Based on the links you provided, would you then guess that their obvious choice for grounds of privilege would be "deliberative process" privilege? (The others seem not applicable).

Then, based on that assumption, and after further reading (http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_I_1/page4.htm) it would seem Sweeney would have to agree that there is a substantial risk to decision making processes should the protective order not be granted.

Let us hope she concludes the opposite, if that is the privilege claimed by Gov.

Thank you obiterdictum for the links and the pocket guide to protective orders. Fascinating stuff. What would be interesting is to examine case law where the government itself is requesting a protective order. I saw only two cases (so far) in the links where the federal government was actually a party, let alone the party requesting the protective order.

Wouldn't you guess that in the case where the government is requesting the order, there is a much higher standard to meet due to the public interest in government accountability?
Just say'in.

If Gov were to base the request on 'national security grounds' the only thing imaginable they could hang their hat on(unless you can think of something else) is all that frantic effort, trying to soothe China, to quell their concerns due to their massive holdings in GSE bonds. But that stuff was already released to the public via Paulson, right? (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26609548)...or maybe the "forever conservatorship" was a very bad promise our Government made to the Chinese?

Wish we could get some shareholder's there to ask questions from the audience.

My word! What an idiot! Does Lockhart not know that his prior statements can be researched?

My guess is that if he has an attorney, he is being instructed to shut up by now.

Lockhart


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-u-regulator-says-fannie-222316531.html

This is a bit suspicious. At least Geithner has the sense to STFU. No doubt no his name will go on the list of people to testify.

Gosh, this might be one of the few times I find myself in the awkward position of liking the Koch Brothers.

Who here thinks Ackman is getting ready to strong arm the BoD?

Here we go. Let us pull up a chair and grab some popcorn.

Thank you Reckcusdoo. Very good analysis.

Tangential issue, but I presume that this is what Berkowitz has been hinting at in his comments about the directors. i.e. that the directors can be sued, and that he himself would not hesitate to put forth the effort/funds to do so.

Good point about the redaction. I presume then, that the judge is able to see documents in un-redacted form first, right? And the judge is the one who grants permission to redact?

Yes, agree about those who feign to know. But this is why I prefer to make a fool of myself by asking members of this board to see if someone in fact, might have enough legal background to know.

Wasn't it Socrates who said, "I know that I know not"?

As I have no legal background, may I ask those who might know, are items of discovery allowed to be made public before an actual trial ensues? Or are they only allowed to be released to the public as they are presented in court?

I am trying to ascertain what level of desperation we can expect from the defendants (how quickly they will yell uncle), as it is likely many damning pieces are about to be unearthed.

Wow. Something really smells here. They filed a second motion--- to reconsider the stay of discovery. If I were the judge I would be very suspicious of the defendants by now.

Of course, maybe delaying tactics are used all the time in Federal Courts, but one would think alienating the judge would not be a part of the tactics.

Thank you Kylie, and I presume we would not know if mediation were occurring now, would we, unless either or both parties wished to make that fact publicly known?

Someone once posted on either this board or the Freddie board that Geithner's actions and securities fraud (nondisclosure of the 2010 memo) was driven by the concern over Chinese Government as FMCC and FNMA bondholders. Would most agree, now, after reading this article, that this is likely true?

And then from the ValueWalk article that was recently posted: (Discussion about the Perry and Fairholme lawsuits).
"However, I also think that the law breaking was so egregious that the U.S. Treasury will never allow these cases to go to court. The discovery in these cases is likely to be so damaging to the United States government that, if made public, it will lead to outcries from anyone who believes as I do that this government is committed to the rule of law."

So Investors Hub friends, might we also conclude, that the government would prefer to release Fannie and Freddie, and presumably settle with Fairholme at the very last minute in an effort to avoid too much revelation from an actual court case (not just because of the law breaking, but because of having to bring up these other items, which could be international-security related, like about the Chinese)?

The question is, when would a settlement and/or release occur? When the judge rules that Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied? In both the Fairholme and Perry Capital cases?

