Just as Senator Grassley set off the “Republican double cross” upon realizing Republicans motives for ignoring Obamas vulnerability surrounding the lawless 3rd amendment have vanished, Conservative think tanks are seeing the writing on the wall as well.
Their primary motive was centered on the belief that their long-sought dream of ridding the world of Fannie and Freddie was coming to fruition.Two ultra right wing think tank scholars joined forces in a stunning reversal and laid out their plan for the reform/ release of the GSEs. Keep in mind at one time AEI released their own version of Housing reform their suggested transition included: “Phase out Fannie and Freddie through annual 20 percent reductions in conforming loan limits, raised capital requirements, and prohibitions from adding to their portfolios. Convert the conservatorship to a receivership and wipe out all equity below the Treasury‘s holdings. Divide Fannie and Freddie into good bank/bad bank structures and auction off all systems and other company resources.”They now see the hopelessness of getting rid of the GSEs and realize they better pivot now if they want any hopes of influencing the reform/ release process. Now that the Republicans are moving to blow the lid off of the whole caper we will see more and more politicians and scholars scrambling to get on the right side of history.
You will remember Calabria was heavily involved in crafting HERA as Senator Shelby’s top aide and has recently laid out in detail the lawlessness of the conservatorship and the 3rd amend. You better believe that his revelations are being put to good use by Republicans in their new quest to link Obama to the scene of the crime.Some of the statements made by politicians such as Republican Rep. Mulvaney and Senator Grassley have clear ties to Calabria’s recent work. As usual these public developments are just the tip of the iceberg, privately there is a flurry of activity on both sides of the aisle concerning the Republican double cross and the urgency for Obama to put this to rest.

Another huge development was Judge Wheeler’s clear condemnation of our governments lawlessness in The closing arguments of WW2 vet Hank Greenberg’s case against the lawless actions related to the AIG bailout.Just as our very own Judge Sweeney sees right through our governments lies, Court of Claims Judge Wheeler has as well.Some of our most enjoyable moments from the closing arguments include:

Wheeler, however, said he remained “perplexed” by the government’s treatment of AIG. “It doesn’t really justify interest (rate) four times as high (as other firms) and an 80% stake,” the judge said. “I mean nobody got that.”

“Whatever injuries they allege, the benefits exceeded that,” Dintzer said of the government’s equity stake.”Absent the equity element, there is no deal at all and the company goes bankrupt.” But Wheeler responded, “One view of the case is the government took the stock, didn’t pay anything for it and then pocketed revenue from the sales. I mean, come on.” The government earned about $16 billion in profits when it sold the AIG shares and another $7 billion or so in interest.


Just as I boldly predicted the Continental Western Iowa dismissal I now just as confidently predict a Greenberg victory.

It’s important to note that Hank also had filed a sister case against the NY Fed in a district court as well as the case in Judge Wheelers court of claims. This was because the NY Fed is a “private corporation”. That case was dismissed just as our “Perry Injunction” was in our cause. District courts generally prove to be handmaidens of the federal government and Judge Lamberth took his handmaiden role to new heights.

We did get our hands on the full transcript of the Greenberg lawsuit closing arguments and have attached them below. We hope to review them and see what other pearls can be had. Also a Twitter user by the handle “Ron Begala” offered this nice summary of the Greenberg case.
View story at Medium.com

On a side note, a motion for relief concerning protected information was filed in the “Fairholme Lawsuit”. If granted this should provide more ammo for Grassley in the Republican double cross. It is also a big step towards being able to share publicly some of the damning evidence that is being obtained in discovery.

As usual we are not the most popular kids on the block due to our refusal to enable the DC theater works, we are not beholden to anyone or anything in this debate but the truth.It is clear that the WSJ is largely being played in their exchange of blind faith for access, though they are completely living up to their end of the bargain, the government is not sharing the true behind the scenes developments with them.

Things will move very quickly now as time runs out for both sides to exercise their strategies.It will be interesting to see just how long Obama will allow this high stakes game of chicken to play out. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and his moves will play a huge role in Hillary’s chances in 16. If he blinks and allows this to fall into Jeb Bushs hands in 2016 millions of Americans will pay a severe price for decades to come. Keep the Faith!

