The following was filed in the Fairholme lawsuit. I have attached a pdf. There is a tremendous amount to analyze here. I will add to this post within an hour. There is a wealth of information in this response. The Appendix is a literal treasure trove. I will copy and paste a few key items here but will be offering more commentary in the coming days. I would like to thank those that have taken the time to add to our discussions in the comments sections. I encourage you to study this and future legal documents and post clips you find important and even offer some commentary. These issues can be very complex, and I know we have some keen legal minds participating here. My favorite clip so far us this one, sound familiar? I warned the government officials weeks ago to be careful about their testimony, this reeks of perjury Mr. Watt. Keep the faith
“The Government’s assertions, backed by sworn declarations, that the financial markets could be destabilized by public disclosure of the Government’s internal “projections of the future profitability
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (or lack thereof) under a range of economic, business and policy scenarios,” Watt Decl. ¶ 7, raise this all but inevitable inference: either the Government’s
public reporting of precisely this same type of information has been misleading, or its alleged concerns about market destabilization are a pretext for some other reason(s) to conceal the requested information.”
Another great clip-
“A hypothetical example helps illustrate why the protective order sought by the Government is premature and would enable it to withhold responsive nonprivileged materials. Suppose
that Secretary Geithner sent an email to several of his subordinates at Treasury on August 18, 2012 explaining that he had signed the Third Amendment the previous day to use the Companies’
profits to reduce the federal deficit and ensure that existing shareholders will not have access to any such profits. Such an email would be directly relevant, at a minimum, to the Companies’
future profitability and the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ investment-backed expectations at the time of the Net Worth Sweep—two of the subjects on which the Court authorized discovery.
And it would not be protected by the deliberative process privilege because it post-dates the Third Amendment, the only policy decision discussed. See Judicial Watch, 449 F.3d at 151 (A
document is pre-decisional only “ ‘if it was generated before the adoption of an agency policy.’ ”). Yet the relief sought by the Government would allow it to withhold that probative email.
The Court should reject the Government’s blanket assertion of the deliberative process privilege and make clear that the Government cannot rely on the privilege without providing a
privilege log that explains why each document is properly withheld. Without a log, it is impossible for Plaintiffs or the Court to assess the adequacy of the Government’s privilege claims.”
Is this really “hypothetical”?