Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[rekcusdo]

"I never said the information in any protected documents would not be helpful to other claimants in other cases. It is just not necessary in the Fairholme suit. And, sorry, but your "intent" necessity requiring thousands of new documents is pointless and diversionary. Hank Paulson was quoted in 2008 as intending to wind down the GSEs."

First of all, your claim was that it is improper for the plaintiff of one case to use discovered documents in another case, regardless of the case. If you are now admitting your claim was wrong, then we can move on.

Second, Even if we relied on Paulson's statement about winding down the GSEs, a wind down does not equate to a taking. In a wind down, the companies still operate. Without further evidence, we cant prove a taking occurred. Im sorry that you don't understand the importance of gathering evidence. But it is definitely useful in EVERY existing case (with perhaps the exception of Sampson which will likely lose on its face.). To say otherwise is to support the defendants to win...simple as that.