Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

First, our sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Melvin Bareiss. For those who don’t know Mr. Melvin Bareiss, he was one of the plaintiffs in Joseph Cacciapalle vs the United State. See Case 1:13-cv-00466-MMS Document 58 Filed 07/09/15. He will never have the opportunity to see his case through nor enjoy his hard earned savings from his investment in the GSEs.  Bless Mr. Melvin Bareiss and may he rest in peace. 

It is appalling and shameful that our government has deprived citizens of the USA their rights to property ownership and enjoyment of their hard earned savings and investments before their passing. Mr. Melvin like many unnamed folks has passed away during these past unthinkable 7+ years without the enjoyment of their GSE investments. 

Any further delays by the defendants are obviously hurting older plaintiffs in more ways than one as you can imagine. Elected officials need to step to the plate and order the DOJ to unseal and de-designate the Protected Information sooner rather than later so the citizens of the USA can receive unbridled justice. Regardless of who wins these cases, let’s be fair, unleash the evidence and let the chip fall where they may to end this madness. The innocents have absolutely nothing to worry or hide so de-designate the protected information to see justice prevail. 

As plaintiffs move forward with protected information de-designations and depositions in the coming months, it is my understanding that plaintiffs can prove the following allegations:

  • Preplanned accounting fraud with DTA and other provisions
  • Encouraged massive stock price manipulation with phantom shares, material insider information and PSPA warrants
  • Preplanned nationalization of GSEs without regards to HERA
  • Preplanned PSPA to Trump HERA
  • Preplanned illegal execution of NWS against Delaware Law
  • Orchestrated conspiracy and conflict of interest among many government agencies including SEC, DOJ, Treasury, Federal Reserve and FHFA to name a few.
  • FHFA acted under the direction of Treasury in violation of HERA.
  • Intentionally violated the Fifth Amendment of Constitution taking without compensation clause

At this time, there isn’t much more that can be said. Hopefully by August or September, more detailed evidence will be available to the public upon Judge Sweeney’s Order to de-designate protected information. There is speculation that the protected information evidence should substantiate most if not all of plaintiffs’ allegations. 

Based on merit and the letter of the law, it is believed that plaintiffs are in the right. However, politicians and politic play a huge part toward the direction of these other government agencies and public policies. Therefore, our mainstream media outlets need to be brave and share those Amicus Briefs and other facts and evidence upon their release. 

In a very positive note, I am very glad to see and hear many reporters; bloggers and special interest groups are picking up the latest information and spreading them far and wide. 

The Latest Development: 

Case 1:13-cv-00466-MMS Document 59 Filed 07/10/15: Judge Sweeney GRANTED the following relief regarding jurisdictional discovery: Cacciapalle, 13-466C:

  • As outlined in their motion, plaintiffs’ counsel in Cacciapalle may file an application for access to the protective order entered in Fairholme for the following attorneys:
    • Hamish Hume of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
    • Stacey Grigsby of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
    • Eric L. Zagar of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
    • Matthew A. Goldstein of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
  • Documents produced under jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that are subject to the protective order in that case may be used in Cacciapalle in accordance with the restrictions of the protective order.
  • Documents produced during jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that plaintiffs in Cacciapalle seek shall only be provided in electronic form.
  • Plaintiffs’ counsel in Cacciapalle may participate at the depositions in Fairholme, limited to questioning government witnesses for no longer than one hour at the end of a deposition, unless counsel for Fairholme cedes additional time to them. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall work collaboratively with counsel for Fairholme to ensure that each deposition does not exceed the seven-hour limit for each witness. Plaintiffs’ counsel may not depose witnesses who havebeen previously deposed in Fairholme, but plaintiffs’ counsel may receive electronic copies of those deposition transcripts.
  • Plaintiffs’ counsel may seek to depose witnesses who are not noticed by counsel for Fairholme, subject to the right of defendant or of the witness to object to any such deposition.
  • If a dispute arises concerning the scope of the court’s jurisdictional discovery order in Fairholme, plaintiffs’ counsel may participate in motions practice, including by challenging the assertion of privilege or the resistance to discovery by defendant, and/or by submitting responses to any motions filed by defendant.

Washington Federal, 13-385C:

  • Documents produced under jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that are subject to the protective order in that case may be used in Washington Federal in accordance with the restrictions of the protective order.
  • Documents produced during jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that counsel for Washington Federal seek shall only be provided in electronic form.
  • Plaintiffs’ counsel in Washington Federal may attend the depositions in Fairholme, but may not participate. Plaintiffs’ counsel may not depose witnesses who have already been deposed in Fairholme, but plaintiffs’ counsel may receive electronic copies of those deposition transcripts.

