FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.

[Guest cherzeca]

17 judges. Since a judge cannot be picked twice for the same panel at the same time, we have 17 * 16 * 15 = 4,080 different possibilities with some of them being exactly the same (as in A/B/C = C/B/A = A/C/B = ...)

 

6 of these outcomes correspond to the desired 2 judges (A/B/-, B/A/-, -/A/B, -/B/A, A/-/B, B/-/A)

 

So there should be 6 / 4,080 or slightly less than 0.15% chances of getting the desired scenario (assuming that the selection is purely random.)

 

thanks for the calculations.  way beyond the right side of my brain...

 

of course, what's of interest is a judge's dispositional leanings.  none of this can guarantee how a judge will decide a case, but it gives one a good indication how a judge will approach a case. 

[merkhet]

From Peter Chapman:

 

The Clerk made a notation on the docket sheet in Jacobs v. FHFA this afternoon that Judge Sleet has directed the lawyers to organize a teleconference at 10:00 a.m. on Mon., Mar. 28, 2016, and patch his chambers into the the call once everybody's assembled.  The purpose of the call is to discuss the government's motions to dismiss (which are now fully briefed) and the transfer notice FHFA delivered to the Court earlier this week.

[actuary]

If you have 17 judges, there are (17 x 16 x 15) / (3 x 2) = 680 ways to pick 3 of them. Order doesn't matter. "17 choose 3." 

 

There are only 15 ways to pick a panel that includes the 2 judges you mentioned. So probability is 15 / 680 = 2.2%.

 

There are 2 (judges) x "15 choose 2" (15 x 14 / 2) ways to pick a panel that includes one of the two. So 210.

 

That means 225 ways to have at least one. 33%

[Guest cherzeca]

From Peter Chapman:

 

The Clerk made a notation on the docket sheet in Jacobs v. FHFA this afternoon that Judge Sleet has directed the lawyers to organize a teleconference at 10:00 a.m. on Mon., Mar. 28, 2016, and patch his chambers into the the call once everybody's assembled.  The purpose of the call is to discuss the government's motions to dismiss (which are now fully briefed) and the transfer notice FHFA delivered to the Court earlier this week.

 

if i were judge sleet, i would be pissed that fhfa filed a motion to dismiss, has it fully briefed, asks for oral argument, and then decides to move the case away from me.  but then again, i am not sleet...not even a lite drizzle.

 

as to the probability calculations, i get it, it is really small

[intothebreach]

I stand corrected (thanks to actuary). I forgot that the 6 desired outcomes can be matched with any of the other 15 judges (in bold below), which brings 6 * 15 / 4080 = 2.2%.

 

But more importantly, actuary's comment that we have 1 in 3 chances of getting a potentially "favorable" judge looks like pretty good odds to me.

 

17 judges. Since a judge cannot be picked twice for the same panel at the same time, we have 17 * 16 * 15 = 4,080 different possibilities with some of them being exactly the same (as in A/B/C = C/B/A = A/C/B = ...)

 

6 of these outcomes correspond to the desired 2 judges (A/B/-, B/A/-, -/A/B, -/B/A, A/-/B, B/-/A) * 15

 

[merkhet]

I stand corrected (thanks to actuary). I forgot that the 6 desired outcomes can be matched with any of the other 15 judges (in bold below), which brings 6 * 15 / 4080 = 2.2%.

 

But more importantly, actuary's comment that we have 1 in 3 chances of getting a potentially "favorable" judge looks like pretty good odds to me.

 

17 judges. Since a judge cannot be picked twice for the same panel at the same time, we have 17 * 16 * 15 = 4,080 different possibilities with some of them being exactly the same (as in A/B/C = C/B/A = A/C/B = ...)

 

6 of these outcomes correspond to the desired 2 judges (A/B/-, B/A/-, -/A/B, -/B/A, A/-/B, B/-/A) * 15

 

 

Except you need two to win. 2 out of 3.

[intothebreach]

Except you need two to win. 2 out of 3.

 

Right. I'm assuming the other 15 are neutral, or evenly balanced. So 1 favorable could end up tipping the scales favorably.

[merkhet]

Except you need two to win. 2 out of 3.

 

Right. I'm assuming the other 15 are neutral, or evenly balanced. So 1 favorable could end up tipping the scales favorably.

