Replies to post #352081 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[big-yank]

I disagree. Had Fairholme simply addressed the initial motion to dismiss, which certainly should have been expected pretty much exactly as filed, the only accomplishment necessary was to gain Sweeney's approval to go to trial. The problem was created when document demands dragged on and the government retaliated with the Amended motion to dismiss which questioned Fairholme's eligibility to claim a taking when it had no shares or property under its ownership at the alleged point of the claimed taking. This one IS problematic, to me, and could eventually lead Sweeney to dismiss. But had Fairholme simply responded to the original dismissal filing, this could have been avoided.

JMHO.