Replies to post #357896 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[whipstick]

more bullshit.

how about you point to where the FHFA is trying to nullify a settlement they're not a party too? Why would they be so completely desperate - much like yourself - the wheels are coming off on all sides.

[rekcusdo]

"Please refer me to the statute or code that allows a plaintiff in one case to request discovery documents that relate to an entirely different case where such documents have nothing to do with the petitioner's claim. "

I'd be happy to refer to the code that allows evidence transfer between cases in the present case (I will ignore the loaded part of your question where you imply that the evidence in one case has nothing to do with the other case, as I counter it below by defining what relevancy is in the eyes of the law)...

FRCP Rule 26b1 - Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable..

FRE Rule 401 - Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.


I know you've challenge the relevancy of evidence, so I thought I'd help you out and actually tell you what relevancy is in the eyes of the law. And to be clear...relevancy only requires ANY tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Any person in the entire world who would ever claim that the evidence being discovered in Fairholme does not have, AT LEAST a tendency to make facts in Perry more or less probable is absolutely INSANE.

Now, if you would do me the respective honor of answering my last question and please refer me to ANY statute or code that prevents the plaintiff of one case from accessing evidence discovered in another case rather than trying to avoid the fact that you can't, I'd appreciate it.