Replies to post #195007 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Blushing green]

so in layman's terms.... the case Theodore Olsen and crew are presenting is tough to argue

[The_Shadow]

I love it

[IL Padrino]

Wow. I think that's good for us. The more they piss this judge off, the better our chances of winning. I know it's not supposed to be emotional and only based off of law, but we're human and there's always that factor of emotional opnion involved in most of our decisions day to day.

[crawford2012]

Obiterdictum, while reading the motion to dismiss, I did notice the points you shared in your post. First I want to say thank you for taking the time as always to compile helpful information as this is crucial at this stage for us to understand where we stand.

IMHO I believe we stand on solid grounds. Clearly from what we read the govt is trying to avoid as much findings as they can, and it is also clear the judge is not buying their bull crap.

Excellent post, I hope others see how important this info is.
Cheers mate,
Crawford!

[chessmaster315]

Agree. The governments motion to dismiss would get a "D" in law school.
...It disrespects the judge, and repeatedly offers its own unsupported opinions as facts.

I see this often on this board..people state some sort of opinion, with no evidence whatsover to support their, often bizarre, opinion.

Did you notice that Nader does not do that? He will offer an opinion, but then cite evidence and facts to support it.

Judges are trained to sift through the opinions, and get to the facts.
The government's arguement is not credible.

[Patswil]

FNMA will FLY today

[reyprimero]

Thanks for your answer , I ask to a lawyer family's friend and he basically coincide with your point ,he aggregate to the list ,the motion more to a attacking vs plaintiff it's a attacking vs Judge Sweeney !! GO FnF

[955]

Defendants are desperate and know their goose is cooked if we are permitted to move forward with discovery. Their responses indicate a mountain of incriminating evidence is at stake. Good post!

After reviewing this motion to suspend the Plaintiffs' discovery, feelings of incredulity arose. Noticeably embedded in the Defendants' Counsel repetitive narrative, declarative statements of alleged fact and legal arguments are negative assessments of Judge Sweeney's order for discovery. It appears that the arguments are not focused, reasoned and convincing enough to have had the order suspended. In lieu of well reasoned, convincing arguments, there are negative evaluations liberally sprinkled throughout the motion. Below is a list of discrediting evaluations, implications and whines found in order of appearance in the motion:

* unnecessary
* inappropriate,
* would not aid the Court in deciding the motion to dismiss, is contrary to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008,
* does not eliminate actions that are fatally flawed in Plaintiff's their legal premises,
* causes litigants the burdens of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity,
* Government is entitled to have the Court decide these independent arguments at the outset of the case,
* the Government will suffer significant prejudice if required to provide extensive discovery before the Court considers the remaining dispositive arguments,
* the Government will suffer especially severe harm because plaintiffs have signaled that they intend to seek extensive discovery on a broad spectrum of factual issues that deeply implicate the merits of the case,
* Because of the sweeping nature of plaintiffs’ allegations, that likely would mean requests to depose numerous officials and the potential for requests to produce hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pages of documents.
* The parties’ and the Court’s interests are best served by postponing burdensome discovery
* There Is undisputedly no need For discovery
* suspension of discovery will spare the parties and the Court the unnecessary discovery burdens
and disputes that will inevitably result from wide-ranging fact discovery.
* Defendants imply that the court order does not provide for a “just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action.”
* Defendants imply that the court order is not an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.
* the court order is a burdensome and expensive discovery
* the pending jurisdictional challenges may make this discovery unnecessary
* The potential expense to the Government of complying with even a fraction of plaintiffs’ objectives will be enormous, invasive, and completely avoidable
* Defendants imply that court order is not an efficient administration of justice
* Defendants imply that court ordered discovery will be useless in assisting the Court in resolving
the Defendants' motion to dismiss
* The requested discovery regarding ripeness Is both unnecessary and statutorily prohibited
* the court ordered discovery in response to a ripeness challenge is illogical
* discovery at this stage is inappropriate
* the court order for discovery cannot possibly yield facts that would bear on the Government’s ripeness argument.
* Defendants say that court ordered discovery would violate Congress’s directive under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (the court order is illegal)
* the court ordered discovery is invasive and improper
* the court ordered discovery will be unfocused and ineffective.
* The Court’s conclusion conflicts with case law, and the discovery permitted cannot support jurisdiction.
* The Court incorrectly relied on legal precedent
* The Court erred In granting discovery to aid In defense of the Government’s RCFC 12(b)(6) Motion
* The Court order allows the plaintiffs a premature, one-sided opportunity to embark on an invasive and burdensome hunt for evidence and does not comport with the Court’s Rules or their purpose
* The Court ordered discovery is inappropriate, contrary to case law and fundamentally unfair

Again, rather than focusing on developing the strength and credibility of their legal arguments to support constructive conclusions to suspend the discovery, the Defendants appear to make an unrelenting effort to chasten and subdue Judge Sweeney with unfavorable evaluations of the court order. This effort amounts to throwing a loose bundle of brickbats and hoping that some will hit their judicial target. Obviously, they completely missed the target.

Source: http://www.valueplays.net/wp-content/uploads/Motion-to-Stay-.pdf

[chessmaster315]

Obit, What happens if the government fails to do its part in court ordered discovery?
That is, what happens if the government fails to comply with the March 21 deadline?

Would this be an instance where the government was in default and the court would grant some sort of judgement against the government, similar to what they may do if a company sues someone, that person was served process, but fails to appear?

This seems, frankly, like it is highly likely...the government will default rather than produce documents required by discovery.

Of course, the government can "settle" and would not have to permit discovery.

Final question, Obit. While I understand the Plaintiff does not necessarily represent the interests of the common shareholders, but is it not true that a favorable ruling would affect the commons shareholders?
Of course, its still possible, even with an unfavorable ruling, that a new suit be filed by other shareholder(s), and these shareholders may well use this lawsuit, and "cure" any defects that may be brought out.
Have you considered the possibility or even likeliness of a class action suit, either in addition to, or independent of the current lawsuits?

Thanks, in advance, for your input, Obit.