Replies to post #355878 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[yambike]

Forget shared motive. Your post implies coordination of activities by defense and Mr.Sammons.

Is this what you're saying, yank? Because if not, a certain Mr.Sammons will be upset by your insinuations.

JMHO

[big-yank]

Don't misquote me and don't distort what I stated.

1. I never said a stay was favorable to shareholders. A stay is favorable to further delays that could benefit government. Further delays might also lead to a settlement which would benefit all parties.

2. You presume to know what Mr. Sammons motive is. I believe Mr. Sammons only wants his interests protected by a change in venue.

3. Mr. Sammons could be a mole for either side, I suppose. If plaintiffs have concern that Sweeney may be teetering towards dismissal, or thePerry Appeal may be unraveling with the Wikileak/Podesta stuff that shows no improper motivation for HERA or conservatorship, they could benefit from a new court, too. I think neither possibility is likely.

4. "letting Sammons take the lead" implies no cooperation, conspiracy or linked action. If the goal was to delay things, it would only be logical to wait for a secondary action until after the first one played out.

5. "The U.S. could not file such an appeal" because they never raised a jurisdictional complaint in any of their previous filings. Neither did the plaintiff's legal teams. Sweeney mentions this, specifically, in her rejection order of Sammons letter to the court.

My comments on interlocutory appeal were intended to contribute to a discussion initiated by other posters. To imply some sinister ulterior motive to them falls more into the personal attack category than any constructive dialog to Fannie Mae and potential outcomes to the matters pending in court.

JMHO.