Luke 532

Not that it means anything either way, but the volume this week has been really interesting. Roughly $10,000 worth of FNMAS traded today in the first 2 hours.

The government referenced Nixon vs. Warner Communications. Probably not the only similarity between the two cases that will be discussed in the history books.

Respond = ball is in Sweeney's court (pun intended) to make a ruling. Don't respond = upsets Sweeney, likely orders unsealing. The gov't has gotten itself in quite the pickle. Final day for them to do the right thing or they risk opening Pandora's Box.

Must read: GSE Litigation Could Be Decided in Delaware Court...Soon http://www.valueplays.net/2015/08/07/gse-litigation-could-be-decided-in-delaware-court-soon/

Could be a very interesting weekend... Would you go as far to say the government's most logical choices at this point are to either (1) try again to get an extension (delay) beyond the 10th, (2) push to settle or release rather than let Sweeney decide on whether or not to unseal, (3) hope for the best with Sweeney's decision on whether or not to unseal, or (4) other? I would think #1 might not be a possibility since she has already set August 10th as the date after the government asked for August 17th. It's probably an unanswerable question, but I'd be interested in what you believe are the probabilities of 2, 3, or 4? I think you have the order of preference right, but I think assigning probabilities would be a difficult thing to do. Thanks, Merkhet. I agree that assigning probabilities is difficult. It is somewhat exciting when one ponders that outside of asking Sweeney to delay (again), the most logical course of action for the government is to seriously consider release or settlement prior to August 10th.

Appeals Court suspends the revised briefing schedule.

And the most important being the gov't response due Monday.

Looks like McFarland joined Ugoletti, among others, in finally speaking the truth. http://www.valueplays.net/2015/08/03/discovery-materials-completely-discredit-governments-defense/

List of depositions (all exhibits redacted, of course): http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0218.pdf Exhibit 21: Transcript of the Depositi on of Timothy Bowler, July 1, 2015 ........................ A246 Exhibit 22: Transcript of the Depositi on of Anne Eberhardt, July 8, 2015 ......................... A373 Exhibit 23: Transcript of the Depos ition of Ross Kari, July 10, 2015 ................................ A479 Exhibit 24: Transcript of the Depositi on of Susan McFarland, July 15, 2015 .................... A572 Exhibit 25: Transcript pf the Depos ition of Jeff Foster, July 14, 2015 ............................... A684

That's the primary reason I own no common but a large chunk of FNMAS. I own FNMAS over other series of prefs for liquidity reasons and a narrower bid/ask spread, although I agree with the reasons for owning other series of prefs... I just prefer the liquidity.

Yes, really. Sharpton is a quack and it makes me cringe each time I see him in the news with the title "Reverend" attached (gives Americans a grossly misguided view of Christ), but Obama does seem to give him his ear from time to time. If Sharpton and Obama are as close as some believe then Sharpton might be a helpful ally of ours (until Sharpton changes his tune). Take a look at this WP article from this past December... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/30/giulianis-claim-the-white-house-invited-al-sharpton-up-to-85-times/ Giuliani: "I think you missed one very important point. He has had Al Sharpton to the White House 80, 85 times. … You make Al Sharpton a close adviser, you are going to turn the police in America against you." There were a handful of meetings scheduled with Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior adviser who is a main point of contact between Sharpton and the White House. Of those 72 visits, five were one-on-one meetings. One of those meetings was marked as scheduled with the president. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Obama was aware of Sharpton's remarks before he made them. Obama could very well be greasing the wheels for release.

Yes, really. Sharpton is a quack and it makes me cringe each time I see him in the news with the title "Reverend" attached (gives Americans a grossly misguided view of Christ), but Obama does seem to give him his ear from time to time. If Sharpton and Obama are as close as some believe then Sharpton might be a helpful ally of ours (until Sharpton changes his tune).

Al Sharpton in The Washington Post, 8/3/2015: "Ending the conservatorship is a start in the right direction, allowing Fannie and Freddie to rebuild capital and expand access to credit to more low- and moderate-income families, which, in my view, will ensure working-class families have access to owning a home and securing a future for their families." "Yes, we will have to work hard to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, but this administration has the authority today, and the moral obligation, to take action while there’s a chance to save homes and provide families a pathway to homeownership. Before the disparities among Americans grow even starker. The time to act is now." https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/03/sharpton-lets-act-now-to-give-everyone-a-chance-at-homeownership-and-the-american-dream/