Reid, 14-152C, and Fisher, 13-608C:

  • Documents produced under jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that are subject to the protective order in that case may be used in Reid and Fisher in accordance with the restrictions of the protective order.
  • Documents produced during jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme that counsel for Reid and Fisher seek shall only be provided in electronic form.
  • Plaintiffs’ counsel in Reid and Fisher may attend the depositions in Fairholme, but may not participate. Plaintiffs’ counsel may not depose witnesses who have already been deposed in Fairholme, but plaintiffs’ counsel may receive electronic copies of those deposition transcripts.

Finally, the counsel for the parties in Fairholme, Cacciapalle, Washington Federal, Reid, and Fisher shall confer to determine what changes are necessary to the current protective order. The changes to the protective order must be agreeable to all parties. Then, as soon as practicable, but by no later than Wednesday, July 22, 2015, counsel for Fairholme shall file a proposed form of Amended Protective Order in its case which shall be accompanied by a copy of the original protective order that clearly indicates all changes thereto. 

Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 198 Filed 07/13/15 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENTS OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE COORDINATED BRIEFS IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ VARIOUS MOTIONS TO REMOVE THE “PROTECTED INFORMATION” DESIGNATION FROM CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, AND THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

  • Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designations from the Depositions of Edward DeMarco and Mario Ugoletti, June 12, 2015, ECF No. 162; Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Grant Thornton Documents, June 18, 2015, ECF No. 165; Plaintiffs’ Sealed Motion to Remove the “Protected Information” Designation from Certain Treasury and FHFA Documents, June 12, 2015, ECF No. 166.
  • The Court had previously granted a 14-day enlargement of time (from June 29, 2015 to July 13, 2015) for the Government’s response to Fairholme’s motion regarding the depositions of Edward DeMarco and Mario Ugoletti, and a 7-day enlargement of time (from July 6, 2015 to July 13, 2015) for the Government’s response to Fairholme’s motion regarding Grant Thornton documents.
  • The Government apologizes for seeking this enlargement of time on the due date for most of these matters. We had intended to seek guidance from the Court as to the timing and form of the responses to the above-referenced motions at a status conference originally scheduled for July 7, 2015. However, that status conference has been rescheduled to August 13, 2015, well after the Government’s responses are due.
  • In this regard, we also note that Gregg M. Schwind, one of the Government’s primary attorneys in this case, left the Department of Justice on July 10, 2015.

Plaintiff and New York Times agree to an enlargement date of July 27, 2015. 

In Summary (Connect the Dots) 

The departure of Gregg M. Schwind is clearly breaking news. If one believes he can win a huge case like this, one would oversee it to the end for the grand prize. On the other hand, a loss or a potential exposure of unethical representation of the truth or perjury could cost an attorney plenty. 

The recent filing of several Amicus Briefs in the Perry Appeals Court case shined a spotlight on key augments from the following Amici:

  • Center for Individual Freedom
  • Tim Howard
  • Investor Unite
  • National Black Chamber of Commerce 
  • 60 Plus Association, Inc.
  • Professor Jonathan R. Macey
  • Louise Rafter, Josephine and Stephen Rattien, and Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.
  • The Independent Community Banker of America, The Association of Mortgage Investors, Mr. William M. Isaac and Mr. Robert H. Hartheimer.

Fairholme Federal Claims Court While most of the protected information is available to all plaintiffs, it is clear that those plaintiffs can begin preparing for their cases to eliminate inefficiency and wasted time. As plaintiffs’ attorneys review discovery evidence, one can imagine Christmas is here while enjoying the wonderful gifts of evidence with a smile on their faces. In this situation, there will be winners and losers. The losers are afraid of the disclosure and end game so the only available option is to slow down the process as much as possible with endless delays in hopes of new legislation to help cover up their wrongdoing. Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t look like new legislation is in the near term horizon. 

Today, Fairholme Plaintiffs attorneys fired several late breaking redacted motion to remove protected information designation from certain documents produced by:

  • Fannie Mae
  • Deloitte
  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers
  • Treasury and FHFA
  • Grant Thornton

Friendly Links to other informative sites:

Legal Scholar on IU Teleconference: Third Amendment Is a “Sham Transaction” Recorded

Glen Bradford – Seeking Alpha

Bill Maloni blog

GSElinks

Final Comments

Thank you all for posting important information, comments and key links. It surely makes review much easier. Please keep it focus and keep it coming.

Advertisements