TonyG Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-27/richard-perry-walks-away-hoping-he-ll-get-a-shot-at-vindication "While he’ll be returning much of their money next month, Perry has told clients that he probably won’t be ready to sell a few of his investments for a year or more. Chief among them are preferred shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Perry and other shareholders sued the government in 2013, saying it improperly diverted more than $130 billion in profit from the mortgage companies to the U.S. Treasury. That suit was dismissed in 2014. Perry appealed and is awaiting the judge’s ruling." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 what should we be looking for if/when the order from honorable sweeney is made public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 what should we be looking for if/when the order from honorable sweeney is made public? the most important thing is how sweeping was her order....how many privilege claims did she say were either improperly asserted by govt or, if properly asserted, are overridden allowing docs to be subject to discovery because of their relevance to the case. so, she reviewed some 50 docs in camera. how many of these are to be shown to Ps? then, based upon what she says in opinion, what standard does she apply to test whether the other 11,000 docs withheld under claim of privilege should be turned over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Legal Eagles. Why dont they have Schmerin file an amicus brief or file a deposition? THIS WEEKEND: FAIRHOLME TURNAROUND? http://wealthtrack.com/this-weekend-fairholme-turnaround/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye4Valu Posted September 29, 2016 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Revolving Door Laws maybe? https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-875.pdf "Under federal conflict of interest law, at 18 U.S.C. § 207, federal employees in the executive branch of government are restricted in performing certain post-employment “representational” activities for private parties, including (1) a lifetime ban on “switching sides,” that is, representing a private party on the same “particular matter” involving identified parties on which the former executive branch employee had worked personally and substantially for the government; (2) a two-year ban on “switching sides” on a somewhat broader range of matters which were under the employee’s official responsibility; (3) a one-year restriction on assisting others on certain trade or treaty negotiations; (4) a one-year “cooling off” period for certain “senior” officials barring representational communications to and attempts to influence persons in their former departments or agencies; (5) a new two-year “cooling off” period for “very senior” officials barring representational communications to and attempts to influence certain other high-ranking officials in the entire executive branch of government; and (6) a one-year ban on certain former high-level officials performing certain representational or advisory activities for foreign governments or foreign political parties. This law also applies the one-year “cooling off” periods, and the restrictions on representations on behalf of official foreign entities and assistance in trade negotiations, in the legislative branch to Members of the House and to senior legislative staff, and applies the two-year “cooling off” period to former U.S. Senators lobbying the Congress." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Interesting that people are catching on, at least in other ways, that the Obama administration is stealing to fund its initiatives. “The Obama administration can no longer take money from taxpayers to bail out Obamacare,” said Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/business/obama-affordable-care-act.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Is this worrisome? In other words, will it gain any traction? http://assets1c.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/Viewpoint/PDF/Toward-a-New-Secondary-Mortgage-Market.pdf What is the process for ending the conservatorships of the GSEs? Once Fannie and Freddie are ready to be recapitalized as mutuals by their lenders, and a new governance structure is established, they would be put through receivership and emerge as new lender-owned credit enhancers. The FHFA, as receiver, could contract with these new entities to manage the runoff of the conservatorship books of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Is this worrisome? In other words, will it gain any traction? http://assets1c.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/Viewpoint/PDF/Toward-a-New-Secondary-Mortgage-Market.pdf What is the process for ending the conservatorships of the GSEs? Once Fannie and Freddie are ready to be recapitalized as mutuals by their lenders, and a new governance structure is established, they would be put through receivership and emerge as new lender-owned credit enhancers. The FHFA, as receiver, could contract with these new entities to manage the runoff of the conservatorship books of business. Maybe that's been the endgame? To steal all capital/profits throughout the conservatorship and then say "oh look, they can't stand on their own" and then switch to receivership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
investorG Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Do you believe the government, in 20trn of debt, will throw away warrant values of $150bn+ for these plans...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Is this worrisome? In other words, will it gain any traction? http://assets1c.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/Viewpoint/PDF/Toward-a-New-Secondary-Mortgage-Market.pdf What is the process for ending the conservatorships of the GSEs? Once Fannie and Freddie are ready to be recapitalized as mutuals by their lenders, and a new governance structure is established, they would be put through receivership and emerge as new lender-owned credit enhancers. The FHFA, as receiver, could contract with these new entities to manage the runoff of the conservatorship books of business. this is a perfectly reasonable endgame. if nws is upheld, it will be cheap for govt too. if nws is vacated, expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Do you believe the government, in 20trn of debt, will throw away warrant values of $150bn+ for these plans...? Haven't we thrown away much more than that in pointless foreign wars where we support one side in one country while literally killing them in the next? It's not about what makes sense or the cost associated with it. It's about what moves forward whatever agenda they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Do you believe the government, in 20trn of debt, will throw away warrant values of $150bn+ for these plans...? Haven't we thrown away much more than that in pointless foreign wars where we support one side in one country while literally killing them in the next? It's not about what makes sense or the cost associated with it. It's about what moves forward whatever agenda they have. +1. The special interest group doesn't care whether the government gets that $150 bn or not. It is not going to these special interest group's pocket anyway. They only care about maximizing their own profits, which is to shut down these companies and let them run their own version of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 the dc circuit case posted today has brown writing majority opinion, joined by ginsburg, with millett writing dissent. