Order To Compel Confirms Extent Of Damage
The redacted motion to compel was released today, and it reflects the fact that our government has been forced to turn over a mountain of damning evidence that they have been desperately trying to withhold.
Link to Order:
As we study over the expanded descriptions of the documents and cross reference this with a mountain of intel, we are gathering it is clear that we were not misguided when we were informed that the documents being withheld contained the most damaging evidence. As you read through the expanded descriptions that are provided, it doesn’t take much imagination to see why our government was withholding them.
At the beginning of today’s order Judge Sweeney offers a review of just what discovery was to entail:
On February 26, 2014, following receipt of the parties responses the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for discovery. Specifically, the court concluded that discovery regarding (1) the Enterprises’ future profitability, (2) the lifespan of the conservatorships, and (3) the relationship between the FHFA and the Treasury Department
would enable the parties to resolve factual issues regarding the court’s jurisdiction. The court further concluded that additional discovery regarding the Enterprises’ future solvency; the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ expectations regarding the Enterprises’ future profitability; and the reasons why the government allowed the preexisting capital structure and stockholders to remain in place, including whether this decision was based on the partial expectation that the Enterprises would be profitable again in the future, would enable the parties to resolve factual issues regarding plaintiffs’ ability to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for a Penn Central regulatory taking.
Several months later, on July 16, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion for a protective order. In that order, the court indicated that jurisdictional discovery in this case would proceed in phases, beginning with the production of responsive documents dating from April 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, and from June 1, 2011, through August 17, 2012. The court further directed defendant to respond to discovery requests for nonprivileged information dating from August 18, 2012, through September 30, 2012, regarding topics other than the future profitability of the Enterprises or whether and when the conservatorships might end.
Reading through the order keep in mind Judge Sweeney has studied every one of these documents, and she sights why they are relevant to discovery.
One in particular quickly grabbed our attention:
Document 19, UST 00521902, is a draft memorandum captioned “POTUS Draft.” The
document, which discusses housing reform policy, bears the heading “THE WHITE HOUSE.”
According to Mr. McQuaid, the document was sent by the Director of the National Economic
Council (Gene Sperling).
And Here Judge Sweeney cites why this must be turned over:
Collectively, the documents pertain to all of the relevant
discovery issues: (1) the Enterprises’ future profitability, (2) the lifespan of the conservatorships, (3) the relationship between the FHFA and the Treasury Department, (4) theEnterprises’ future solvency, (5) the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ expectations regarding the
Enterprises’ future profitability, and (6) the reasons why the government allowed the preexisting capital structure and stockholders to remain in place, including whether this decision was based on the partial expectation that the Enterprises would be profitable again in the future. Because the evidence addresses both the court’s jurisdiction and the merits of the case, plaintiffs’ need for it is paramount. In addition, with respect to the availability of other evidence, there is no other
source of evidence available to plaintiffs that would similarly inform their understanding of these issues. Thus, Documents 15, 17, 19, and 21 must be disclosed.
Time and time again we read the descriptions of the documents followed by Judge Sweeney’s insight into the fact that they contain critical evidence. I have studied the order for several hours and gave gleaned many more insights that I will try and share over the next few days.
I do not want to dignify the other recent happenings in the Fairholme Trial with a lengthy response. The rogue shareholder has some serious issues, and his Fannie Mae shares are likely fairly insignificant in comparison.
A Promising Road Regurgitated
It is beginning to feel like Groundhog day with the Promising Road crowd.Every three months they check in and try to expand further on their original proposal.Back in March when they released their original, I was the first to point out the subtle catch to their whole scheme.
Since I exposed this, I notice they have tried very hard to hide this aspect of their plan in subsequent papers.One of the primary motives of their plan is to subvert the fact that HERA now designates by law the conforming loan limits for the GSEs. An integral part of their plan relies on eliminating this fact and placing the conforming loan limits at the mercy of the head of FHFA. This would entice Republicans to come aboard with the promise that a Republican President could use this lever as the means to shrink the GSEs footprint as small as they wished. This would enable private capital to take over our secondary mortgage market once again.This would also crush the critical mandates and trust funds. I have many new insights into our overall political situation which I will try and share in a post or within the comments section as we approach the election.
I am thrilled that our recent enthusiasm was well founded and look forward to a very favorable ruling in the Perry appeal.
Keep the Faith!