Replies to post #310451 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Mikey Mike]

Oh I can see where this one is going...it is not Fairholme who approved sealed doc filing in DDC...IT'S SWEENEY...so now the government is questioning her action...lol...Also DDC halted Perry case due to the sealed doc filing...Perry said so...so if DDC wasn't considering the docs like the government states...then why the halt in the first place... government is going to be screwed...they are so going public with this...I smell the bacon frying...lol

[Hvp123]

Thanks D, I see that our tax dollars are spent wisely :) whats the big deal if Perry gets access too? Govt lawyers acting like kids :)

[Donotunderstand]

24 hours behind so excuse if already clarified

This appears to be in the Sweeny case

That is a CLAIMS case - I think

Fairholme is noted as plaintiff in this CLAIMS case


NOW
as I understand it at this juncture - on my way old by now question of what does it mean that A COURT can .........

Sweeny in this court said the Fairholme in this court can act aware of the sealed and protected information as Fairholme maneuvers in the CIRCUIT court (I assume then - they were not ejected with Perry?)

Here - the post I respond to is Perry saying in Sweeny court that they want the material Fairholme has because it applies to their case

GOV is saying no to Perry - in this court (Claims) - arguing Perry is in an appeals court that is different??????????