Any lawyers on the board here, familiar with civil procedure, who care to add their best guess?

A lawmaker who gives short shrift to the laws his own institution has created. Has he forgotten the essence of his job?

I wonder how many Congressmen or Senators are of the same opinion but have been hesitant to say it. Thanks for that info GreenWizard. The more folks in Congress who speak up in favor of the GSE's the better.

Fantastic video. Yes, you loaned me 10 bucks, I pay you back, but you say that no, I still have to pay you 10 bucks. Great analogy. I like this Congressman.
He touches on something important. I do not think most Americans are aware that the reason most of them could afford a house in the first place was because of the GSE's. His math about dramatic increase in down payment and monthly payment schedule needs to be repeated around the country.

I now live in a country (due to marriage) where there is no mechanism like Fannie and Freddie and very few people can afford to buy a home. My fellow Americans, please don't go there.

I hate to say you are right Sogo, but that is what has become of our Congressmen. Pure politicians and not one ounce of public service left in them. I was watching a video interview with Corker or Warner (I forget which- they have all become the same to me now) and he said about the bill they were presenting to wind down Fannie and Freddie and the rights of shareholders, "Well, we are not going to address the legality of all that...."
I thought, "You are a LAWMAKER, you toolhead!"
Observation of the very laws they create must be part of their jobs, no?

Thank you Taper. That was something I had wanted to know in an earlier post....whether a wind-down could even occur if the lawsuits are still in play. But presumably plaintiffs would have to move for an injunction to delay wind down, or something like that, right?

Question on legal versus legislative timeline.

Regarding the Johnson Warner bill, it reads " have to navigate Democratic politics on the banking panel, which must give preliminary approval to the measure. Democrats including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sherrod Brown of Ohio have said they won’t back a plan unless it guarantees affordable loans for most buyers and includes significant support for low-income rental housing.

Without the vote of a majority of the 12 Democrats on the panel, the measure will have trouble gaining wider support from the full Democrat-led Senate."

That is one thing.
Then regarding the Fairholme case discovery deadline, March 20th, next week, my question is:

What if the wind-down bill actually makes it through both houses by March 20th?
My concern here is that the Democrats know that the discovery process will reveal some pretty bad things and they would hope their reputation can be spared if a sort of a bill gets through; those who normally would vote their real convictions will feel pressure to pass a bill about which they have qualms. I also think that is why the timing of this "major hurdle" passage, as it were, is happening NOW. Someone is in a damned hurry.

Is it likely that discovery will be complete before the bill even stands chance of passing? It is the timing that concerns me here. What if discovery does in fact, reveal the nastiness we suspect,....can a court rule in contradiction to a bill that has just been passed?

Any lawyers here?

Excellent article Taper. I have no political convictions, independent all the way, but all the other pieces of information presented in the article sour me quite a bit on the Obama administration. Geez, we are in trouble when our own government does not follow its own laws.

Regarding Laskaway------

response to Berkowitz from Fannie Mae came quickly, as Berkowitz received a response Sunday evening from Philip Laskawy, the Chairman of Fannie Mae.
In less than 200 total words, Laskaway all but dismissed the proposal from Berkowitz, noting:
I am confident that the Board is doing the job it has been given. [Federal Housing Finance Agency] has retained certain authorities for its exclusive determination and control, as provided by federal statute, including all decisions relating to the declaration and payment of dividends to the United States Treasury. Our Board and management will continue to perform their duties, as provided by federal statute and delegated by FHFA, diligently and to the best of their abilities.

My question to members here is, why was he so quick to answer and defend the board when he is leaving at the end of March? Is he beholden to somebody? Something seems odd here.
http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news47210/fannie-mae-board-member-perry-succeed-laskawy-fhfa

Regarding Laskaway------

response to Berkowitz from Fannie Mae came quickly, as Berkowitz received a response Sunday evening from Philip Laskawy, the Chairman of Fannie Mae.
In less than 200 total words, Laskaway all but dismissed the proposal from Berkowitz, noting:
I am confident that the Board is doing the job it has been given. [Federal Housing Finance Agency] has retained certain authorities for its exclusive determination and control, as provided by federal statute, including all decisions relating to the declaration and payment of dividends to the United States Treasury. Our Board and management will continue to perform their duties, as provided by federal statute and delegated by FHFA, diligently and to the best of their abilities.

