Replies to post #161413 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[blanka]

I am sure more clarity will come out as Perry Capital are already in the works to Counter this dismissal. ..

They are trying to dodge the bullet and go by technicals but technicals are not going to win as the 3rd Admendment has been violated.

The best and brightest are working for the shareholders and truth will come out...

As always THANK YOU for your input and you have always been very valuable to this board!

[bmp152]

Obit, sincere thanks for the thorough analysis as always.

Many of us here are not as legally-inclined as yourself. I have a few quick questions:

1) What is the average response time back from the court to either dismiss or move forward? Days, weeks, months? Is it highly variable on a case-per-case basis?

2) How strong of a defense is an attack largely based on technicalities as opposed to fact? Do you think that the defense claims have merit?

3) Do you feel somewhat uneasy that the very judge seeking appointment by the Senate (i.e. Obama's nominee), Robert L Wilkins, is the same judge presiding over this case? Is this at all considered a confounding factor or conflict of interest? It just seems very coincidental to me, but maybe it's simply that and nothing more.

As always, thanks in advance!

[nogoodtrader]

And so it begins and the plot thickens already now that we know the gov's attorneys approach. Hopefully our attorneys will be able to counter because i'm sure they can do a good job of answering those 4 points for the judge. I'm the judge will want to look at the terms for a conservatorship and then he'll find out about the sweep and he won't be happy about that.

[Demar]

Thanks for breaking that down!

[chessmaster315]

Thanks, Obit, for your take on government response.

My initial thought is that the judge required a response, not a motion to dismiss. Has the judge accepted the motion for dismissal as his response requirement? Since the Motion for dismissal did not respond to the allegations by the plaintiff, it would appear the government is in default by virtue of failing to respond.

While I am unqualified to opine on the technical legal aspects, it suprises me the government did not ask for Chevron deference. That would seem to be the best arguement for the government..not the meritless proposition that the US Treasury is a commercial enterprise, and not the US government.

[GetRich1day]

Obit, Thank again for the bringing the facts to light as usual. I'm very surprised that the government went the route of acting as a market participant!! What I found interesting is that the gov't basically trys to take a hands off approach and say the the FHFA is acting alone in it's decisions as conservator; however, the current FHFA director DeMarco has stated that he is waiting on Congress to make a decision regarding the FnF outcome. This motion to dismiss is pathetic. I cannot wait for our day in court and the fireworks to begin. Gov't knows that they cannot continue holding FnF in conservatorship. I'm beginning to think that appointment of Watt is strictly to milk FnF as much as possible before Our Day in Court sets FnF free!

[rosen62]

They did go for the jugular.

Which denotes an all-out-defense/attack and a weak hand at the same time. If the government does not succeed in any of its points for dismissal there is not much left, my view.

Their strongest point appears to be the "ripe" issue. However, Richard Epstein has already counter-argued that the whole point of a lawsuit is to stop a negative consequence before it accomplishes its damage, which many times cannot be undone. This anticipatory attribute of a lawsuit claimed by Epstein could potentially undo the government's last point.

It's true that there's a prior ruling by which Treasury has been seen by courts acting in the interest of a shareholder, thus commercial relationship. But trying to transfer any fault to the FHFA is disingenuous. Imagine Buffett rescuing Goldman in exchange for a punitive dividend plus warrants (which he got and also stated for the record it's the way to go when helping firms in much trouble) and later on, Goldman of its own volition hands out to Buffett not just the mutually agreed dividend but all of its profits and then decides it's time to shut doors... all because Warren is so good.

Sure. It's just a commercial relationship. Happens every day!

[Sogo]

Relevant:Congress/Prez sold ACA as "not a tax", then told the Supreme Court it WAS a "tax". They knew they couldn't pass it if it (the mandate) was a tax, so they sold it as a penalty. But they knew they couldn't win in court if it was a penalty, so they argued it was a tax. Anyway, seems a similar double game is being attempted by U.S. lawyers on their last claim. It's supposedly an agreement between 2 private enterprises, but there's so much talk about the taxpayer. Agreed it's disgusting. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't fall for that double game like they did Obamacare.

I do fear that somewhere in that list of strange claims the U.S. lawyers, some radical judge will sympathize with one or two of the claims, and dismiss the case. Delay justice for another year or so.

People, read the U.S. lawyers' claims and Obits comments and you'll see; your nations "dear leaders" are trying desperately, with highly paid lawyers, to steel your property. All for the sake of milking this cow 'til eternity for their own crony-focused spending. Some country, isn't it right now? Such transparent insanity and brutality.

[Donotunderstand]

I understand strategy to move to "no standing" or ...... other games

But if the key argument is that this is corporate and not Government - does that really end anything or simply change the venue of the hearing to private corporation ? (And there IMO special emergency powers etc. that aid the government might disappear?)