Full transcript Greenberg closing arguments.
AIG closing arguments

Edit 4/28/15 11:15 PM

Trevor Thompson has extracted some real gems from the Greenberg transcripts.Also the Home Builders and Realtors took on the WSJ and defended Mel Watt.

From page 27, line 24:

THE COURT: You know, I thought by analogy, it’s
like if I owned a nice house in the country, it’s sort of
analogous to a situation where the government might say,
Well, you still own your house, but we’re going to make
you live only in the master bedroom.

From page 66, line 11:

THE COURT: No. But, I mean, one view of the
case — and it’s not farfetched; it seems plausible — is
that the government took the stock. They didn’t pay
anything for it. I guess 500,000 they paid for it. And
then they pocketed the revenue from the sale. I mean,
come on.

MR. DINTZER: Your Honor, the — so when you say
the term — and I just want to make sure that I’m clear
in my answer — when you use the term “took the stock,”
are you using it just in con- — or are you saying took
the stock as a matter of the Fifth Amendment?

THE COURT: Well, call it what you will. The
government acquired the stock without paying anything for
it and then pocketed the revenue from it.

From page 70, line 2:

THE COURT: Now, I think there are in fact restrictions in
13(3) about what kind of interest the government can
acquire in the company being lended to, but my question
is what incentive is there ever for the government to
follow the restrictions of the law if the recovery is
always going to be zero. It doesn’t matter what
13(3) says. The government can just do whatever it wants
and never have to pay anything.

MR. DINTZER: Well, respectfully, Your Honor,
again, we disagree with your — the suggestion of
interpreting 13(3), but respectfully, Your Honor.

From page 92, line 24:

THE COURT: You know, despite all of the
maneuvering and finessing that went on, nevertheless, if
you look back at the events of September 16 through 22,
approximately, there’s no question in anybody’s mind
that there had been a change in ownership of
AIG Corporation. The people who were the owners and
operators of the company are now out and the government
is in there running the show completely, no question
about that.
So that’s the dilemma I’m having. I’m listening
to your arguments, but nevertheless, in that very first
week, the government assumed control, and there was no
doubt about that.

From page 94, line 18:

THE COURT: Well, I’m just — the premise of my
question was that — well, looking at this maybe
simplistically, we had new ownership of AIG shortly after
September 16. And how can it be that there wasn’t some
sort of illegal exaction or taking for that to have

Home Builders and Realtors take on the WSJ

Watt Hasn’t Increased Taxpayer Risk
The g-fee structure remains overly stringent.
April 28, 2015
Credit availability for home loans remains tight, and the decision by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt to modestly raise some guarantee fees (g-fees) and lower others (“Mel Watt’s Taxpayer Guarantee,” Review & Outlook, April 20) does little to improve the oppressive credit climate. At the same time, it doesn’t raise the risk to taxpayers as you allege.
Mr. Watt has increased fees on riskier transactions such as cash-out refinances, investment properties and mortgages with simultaneous secondary financing. Yet the g-fee structure remains overly stringent given that the credit quality of the underlying loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has increased significantly. Indeed, the weighted-average credit score for loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2014 was 744, well above the minimum credit score requirement of 620 that both entities require for most purchased mortgage loans.
Current market conditions show that defaults and foreclosures are declining and housing markets nationwide are improving. Therefore, higher fees, as advocated by the Journal, are unnecessary and counterproductive.
Further steps need to be taken for housing to serve as an engine of economic growth. Owning a home has strong economic and social benefits, and it is in the best interest of the nation to continue long-standing policies that promote homeownership.
Tom Woods
National Association
of Home Builders

Any increase in guarantee fees would mean overcharging qualified, responsible home buyers to compensate for a lack of trust on the part of the mortgage-investor community who are still squeamish about entering the market. Realtors support efforts to bridge the trust gap, but not by tacking additional fees onto safe mortgages. Government should continue to support responsible, sustainable homeownership in America because it strengthens the economic and social fabric of our communities.
Chris Polychron
National Association
of Realtors
Hot Springs, Ark.