Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[big-yank]

Sure. Except the government is not denying that it took over the GSEs; it clearly did what it intended to do. So we can toss that part out.

As for the other issues like contract claims, fraud, fiduciary breach... not one of those is claimed in the Fairholme case. So why would documents be required under discovery that have no bearing on a takings claim?

I think this is a VERY important issue because it could render Judge Sweeney's Motion to Compel "moot" as you might be prone to saying. Part of the mandamus seems to be the contention that Sweeney is controlling documents that are going to to other cases which, if they were needed by Fairholme, too, might be acceptable practice. But if the documents occupy no pertinence to the Fairholme case before her court, it would seem to make any intervention on her part improper. Sweeney only has jurisdiction over discovery that supports claims before her court.

This actually could be approaching the boundaries of moving for a mistrial.

I am awaiting a STAY order to be filed later today or Monday. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Sammons files a motion, as well.

JMHO.