Wednesday, September 17, 2014

We are approaching a turning point in the the Fairholme v. USA lawsuit.

radcliffff  10 hours ago Flag

We are approaching a turning point in the the Fairholme v. USA lawsuit.

1) The transcript of the 7/16/14 Fairholme v. USA’s status meeting, shows Schwind told Judge Sweeney that the Gov’t would be finished reviewing the documents within the month of August.

2) In the transcript of the 8/13/14 Fairholme v. USA’s status meeting, Judge Sweeney:
a) Effectively told Mr. Cooper that he should file motions to compel if the Gov’t doesn’t cooperate with his discovery requests, and he responded by promising to file one by the following week, i.e., the week of 8/20/14 (Since he didn’t file one, we can assume that the Gov’t attorneys are probably cooperating);
b) Told the Gov’t attorneys that:
i) If they have any documents that address the key documents in question in the case, i.e., documents show that the White House, Treasury or any branch of Gov’t were directing the FHFA such that it was not acting as an independent Gov’t agency, they must turn them over to the Plaintiffs attorneys and inform their clients, effectively, Obama, Lew and Watt, that they must be turned over. In addition, since there is a blanket protective order in place to make sure the public can’t see any of the documents, they cannot invoke privilege to block the Plaintiffs attorneys from seeing them. And if they don’t cooperate, she’ll see motions to compel the production of them from Mr. Cooper.
ii) While every document that initially falls under the blanket protective order, the Gov’t will review and remove privilege from every document that doesn’t qualify for it and if it doesn’t, Judge Sweeney will see to it that they are removed, even if she has to require briefs from both sides before doing so.

This means that at the next status meeting, the Gov’t can no longer claim it hasn’t read all 800K documents (again Schwind said they would have finished reading everything within August), so it either complied with the judge’s 8/13 instructions or defied them. If they were defied, Mr. Cooper would have
had to finally file a motion to compel. Since the Judge already asked Mr. Cooper to file a motion to compel, i.e., so she could get on with doing her job, we already know how she will rule, even if we have to wait for the Gov’t to file another usless time killing opposition brief. Either way, this will be the turning point that effectively settles the issue of the Sweep. After that, they will go after the evidence that further strengthen’s their case, provides legally actionable evidence against many members of both administrations, and then on to the warrants, which was the true purpose of expanding discovery back to 2008! If Judge Sweeney somehow chooses not to rule on the warrants in the Fairholme case, there will be enough evidence to pass on to the Berman legal team, which is handling the Washington Federal v. USA lawsuit (that Judge Sweeney also happens to preside over), who, BTW, have been attending all of the status conferences. For anyone who hasn’t be following, Berman, aside from seeking and end to the Sweep, also takes direct aim at setting aside the illegal stock “agreements” that handed 79.9% of the preferred and warrants for 79.9% of the common to the Gov’t back in 2008.

Part 3 (Supporting Excerpts From Court Transcript)
JULY 16, 2014 FAIRHOLME v. USA,#13-CV-465C, STATUS MEETING TRANSCRIPT
Page 29

COURT [Judge Sweeney]: …And one thing that does concern me is that the Government is going to designate the entire universe of documents as protected. And as I understand it, the Government still haven’t reviewed all of those documents yet. So – but I also understand you to say that despite that initial blanket designation, you will go back then and look at each document and make a determination as to whether or not it should be protected.
Mr. SCHWIND: Correct, Your Honor. …
COURT: Has the Government - - are you beginning - - how far along in your review are you?

Page 30


MR. SCHWIND: Well, as we are substantially along. I don’t want to - - U don’t know how to phrase this, but we have started - - we started some time ago, seeks, at least, in reviewing documents for responses and privilege. We are not finished that process yet, but we do expect it to be concluded, I’d say, in the next – within the next month.


P_rt 4 

AUG 13, 2014 FAIRHOLME v. USA,#13-CV-465C, STATUS MTG TRANSCRIPT
Pg 42

THE COURT: ...But the whole purpose
of this exercise, what’s before me now, is to allow the
Plaintiffs to have their day in court and for them to have
the opportunity to explore whether or not the United States
Government, whether we’re talking about Treasury or whether
it was -- and I’m just pulling this out of the air -- the
White House, whoever it was, whether they directed the
conservatorships to take certain actions, whether they were
really the guiding force and, so -- and, therefore, they
really were not independent or they really are for -- at
least for purposes of the net worth sweep with the third
amendment, acting at the direction of the United States
Government.
If they were taking -- if the conservators
were taking their marching orders from within the United
States Government, regardless of branch, whether you’re
talking about the executive -- so -- or, you know, I can’t
imagine that -- or whether it’s Congress, I just don’t know,
working in conjunction with the White House or Treasury,
whatever it might be, then that information has to brought
forward.
Now, if the fact that it would be subject to the
protective order and it wouldn’t be publicly available, you

Pg 43

know, no one can set up a website, click here to find
whatever document, no one leaks it to the press, or to
anyone, then that information has to be provided to the
Plaintiffs because it’s not fair for the United States
Government to say to the Plaintiffs, you know, Freddie
Mac, Fannie Mae are independent, there was no exercise of
control.
And if the Justice Department receives documents
from these two agencies, the conservators, showing in fact
there was control, that’s hiding the -- I mean, I know three
very fine attorneys, people of integrity, but I’m just

saying, if that’s what you -- and you probably haven’t seen
all the documents. But if you’re -- I don’t want
instructions to be given to clients or to these entities that
they don’t have to produce certain documents if, in fact,
it’s going to answer the question, were these entities part
of the United States Government. Were they controlled by
Treasury? If that’s what the documents show, I realize I’m
preaching to the choir saying that, you have to turn it over
to Plaintiffs.
So, if you’re invoking privilege to block the
Plaintiffs’ entryway into the courthouse door, you can’t do
it. I know you know that, but you can go back and tell your
clients I said so, and that might either make their life
easier or more difficult or perhaps both, depending upon

Pg 44

which issue you’re discussing.
But, hopefully, that will help your discussions
with the Plaintiffs -- excuse me, with the United States, and
it -- hopefully, that helps. If it doesn’t, I’ll see
motions,

No comments:

Post a Comment

leave a reply: