruling by stopping dividend payment until case is decided by Judge Lamberth.
$2.23 now
Yesterday also.
In TD Amertrade app it's showing $2.01
Good question Jaren.
If I remembered correctly this fell down from mid $3s to below a $1 sometime in 2014, before Lamberth's ruling.
Why it's falling like this ?? 2.22 now.
Zargis very well said. Great post to see on the board after a long time. Thanks.