Replies to post #354673 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[big-yank]

Sammons does not appear to be an attorney, but rather is representing himself, at least based on my interpretation of "pro se" which he indicates in his letter to the court. Sammons does make one odd inference to Cede in a footnote in his text.

It is all very strange. I am wondering if maybe he is a fund holder in FAIRX or Perry and expressing his interests in shares of FNMA owned by them in his fund investment? This is not an action of the government as I contemplate the remaining options.

Maybe just another frustrated investor like many of us.

JMHO.

[ZZ Fannie]

Big Yank: I went back and re-read Sweeney's response. On page 7 under: 5 is says "if Cede & company is a corporation, it may only be represented by counsel". Maybe Sammon's council sent the court his information or a side note on Cede & Company letter head, or the envelope had Cede & Company stamped on it. Maybe it's as simple as that. It would make sense that Sammon could afford an attorney -- considering that he supposedly has 1 million shares. Not sure how else Sweeney would know this. I also doubt that she made her motion to compel decision on Sept. 20 because of some random guy (Michael Sammons) questioning her jurisdiction and her ability to rule without bias. Sweeney is a bad ass... I don't think she can be easily played like this. She also is the ONLY person who's known what those privileged documents say up until VERY soon. I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but sammons could be a mole because Gov't is shitting their pants. If settlement negotiations are going on, then there could obviously be upside for us shareholders if done properly. Just another reason to tell this guy to go fly a kite.

[John Deere1]

It was in his letter- footnote #1