Replies to post #213051 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

A defense using national security as a legal barrier to prevent discovery of requested materials is possible but not probable. Even if this is done, "Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal and District Courts do not require a determination of their eligibility for access to classified information by the Department [of Justice]."

See:
Executive Order 12958
http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html

28 CFR PART 17 - CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-17

What information in this cases is likely to be categorized as classified? Check the list of criteria for information to be classified from Executive Order 12958

Sec. 1.5. Classification Categories.

Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security.

A defense against discovery using the legal shield of privileged information and privileged communications is more likely.

For example see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privilege
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1256.54 and

The Plaintiffs are looking for various kinds of paper and digital trails.

The Plaintiffs, for example, are looking for paper and digital trails that:

* evidences that the US Treasury directed collusion with the FHFA in formation, signing and enactment of the third amendment to capture all profits for various reasons and not as the US Treasury declared to prevent circular dividend draws on the US Treasury;

* demonstrates a lack of evidence supporting the notion that there was a lack of proper review and consideration of the GSEs profitability and lack of concern with the law to return to the GSEs to the private sector as a shareholder owned publicly-traded corporations;

* demonstrates that the US Treasury and FHFA were fully cognizant of the forthcoming GSE profitability and sought to divert profits to the US Treasury to prevent recapitalization of the GSEs in order to keep them sequestered in the conservatorships;

* evidences the US Treasury and/or FHFA planned and/or colluded to unlawfully de-capitalize the GSEs in order to keep them in the conservatorship until Congress could pass legislation that would eliminate them;

* evidences that the US Treasury and/or FHFA had clear foreknowledge of GSE profitability and planned to deprive shareholders of profit distributions;

* show communications, deliberations and plans of when, how and if the GSEs were going to be released from the conservatorships.

* show communications, deliberations and plans to exclude shareholders and to divest them of their share value and corporate ownership;

* and more.

As a judge, Judge Sweeney most likely has considered all of this and, therefore, has been reported to insist that her criteria is broader than the Department of Justice's criteria and so discovery will go on to gather the complete set of facts required in the case.