+1

Would you go as far to say the government's most logical choices at this point are to either (1) try again to get an extension (delay) beyond the 10th, (2) push to settle or release rather than let Sweeney decide on whether or not to unseal, (3) hope for the best with Sweeney's decision on whether or not to unseal, or (4) other? I would think #1 might not be a possibility since she has already set August 10th as the date after the government asked for August 17th. It's probably an unanswerable question, but I'd be interested in what you believe are the probabilities of 2, 3, or 4? I think you have the order of preference right, but I think assigning probabilities would be a difficult thing to do. Thanks, Merkhet. I agree that assigning probabilities is difficult. It is somewhat exciting when one ponders that outside of asking Sweeney to delay (again), the most logical course of action for the government is to seriously consider release or settlement prior to August 10th.

Would you go as far to say the government's most logical choices at this point are to either (1) try again to get an extension (delay) beyond the 10th, (2) push to settle or release rather than let Sweeney decide on whether or not to unseal, (3) hope for the best with Sweeney's decision on whether or not to unseal, or (4) other? I would think #1 might not be a possibility since she has already set August 10th as the date after the government asked for August 17th. It's probably an unanswerable question, but I'd be interested in what you believe are the probabilities of 2, 3, or 4?

I wont be/wasnt able to listen. Please let us know if anything good was said. I didn't get a chance to listen but his podcast should be available at the following link soon: http://www.wabcradio.com/2012/12/09/kudlowpodcasts/

Kudlow, per his Twitter account, will be discussing FannieGate again this morning on his radio show.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I believe we're closer to a resolution than we have been in the past. In no particular order... -Sweeney granting plaintiff motions without even waiting for a government response. -Lamberth appeal case looks much stronger with actual facts being used vs. previous judgement made on he said/she said nonsense. -Schwind resigning as "one of the primary attorneys" on the government's team just as these documents were coming to light. -Greenberg's win vs. the government, and I would imagine proving 2012 NWS is much easier. -Apparent accounting fraud in 2008 which if just partially true could only make the 2012 NWS case that much stronger for us. -Position increases from the big boys (Ackman, Berkowtiz, etc.). I know they "can't" see what their lawyers see. -Reading between the lines on the depositions and guesstimating what the blacked-out portions might say. -MSM getting involved (Gretchen Morgensen/NY, Larry Kudlow, etc.) which, in theory, puts more public opinion pressure on the gov't.. -Prominent people that have filed Amicus Briefs on our behalf: a former state chief justice (Steele), a former FDIC chief counsel, a former FDIC chairman, and a former Fannie Mae CFO. -The fact that the government is making strange moves (asking for deadline extensions without giving a reason, for example). -The fact that the government is fighting very hard to keep information hidden. If the effort being put forth to hide documents is comparable to the importance of the documents, well, that could be very interesting. -Both Waters and Lew in the past month or so saying that GSE's have paid it all back (tone seems to be changing a bit). -and much more It seems to me the odds of a release or settlement (in other words, a win for FNMAS) is increasing as time goes by but the price per share hovers around $4. Therefore, the risk/reward increases as each day passes.

I'm not sure that would be in our best interest. In the words of Merkhet... Further... Things are setting up very nicely for us. All documents will be used in multiple cases. The government knows (or should know) that this likely doesn't get any better for them. Therefore, I believe the possibility of release or settlement is pretty high right now.

Further commentary on this... http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34550-judge-orders-massive-release-of-fannie-freddie-conservatorship-docs?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=housingwire

Thoughts on attached? It's from Dick Bove so there may be bias... "Courts may demand parties mediate differences; sees potential mediation resulting in settlement giving shareholders their ownership rights back..."

Interesting, do we know what motion this is referring to? Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 212 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 1 In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-465C (Filed: July 21, 2015) ************************************* FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************************* ORDER On July 20, 2015, plaintiffs in the above-captioned case filed a motion for leave to file certain materials designated as “protected information” under seal with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) and the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. The court finds no need to await a response from defendant to plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are (1) authorized to file under seal in the D.C. Circuit certain protected materials contained in the appendix attached to their motion, which were disclosed to plaintiffs through discovery in this case; (2) granted the general authority to file the protected information disclosed in this case under seal in the D.C. Circuit, and (3) authorized to file under seal in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 13-1053 (D.D.C.), the protected information disclosed in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY Judge

I found this interesting in Document 212 recently filed: The court finds no need to await a response from defendant to plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Kudlow interview with Rosner... About the 1 hour, 18 minute mark of July 18th podcast: http://www.wabcradio.com/2012/12/09/kudlowpodcasts/