I never said it was illegal or improper for evidence turned up in one case, either by investigation or discovery, to be used in another case. What I said was that it is improper for attorneys in one case to use that platform to seek information that is only of benefit in another case. Now I will add to that a further comment. As implied by recent comments from Glen Bradford on this message board in the last two days. If Fairholme's intent is to delay other verdicts so the Perry Appeal verdict can be released without prejudice from the other cases being decided (my paraphrasing, but accurate to my best recollection), that would be a clear impedance of due process and fully actionable by defendants. Perhaps this explains the emerging attorney element from the U.S. DOJ entering the Fairholme process.
Mr. Bradford, as I'm sure you have read, is an apparent confidante of Mr. Berkowitz, and has been privvy to much other content in the Fairholme litigation before other media sources acquired the same info.
Sounds like obstruction of justice, possibly.
As for your "wind down" confusion, the taking in Fairholme revolves around Amendment 3. There is huge anecdotal evidence that government had the intent to put the GSEs away for years. Feel free to research all the proposals put forth by Johnson, Crapo, Hensarling, Corker, ad nauseum that so stated. Read Geithner's address to the Brookings Institute. Read the Barrons article that blew the "at risk" whistle. Read the Mercatus Institute stuff. Read the research papers put out by the St. Louis Fed and, later, the N.Y. Fed. Read the Professor Anthony Sanders reports. Read the FCIC dissent opinion. THEN you tell me that no intent was evidenced. I have linked every one of these references on this board over the last few months.
As for Mr. Sammons, first was calling him "Sampson" a Freudian slip? Secondly, I think his case just got greatly elevated by the actions taken by Fairholme. I still see it as a longshot, but it may have gained huge traction by boxing the Sweeney court into the uncomfortable position of having to explain years of document wrangling that may have little or nothing to do with the Fairholme case before her court. I am not making such a claim, just saying it adds a layer of credibility to his complaints requesting intercession.
JMHO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