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/300B39F6CE959EDB8525803E004D22CE/$file/15-1034-1638507.pdf hhhmmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 the dc circuit case posted today has brown writing majority opinion, joined by ginsburg, with millett writing dissent. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/300B39F6CE959EDB8525803E004D22CE/$file/15-1034-1638507.pdf hhhmmmmm.... "In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 the dc circuit case posted today has brown writing majority opinion, joined by ginsburg, with millett writing dissent. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/300B39F6CE959EDB8525803E004D22CE/$file/15-1034-1638507.pdf hhhmmmmm.... "In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it." YES! quoting brown more fully where you read that luke: "We recognize the [NLR]Board’s unimpeded access to the public fisc means these modest fees can be dismissed as chump change. But money does not explain the Board’s bad faith; “the pleasure of being above the rest” does. See C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY 122 (Harper Collins 2001). Let the word go forth: for however much the judiciary has emboldened the administrative state, we “say what the law is.” Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177. In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it." i love judge brown EDIT: the flipside is that even in a case where the nlrb is found to have acted in bad faith, millett cant see her way to award attys fees...meaning she is deep in the tank for the govt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Berk Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Millet was always a lost cause for us--she made it 100% clear, IMO, that she had no use for the arguments made by the plaintiffs. Brown's silence during Perry orals was what gave many of us some pause. I can't imagine that Brown will look favorably among arguments that there is absolutely no recourse in law even if the agency acted in bad faith. Maybe these stupid rulings at the district court level that take it to the extreme might even help us, by ruling in such a ridiculous way that it causes Brown to feel like she has to address this strongly. I am encouraged. the dc circuit case posted today has brown writing majority opinion, joined by ginsburg, with millett writing dissent. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/300B39F6CE959EDB8525803E004D22CE/$file/15-1034-1638507.pdf hhhmmmmm.... "In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it." YES! quoting brown more fully where you read that luke: "We recognize the [NLR]Board’s unimpeded access to the public fisc means these modest fees can be dismissed as chump change. But money does not explain the Board’s bad faith; “the pleasure of being above the rest” does. See C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY 122 (Harper Collins 2001). Let the word go forth: for however much the judiciary has emboldened the administrative state, we “say what the law is.” Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177. In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it." i love judge brown EDIT: the flipside is that even in a case where the nlrb is found to have acted in bad faith, millett cant see her way to award attys fees...meaning she is deep in the tank for the govt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 “the pleasure of being above the rest” does. See C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY 122 (Harper Collins 2001). Let the word go forth: for however much the judiciary has emboldened the administrative state, we “say what the law is.” Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177. To anybody reading this post, I'd like to offer a free copy of the book mentioned in the filing, Mere Christianity. The late author, C.S. Lewis, was an atheist that investigated the merits of the claims of Jesus Christ. You might recognize Lewis' name because he also wrote The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (as part of The Chronicles of Narnia). Send me a private message if you'd like a free copy. Amazon link of the book: https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Amplified-Introduction-Broadcast-Christian/dp/B000OESR7K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1475256965&sr=8-3&keywords=mere+christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 the dc circuit case posted today has brown writing majority opinion, joined by ginsburg, with millett writing dissent. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/300B39F6CE959EDB8525803E004D22CE/$file/15-1034-1638507.pdf hhhmmmmm.... "In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it." Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 hard to see brown going against Ps, and hard to see millett going FOR Ps. ginsburg, id lean FOR Ps, but its less clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 hard to see brown going against Ps, and hard to see millett going FOR Ps. ginsburg, id lean FOR Ps, but its less clear agree ginsburg is "swing" vote. re-listened to oral arg. understanding that ginsburg is an excellent devil's advocate pushing whoever is at lectern, i come away thinking he will "at least" ask for a full admin record. he refers to overton park as if it were biblical. overton park----> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/402/case.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Today's Fileing. Page 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 here is today's filing re: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqnfit7jua6i6lm/FF%20Motion%20to%20Intervene%20Denied.pdf I'm sure gselinks will have it soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 here is today's filing re: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqnfit7jua6i6lm/FF%20Motion%20to%20Intervene%20Denied.pdf I'm sure gselinks will have it soon wonder if this intervenor was a govt plant...anyhow, "in the entirety" is nice to read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardincap Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Berko admits on wealthtrack Fannie is a zero if he loses court cases, contradicting his previous statement that Fannie is not a binary outcome based solely on legal victory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 That's not exactly news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now