 

Ah, gotcha. I would much prefer to have the two slanted in our favor as we have been screwed before. :)

 

From Peter Chapman:

 

The Clerk made a notation on the docket sheet in Jacobs v. FHFA this afternoon that Judge Sleet has directed the lawyers to organize a teleconference at 10:00 a.m. on Mon., Mar. 28, 2016, and patch his chambers into the the call once everybody's assembled.  The purpose of the call is to discuss the government's motions to dismiss (which are now fully briefed) and the transfer notice FHFA delivered to the Court earlier this week.

 

if i were judge sleet, i would be pissed that fhfa filed a motion to dismiss, has it fully briefed, asks for oral argument, and then decides to move the case away from me.  but then again, i am not sleet...not even a lite drizzle.

 

 

Agree. It's a pretty naked ploy to delay, and I'm hoping Judge Sleet sees it as the same.

[Guest cherzeca]

Except you need two to win. 2 out of 3.

 

Right. I'm assuming the other 15 are neutral, or evenly balanced. So 1 favorable could end up tipping the scales favorably.

 

not a good assumption.  when the federal govt is a litigant, the judiciary tends to be more deferential than normally is the case.  so one is hoping for a vigilant judge, not a deferential judge.  there are really only 3 judges in my view on dc circuit who i think are vigilant out of 17 in a case like perry, and we got two of them.

 

[spits 3 times]

[Sunrider]

Guys

 

You're confusing the hello out of me - has the case been assigned to the three judges that were discussed a few pages ago (that was my initial read) or are we hoping two of three end up on the panel and you're figuring out what the odds are of it happening?

Thanks.

C.

[merkhet]

Guys

 

You're confusing the hello out of me - has the case been assigned to the three judges that were discussed a few pages ago (that was my initial read) or are we hoping two of three end up on the panel and you're figuring out what the odds are of it happening?

Thanks.

C.

 

Already been assigned to Brown, Ginsburg & Millet. The calculations are just for fun.

[Sunrider]

<relief>

 

Guys

 

You're confusing the hello out of me - has the case been assigned to the three judges that were discussed a few pages ago (that was my initial read) or are we hoping two of three end up on the panel and you're figuring out what the odds are of it happening?

Thanks.

C.

 

Already been assigned to Brown, Ginsburg & Millet. The calculations are just for fun.

[muscleman]

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Patricia? She got appointed by Obama into this court of Appeals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-gop-filibusters-two-obama-nominees/2013/10/31/c232a6d4-424a-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html

 

In addition, I wonder if anyone knows about Supreme judges? I am sure if we win in the Appeals court, FHFA will appeal in the Supreme court.

[Guest cherzeca]

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Patricia? She got appointed by Obama into this court of Appeals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-gop-filibusters-two-obama-nominees/2013/10/31/c232a6d4-424a-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html

 

In addition, I wonder if anyone knows about Supreme judges? I am sure if we win in the Appeals court, FHFA will appeal in the Supreme court.

 

if govt loses in dc cir ct in fromt of this merits panel, then scotus can either agree or not agree to hear appeal...appeal not of right.  if govt thinks it is getting shanked by this merits panel based upon a weird throw of dice appointing judges, it can always seek to have case reargued in front of all 17 judges, en banc.  see http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v86-3/Berkus.pdf for more on this.

 

millet seems to be pretty much an excellent technician as opposed to having any particular viewpoint, though i believe she would enforce employee rights and womens and other civil rights pretty strongly.  from a judge-gaming point of view, the question is whether ginsberg might sway millet rather than millet swaying ginsberg, understanding that to get two votes for govt, millet must sway ginsberg if indeed millet sides with govt herself.

 

more color on ginsberg:  he is a law prof at george mason law school, which is heavily oriented to federalist society/law and economics view. 

[merkhet]

Ginsburg is now teaching part-time @ NYU. Coincidentally, his former professor Richard Epstein also teaches there. :)

[Guest cherzeca]

Ginsburg is now teaching part-time @ NYU. Coincidentally, his former professor Richard Epstein also teaches there. :)

 

ginsberg and epstein seem to be birds of a feather

[Guest cherzeca]

you may want to give this a listen:  http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/9th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture-event-audiovideo

 

judge ginsberg giving the 9th annual barbara olson lecture before the federalist society in 2009.  of course, ms olson died in 9/11 and was the wife of ted olson, who will argue perry appeal for plaintiffs.

