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.
Thank you Stinky
Bradford deeply embarrassed himself. Yanking people's chains is not what decent folk do, it should be left to those whose character is already depraved...
Gretchen Morgensen is a real journalist working for a real paper. I think it likely that, in coming years, she may well get a prize for her investigative journalism.
In contrast, for whatever motives, other papers like WSJ have done nothing but push the government line. Rather than anything close to even handed presentation, let alone investigative journalism, WSJ has "spun" every drop of news in a pro-government fashion.
The latter leaves more time to prowl the internet, but it leaves one reputation in tatters... Oh well, we all make our choices.
Did you really say "ganging up on a defendant"?
Do you really think the Government of the United States of America can be "ganged up on"?
Thank you for the laugh this weekend, LOL
A secret about Bradford, very big secret....
he writes the same article on Seeking Alpha over and over, adds one piece of news to the same piece, then publishes it again. And again. And again.
Very secret, do not tell anyone.
And up is down, and down is up...
What are you talking about?
Writing an affirm would take very little time indeed.
On the other hand, writing a judgement that sends back to Lamberth will take a while on a bunch of fronts. First, the judges have to discuss to the point where 2 or 3 come to agreement. Takes a while on some obscure issues.
Then grinding through some difficult legal issues to write a clear and productive judgement, disposing of some wrong headed lines of reasoning from government, giving careful directions to Lamberth so he cannot royally mess things up again.
...take a while to get a judgement sending back or reversing.
Poor old Bradford then.
I went the GGP saga and learned about rumors there.
On the other hand, in bankruptcies being first on news can be very profitable indeed.
Thanks for the snark.
Lol, just commenting on someone whose work I had followed and now will not bother with.
Glenn Bradford embarrassed himself even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume someone really told him something...
Sad.
But after the election, one of these courts (Sweeney or Perry court) will rule against the government -- and if not them then SCOTUS.
I would say the government has been successfully shitting on us for a while. Far from constipated...
Glenn Bradford, on the other hand, either (a) posted something confidential in haste and then had to cover or (b) needs to take a break.
Bradford also posted link to court opinions, but it has nothing new.
See what tomorrow brings, or the next day, or the next...
One of these courts will have to sort up Lamberth's ruling since it simply cannot stand for a couple of foundational reasons.
After the election... our resident skeptic/troll says Judges are super-human beings who live in a land beyond this one. But I still think we will see any decisions after election day.
If you were going to drop a potential bombshell on the Obama administration, but you thought a Trump Presidency would be a disaster for our country (a real disaster), then you wait till after election day. (NOTE: A huge swathe of college educated and professional voters are deeply opposed to Trump presidency and register deep concerns about its effects. Judges fall in that class...)
However torturous the path may be, the simple facts of the case are kind of obvious. Pinning the tail on the donkey may just take some time in the courts. Judge Lamberth will eventually sit in the corner with the dunces cap IMHO -- tho he might respond that he was lied to, as he was, by the government.
Mr Bradford, it is not really my business, but I would get the portfolio to where it can last for at least 6 months to a year. With AIG I got too stretched and nearly missed the final payday...
Thank you for the advice, that would be like an air purifier cleaning out all the dust being put up for I am not sure quite what reason...
I am going to purify my air supply right now!
Right. It is overwhelmingly clear that government strategy is to stall and string this out as long as possible -- where that means the end of this administration for this team. So, as Ackman's recent letter outlined, there is a real chance of movement in government approach once we have a new administration in 2017.
But the government stalling has come solely from the government. Pretty clear imho.
Bingo. And it is pretty obvious the laws are pretty much the the same, but the gulf in their applications is shocking.
Someone with the legal position to have some backbone is going to smash the government application of HERA, whether it is the Appeals court or Scotus remains to be seen.
The next administration can scapegoat the previous one and move on -- though HC is going to lose her housing advisers since they (Sperling et al) will not survive the carnage.
