doughishere

Why would you do a decision like this and not ma So, I decided to look up the word "moot"....I dont think Judges are careless with the words they use....i also think judges tend to know the gravity of their position and are aware of the stakes the parties have moot mo͞ot adjective 1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision. "whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point" And as such. I think she just wants more information... and has yet to make a final decision. So there is no need for an opinion yet. At least she recognizes that there is more information out there and wants to view the administrative record as part of decision making process..... I dont know this is my "explain it like i'm 5" conclusion.

I was just wondering when we would see another ROLG

GSE Reform: Something Old, Something New, And Something Borrowed - Graham Fisher GSEReform20160211.pdf

Hot off the press: Dear Investor, We are pleased to share the following documents, which have been posted to our website: - GSE Reform Presentation prepared by Graham Fisher & Co. - Plaintiff's reply in support of their motion to compel production of certain documents withheld for privilege by Defendant in Plaintiff's Court of Federal Claims case - Plaintiff's application to Delaware District Court for certification to both the Delaware and Virginia Supreme Courts of novel and undecided issues of state law To view these documents, visit: www.fairholmefunds.com/top-news Kind regards, Investor Relations Fairholme Funds, Inc. 4400 Biscayne Blvd. 9th Floor Miami, FL 33137

I'm a founding member of that club. Comments from Peter Chapman. You'll probably see these on GSELinks.com later tonight. Roberts v. FHFA(Chicago) has been assigned to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang and Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez. Judge Chang is 45, and served as an Assistant U.S. attorney for the decade prior to being appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2010. Copies of Docs. 2 and 3 filed in the case are attached to this e-mail message. The only thing of interest I see is that Mr. Ambler won't serve as the plaintiffs' trial attorney if their case gets that far. The docket sheet indicates that summonses to FHFA and Treasury were issued today. Also, Fiarholme filed a redacted version of its Reply in support of its Motion to Compel this morning, and a copy is attached to this e-mail message. Although the Government's Response (Doc. 284) is still under seal, Fairholme's Redacted Reply gives us some glimpses of the Government's arguments in support of withholding the 11,000 documents it doesn't want Fairholme to have. Fairholme tells us, for example, in the first sentence of its Redacted Reply that the Government characterizes the Motion to Compel, challenging the Government's privilege assertions, as "'picking the lint' off the Government's massive document production in this case."

You guys realize you sound incredibly bullish right now? I offer my services to talk you guys down a bit.

Just a joke.......Merk brings the caution, I bring the humor and emotional charge and overt optimism. Either way. I live in Chicago. Is there something I can do now that there is a case in Chi? Why bring a new case in a new court seems a little redundant at this point.

I wake up this morning...check my email..low and behold.Color me surprised....merkhet is bullish dare i say? Who are you and what did you do with the original merkhet?

How does the Govt get around not obeying a judges order?

I just think there could be some better transparency in all this. Wouldn't have had to go through this whole side show. I'd save a lot of embarrassment. The truth is the best antiseptic.

"From the gov't basically saying "we've got nothing but we're fishing for reasons to delay/dismiss"" if this is the case, it may or may not be, I don't know how you guys don't get fired up about that. There should be rules against lawyers wasting people's time.

At the risk of sounding too "emotional." The fact that this came out only makes me ask more questions. Was there a breach? Who was it? What makes this deposition so important? Why? What were the questions? Is this just a side show(it is now thats for sure). Was there even a breach? Maybe someone just saw that Parrot was to testify today and made something up? It just breeds more distrust. The courts freely admit it "has insufficient information at this time to determine whether information regarding the deposition was actually leaked and the second amended protective order was violated." It also admits to "an abundance of caution" probably rite fully so. This is starting to turn into a movie that has run past 2.5 hours. If this was any other turn around shareholders would demand a game plan. You cant help but distrust the secrecy. The public wants information and(I don't agree with ruing a mans reputation) is willing to lie or at bare minimum misrepresent what happens. I actually can see how Mr. Parrot wants his reputation restored. But I have to wonder what if anything has set this off.

I kinda like to see VRX drop a bit.

Who cares about the markets they are always asleep. When you have them by the balls squeeze.

Probably nothing of value in there. "Indeed, newly discovered evidence – which shows the government’s defense to be outright false – was subsequently presented..." http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Reports/FAIRX2015Annual.pdf From Bruce. I don't know why we keep beating the Lamberth decision when he makes statements like this...which are from the discovery of you read between the black lines. I don't know. No one talks about this but hey...maybe it's not news worthy or is it painfully obvious that everyone just pays lip service to it. Honestly Bbs or chapmans comments aren't anything new. But with the mounting evidence(in this case b/c it's under seal the references to the evidence of misrepresentation) would think that comments like this would garner more speculation...and reporting...as to what's being said. You would expect there would be more focus on this?

Fondle it. ;)

What's the link?

I don't know why we keep talking about lamberths decision. Especially, In light of the documentation and discovery it now seems silly at best(judicial authority abuse?)...and to be absolutely honest it seems like poor decision form the view of my hs civics class the fact that he didn't even allow for discovery. Poor Carney who still thinks that Lamberths decision was the right one but whatever we all have our cognitive biases. And we all have our incentives. Now you have discovery however many months later...and you get hints at very conflicting accounts...reminds me of the Freddie gray cases I posted a few months back. I don't know but I use to think it was judges jobs to handle things like this. And... Who cares what Bruce does know or doesn't know, that's insider information. If you think he knows something special hen maybe you think Kirk and cooper should start accumulating a position also.(hint: I think he doesn't know anything special and don't think he's getting any material info from Kirk and cooper). To me it's fairly obvious that you should be continuing to buy here...where there's smoke there's fire. From the docs there's a lot of smoke...but hey lets pretend we don't see it I also don't get why no one is willing to say any of this until chapman comes out with the comments he made the other week. At best there's misrepresentation and at worst there's outright fraud(normally people see jail time for that...but to be honest if the govt was on its game maybe they would have gotten someone at a big bank for the shit in 08...they didn't). We've known about this for the last 3months at least...maybe closer to 6. I forget. It seems to me that this case is basically won(I have not heard one compelling case for the Govts position)....all that needs to be applied is pressure. To get it done in a timely manner.

I think Chapman writes emails to other investors who share the excerpts.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3e6a1b90-c8fb-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html "JPMorgan Chase, and Warren Buffett convened the sessions with the heads of BlackRock, Fidelity, Vanguard and Capital Group to work on a new statement of best practice that would cover the relationship between US companies and their investors."

http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-klarman-on-what-makes-a-great-investor-2016-1

So I assume your up for the year Picasso?

3rd time though Security Analysis. 2nd time on the 6th edition. I was going to make a separate thread with my notes and highlights from it but wasnt sure if people would enjoy it.

Earnings in the next month or so should be coming down the line

The clothes that Christian Bale wears in the movie are actually Michael Burry clothes.