 

context:  ginsberg is railing against policy making by agencies.  congress should decide policy, and not delegate this responsibility to agencies (like fhfa/treasury).  perry plaintiffs brief contains a statement that congress might have concluded that nationalizing GSEs was wise policy, but congress didnt so provide in HERA, and fhfa/treasury was wrong to reach this policy decision themselves.  i imagine ginsberg will be most interested in this argument.

 

so this speech is most applicable to the perry appeal (favorably for plaintiffs imo)

[muscleman]

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Patricia? She got appointed by Obama into this court of Appeals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-gop-filibusters-two-obama-nominees/2013/10/31/c232a6d4-424a-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html

 

In addition, I wonder if anyone knows about Supreme judges? I am sure if we win in the Appeals court, FHFA will appeal in the Supreme court.

 

if govt loses in dc cir ct in fromt of this merits panel, then scotus can either agree or not agree to hear appeal...appeal not of right. throw of dice appointing judges, it can always seek to have case reargued in front of all 17 judges, en banc.  see http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v86-3/Berkus.pdf for more on this.

 

 

Well, if delay is the primary defense strategy for the government, then it seems almost granted that the government will seek to have case reargued in front of all 17 judges right?

[merkhet]

They might. Depends on how badly they lose the case. Also, I believe an en banc rehearing requires a majority vote of active judges and is somewhat difficult to put together.

 

Basically, you'd have to bring everyone together for the implied purpose that your judicial colleagues screwed it up royally. Then you have to see each other in the lunch room.

[Guest cherzeca]

They might. Depends on how badly they lose the case. Also, I believe an en banc rehearing requires a majority vote of active judges and is somewhat difficult to put together.

 

Basically, you'd have to bring everyone together for the implied purpose that your judicial colleagues screwed it up royally. Then you have to see each other in the lunch room.

 

the linked article has a good treatment of dc circuit en banc hearings.  very rare

[doughishere]

Obama is a damn good CEO.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-sent-record-97-8-billion-in-profits-to-u-s-treasury-in-2015-1458316804

[muscleman]

It looks like FHFA is still filing motion to dismiss in the Saxton court. I thought they would file the motion to transfer in this court and ask for a hault, and still the same old argument without regard to the recent Delaware 9th circuit court's ruling.

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0076.pdf

 

 

[Guest cherzeca]

one of the issues in the perry appeal is whether the conservator under HERA owes a fiduciary duty to the conservatee (fnma/fmcc) and its stakeholders.  govt says no. plaintiffs include two amicus briefs showing the historical understanding of conservatorship under common law (which served to inform the FDIC statute), and under the FDIC statute (which served to inform HERA), which support a fiduciary duty.

 

if judge brown is pro P and judge millet is a pro D (roughly speaking), then ginsberg is the swing vote.  i believe ginsberg will be disposed to search out the historical understanding of conservatorships as the basis for understanding what fhfa's scope of statutory authority was under HERA.  this would follow an "originalist" judicial disposition, about which ginsberg wrote about favorably in http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ginsburg.pdf

 

it is hard to reconcile the 3rd A as an act that upholds a fiduciary duty to the conservatees.

[muscleman]

Anybody looked at the government's filing today in MDL? Please share with me your brilliant thoughts!  :)

 

http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Judicial_Panel/MDL-2713-0008.pdf

The government said this:

"Actions may be transferred to any district

for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings where civil actions pending in different

districts involve “one or more common questions of fact”

"

 

 

Well, this is outright wrong. I googled and found this:

http://www.pretzel-stouffer.com/profiles/pdf/Multidistrict%20Litigation%20to%20authors.pdf

 

"if only one question of fact is common to two or three cases pending in different

districts there probably will be no order for transfer, since it is doubtful that

transfer would enhance the convenience of the parties and witnesses, or promote

judicial efficiency"

 

 

[doughishere]

In re: Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig., 842 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (ordering consolidation where pendency of “similar motions to dismiss or sever would invite the risk of inconsistent rulings”).

 

 

rofl....this is absurd.