Question: Does an HC administration want Republican hearings on using NWS to fund Obama care contra the constitution? Does HC want hearings about cover-ups and duplicity and financial deceit? Trustworthiness is her big weak spot...
I have invested in a number of bankruptcies where I did very well (Conseco, GGP, GM) BUT you have to be aware the court process can be very, very long. And that a common tactic is to try to starve the other side out of resources simply using stalling. So it is not a good idea to go beyond one's means or to use any expensive short terms options IMHO. I do hope Bradford can hold out for a year or more, since it can easily go that long from here. Consider the time it too to win in the savings and loan cases. Fingers crossed for him...
For someone who claims to know the legal process this seems very naive. It is tough to win against the government and the law in this niche area will be made or clarified by the coming rulings.
The multi-pronged legal attacks, from distinct plaintiffs I might add, means that if a quirky bench ignores one argument then there are a couple of others to carry the weight instead.
Tactically, discovery has been a god send, since although it may be stale for us it remains that when sent back to Lamberth he will be well aware that the government knowingly misled him on the facts -- as has now been documented by just a handful of released materials. Lamberth will not be a happy camper about being made to look a fool. Depending on guidance from the Appeals Court, Lamberth may be very far from the government's friend.
And we plausibly know why they do not want the Presidential stuff to come out. Either (i) their are explicit emails showing collusion and intent to avoid GSE's coming out of conservatorship and/or (ii) explicit knowledge of financial situation being better than publicly portrayed and/or (iii) explicit discussion of using the GSE revenue stream to fund the shortfall in funds for Obama care -- which looks VERY plausible. How would (iii) change Republican attitudes on NWS? I can see someone wanting to settle before we run through docs outlining (i)-(iii). Sweeney has given them a chance to be sensible, she will press on soon after Perry ruling.
So, I think putting all the eggs in one legal basket would have been rash. And I think discovery remains a huge positive and potential impetus to settlement. A positive Perry ruling would kickstart many other developments in other cases IMHO as well as sending some poor decisions flowing from Lamberth into the trash can.
Berko has been very well -- and expensively -- advised.
Mr. Yank, please do not be fooled by hack journalists like Carney who could not cut it in business and is influenced by a politically deranged brother.
A reputable journalist like Gretchen Morgenstern, who works for a paper famous for investigative journalism, is preparing another piece, read that for insight -- and bombshells.
The good judge Sweeney has shown courage and backbone -- you can believe she will press on with making docs public. AFTER the election, since none of the judges want to affect the election.
Same for the Perry Appeal. Look for another positive ruling there -- after the election.
But ignore pay-for-play paper like the WSJ.
It is just like Dickens. These courts really can go as long as they like... That is a real danger. On the other hand, many of these judges do have real integrity, independence and courage.
This is a huge case financially and legally. So you cannot blame Appeals Court for taking care to get it right IF they are going to reverse Lamberth. They also have to wade through all this dust cloud of irrelevancies the Government lawyers have stirred up.
Lastly, the other courts may be waiting till after Appeals rules and/or till after the election.
Anyway, Dickens is full of people who were bankrupted or died before the cases were ruled on. Something to keep in mind, thank god we have backers with deep pockets.
Not sure if you guys read the full judgement. I did.
The point is that the court found that there was a cognizable property right that could be the basis of a takings claim against FNMA even when under the control of FHA and with HERA in operation.
The court then gave other reasons why there could not be a taking for this gentleman given his circumstances and the facts about his claims in this case.
SO... the court implies that nothing precludes a takings claim being brought against FNMA under control of FHA even with HERA operative. (And by the way the judgement clearly takes FHA to be running a conservatorship of FNMA - they say that.) Hence the basis of Lamberth's dismissal looks like it is contradicted. There can indeed be a question of whether there was a taking by FHA and Tsy against FNMA pfd and stock holders.
That is my quick and dirty, best, potty