Replies to post #445408 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Release us]

Sweeny has delayed this whole thing by entertaining a motion to dismiss on a common law takings suit based on a judicial castration clause of HERA.

She put the motion to dismiss to the side and allowed discovery to happen.

Sammons tried to intervene when discovery was in it's infant stages.

You're the only one I've seen touting Sammons.

If he's in our best interest I haven't seen Fairholme rushing in to prop him up...

You have this backwards. I used to believe as you that he is a mole. But after a while, you realize that he is right. He cant be a gov plant, because if he prevails it calls into question every ruling by the CFC since it was reconstituted as a legislative tribunal. For instance, if there was a jury trial for AIG do you belief a jury would find the Gov guilty and then award no damages? These types of rulings can only happen when we give up our rights to due process and let the gov machine rule on our behalf because deference is always given to the gov because they are the experts and they know best. I believe Sweeny has delayed this whole thing by entertaining a motion to dismiss on a common law takings suit based on a judicial castration clause of HERA. That in itself if Sammons is correct is a violation of the constitution. She has not really helped us yet. She has extended this to infinity. How about our right to a speedy trial. Once again this wouldnt have happened if a jury was involved.

[Release us]

I don't want a speedy trial until I get the documents. That's the only time he seems to rear his ugly head is when documents are about to be produced.

She has extended this to infinity. How about our right to a speedy trial.

[yambike]

Barron4664,

The substance of Sammon's petition is precisely why it's so devious. Yes, on its face, he argues a good point. That the Court of federal claims is unfair because it deprives the plaintiffs the jury of its peers. And that the case has been strung out too long.

But you need to weigh the petition NOT on what he says but on WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HE PREVAILS. Only then will the true motive be evident.

If he were to prevail, the court will either dissolve or lose jurisdiction with the end result being a halt to the document discovery. And the halt will be INDEFINITE! Instead of expediting an outcome, it will be postponed indefinitely. I am inclined to believe that Sammons is aware of this, and that this is precisely his aim.

-----

My other argument is this: why has Sammons singled out Sweeney? For example, if the issue is the jury thing, why didn't he bring it up in other venues where we were similarly deprived? Also why is he bringing up one tenuous complaint after another against the ONLY JUDGE who's given us much headway? All without the solicitation or sanction by the lead plaintiff, I might add.

Remember, before this, Sammons brought up jurisdictional issue. When that didn't work, he brings up the constutionality of the entire claims court, right on top of another. It's as though he's trying to improvise his way, being more creative if unsuccessful, going further out on a limb in an attempt to undermine her in any way possible. Trying anything in desperation to take the case away from her.

----

The records are replete with instances where the previous administration went to great lengths to hide the truth. If not the GSE thing, it was the Clive Bundy thing. If not that, it was the IRS political targeting. There are more examples but some of those are less substantive. All eye opening though.

If the prior administration was not adverse to those things, why would they be any less inclined to pull this stunt?

Something sinister is afoot. No logical way to explain Sammons otherwise.

Either you don't get it, or you do and share a similar motive.