My question to members here is, why was he so quick to answer and defend the board when he is leaving at the end of March? Is he beholden to somebody? Something seems odd here.
http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news47210/fannie-mae-board-member-perry-succeed-laskawy-fhfa

Hi Monest, have a you a link for that? I tried to google Buffet on his opinion that may have come to light in the past 24 hours but have found no quote from him.

Okay, so now we have unconstitutional taking of property, securities fraud (ala Geithner), and now according to this article, it seems like insider trading. The more information we pull out from the discovery process, the more damning the case against the defendants. Mister President, if you have a lick of sense, you will order the release of the GSE's before further subpoenas are issued.

But now, as surely the Administration is figuring out that securities fraud is another ground for suit, would it not seem likely that after the entire amount is repaid, Treasury will be directed to let the GSE's go, in order to avoid the political embarrassment? I could guess that Republicans are going to be all over this sooner, rather than later, and Democrats would be well advised to release Freddie and Fannie from conservatorship, claim victory that the taxpayers have been paid back, then work on some level of reform thereafter? The last thing I would want to hear as a Democrat running for election or re-election is "Look, Democrats are all about nationalization of business! And the owners will never be compensated!"

Favorite comment to that story-

"The GSEs are creatures of the federal government, not the states. They were “privatized” in name only under the Administration of Lyndon Johnson, more as an effort at fiscal window dressing than as a serious attempt to separate them from the federal government in a financial, operational or risk perspective. "

Really? I call bull sh*t. You can scare quote the word privatized all you want but it won't alter the fact that the GSE's were incorporated and listed on the NYSE as publicly traded corporations, signallng to investors that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, in fact, shareholder owned corporate entities. I can't think of any government entities that are listed on the NYSE or NASDAQ, can you? So if the GSE's were actually government entities all along, then the government has defrauded the GSE investors by misrepresenting Fannie and Freddie as shareholder owned corporations, and it can and should be sued on that basis alone. More than any other single action taken during and after the meltdown, the government take-over of Fannie and Freddie destroyed trust in our systems and institutions: trust in the fairness of government, trust in the ability of our legal system to protect us from government over-reach, and trust that the markets operate in a way that does not inherently disavantage small players. There will very likely never again be robust participation in the markets by small retail investors, and deservedly so.

I had actually tried to reply to that article but for some technical reason, was not able to do so.

The conclusion he makes- When you as a private individual undertake to do business with a sovereign entity governed by politicians, you have only yourself to blame when the U.S. government decides to break its own rules on disclosure and securities fraud.

....is shocking! We are not living in Argentina! No U.S. court agree that this is a normal assumption of risk! To agree that it is would mean that the populace can expect the government to break its own laws whenever, and arbitrarily. We may joke about our Congress and our Executive branch but there was an oath to "faithfully execute", remember?

Will there need to be a separate lawsuit now? If the Perry Capital and Fairholme lawsuits rest on unconstitutionality, does a separate suit resting on securities law need to be brought, in light of this Geithner memo? Or can the securities law issue be added to one the current lawsuit as cause of action? Any lawyers on this board?

Also, I try to find links that show all documents and briefs as submitted by either side in Perry Capital versus Lew, for instance, to see what desperate claim the Treasury makes to justify its actions. Are all the legal submissions unavailable to the public?

Although I have no political affiliation, this will surely be quite embarrassing to the Obama administration. First the constitutional issue (didn't Obama teach Con Law at one time?) and now we have violation of securities laws, right? My only defense for Geithner is that he had no legal education, but you would think someone in in Treasury would be there to provide the requisite legal advice.

Somewhere, Geithner is saying to himself, "Oh man, I f%$#$ up."