Prior posts David Sims I U
Court Room Video Link
Adding notes below.
This topic was modified 32 minutes ago by dpsims.
December 17, 2014 at 8:49 am #3338 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
7:00 minutes in, Judge Pratt asks if this case is as simple as “read the statute”?
10:30 – Winding up and liquidation mean two different things.
December 17, 2014 at 8:51 am #3339 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
12:30 Pratt asks the defendant if the shares held by the plaintiff have become property of the government. The defendant says that the shares are not property of the government, but that the government has all power.
December 17, 2014 at 8:56 am #3340 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
14:30 Defendant believes prayer for relief is “clearly barred”
December 17, 2014 at 8:57 am #3341 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
15:10 – Treasury has infused $187 billion into Fannie and Freddie
December 17, 2014 at 8:58 am #3342 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
15:50 – Defendant says that the Treasury is still on the hook to deliver 1/4 trillion to the GSEs if needed. This is the “government doing good.”
December 17, 2014 at 9:00 am #3343 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
17:24 – Defendant says “Plaintiffs are asking the court to shut down the agreement that was at the center of the bailouts for the past few years. Plaintiffs believe the agreement wasn’t fair.”
(Not sure why he is explaining this view point to the judge.)
December 17, 2014 at 9:02 am #3344 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
18:50 – Pratt interupts the Defendant to read Cooper’s words and says that the issue appears to be a constitutional claim which is why they are in the court of claims.
Defendant responds that this is incendiary rhetoric.
December 17, 2014 at 9:08 am #3345 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
21:49 – Defendant says that there is no termination date for this “open ended” infusion.
(Side note- I am not sure why this matters because we all know that losses are not infinite.)
December 17, 2014 at 9:10 am #3346 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
23:03 Defendant talks about how the plaintiff is not happy with the 3rd Amendment and claims that the companies were nationalized under the amendment. He claims to not know what the word “nationalize” even means. (REALLY?!)
December 17, 2014 at 9:12 am #3347 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
25:00 Judge Pratt asks the defendant about the meaning of the words conservator and receiver. Asks defendant if this also relates back to “read the statute.”
December 17, 2014 at 9:12 am #3348 EDIT | REPLY
ALWAYSWONDERING
Participant
Thanks so much David. The I itial and secondary link will not work for me. Updates are certainly appreciated.
December 17, 2014 at 9:13 am #3349 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
26:30 – Defendant essentially says that the court has ruled (Lamberth) that there is no liquidation happening because that cannot be reconciled with the fact that the entities are massively profitable.
December 17, 2014 at 9:17 am #3350 REPLY
DPSIMS
Participant
28:45 – Judge Pratt mentions the brief filed by the plaintiff and asks “At some point, what are the limitations on the power of Mr. Watt?”
Defendant responds by saying that this is incendiary and says we are talking about powers that go to the core. Talks about a 3rd party hired to manage a property and violates the law. This is “clearly” not in the heartland of what we are talking about. He then asks a bunch of questions like “how should the entity be financed?”
December 17, 2014 at 9:20 am #3351 EDIT | REPLY
ALWAYSWONDERING
Participant
Lol, defense is spinning!
Author
Posts
AI
