Replies to post #357756 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[navycmdr]

you obviously didn't READ JUDGE SWEENEY's 80 pg RULING ....

regardless "EVEN IF" the GOVT's PRIVILEGE CLAIMS held up - WHICH THEY DIDN'T

SHE SHREDDED their ARGUMENTS ONE by ONE METICULOUSLY

in 80 pages and RULED the NEED for the DOCUMENTS by the PLAINTIFF

to prove their case MORE than TRUMPED the GOVT's SECRECY - PRIVILEGE CLAIMS !!!

[Zmarzz]

I strongly disagree.
As far as the government's willingness to provide the documents to the Appeals Court, well what other choice did they have? The government could hardly refuse to provide the documents after Judge Sweeney had already seen them.
Second, your comments imply gross incompetence on the part of Judge Sweeney. Given that she took months to review the documents and consider the arguments that you just made, one has to ask what she was thinking if the Appeals Court overrules her? There is a very high bar to overruling Judge Sweeney in this manner.
Finally, I hope everybody realizes that this was simply an attempt on the part of the federal government to keep these documents secret until after the election.

[Barrario]

WOW LOL

[Donotunderstand]

big ? navy ? rek ?

is the GOV arguing relevancy is missing?

I assumed the GOV was arguing it had the right to cloak ?

relevance of the material is not part of the WRIT - or is it ?

[rekcusdo]

"Establishing "why" a taking took place is not a requirement to rule on whether a taking either did or did not occur."

As I already told you, intent is a requirement in a Takings claim. While intent is not, "why", it is quite necessary to see the volitional actions taken by the Government to determine what their Intention was.

"I expect the appeal will rule in favor of government because the documents in question have no relevancy to the takings claims that underpin the Fairholme complaint."

Relevancy is a legal term. Please don't use it if you don't know what it means.