hardincap Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 class p's brief will be out next wednesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 @merk did lamberth even address these questions? did the parties even brief them on appeal? i am not sure, and dont feel like going back and checking it, but i think this is just covering all of the bases by some judge (and i think it is mallet trying to find a basis to uphold on grounds other than those relied upon by lamberth, but who knows) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 class p's brief will be out next wednesday Ah, right. They moved the class brief when they moved the response date. Forgot to adjust my calendar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 @merk did lamberth even address these questions? did the parties even brief them on appeal? i am not sure, and dont feel like going back and checking it, but i think this is just covering all of the bases by some judge (and i think it is mallet trying to find a basis to uphold on grounds other than those relied upon by lamberth, but who knows) I don't believe Lamberth addressed these questions nor were these things briefed. Unclear as to motive. I'm curious to read the briefs on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Corker & Warner http://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-abacus-144604786.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 I can understand Corker investing in them (being the former mayor of Chattanooga and from Tennessee) but how does a senator from Virginia just happen to be invested in the same fund as bob corker and they both just happen to be on housing, finance committee? Seems like more than just a coincidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 I can understand Corker investing in them (being the former mayor of Chattanooga and from Tennessee) but how does a senator from Virginia just happen to be invested in the same fund as bob corker and they both just happen to be on housing, finance committee? Seems like more than just a coincidence I think this is mainly an optics issue -- they're both well off, so it's not that unlikely that they would be in the same fund invested in something neither of them knew about. But, this is politics, and them's the breaks -- I suspect this is additional pressure being put on by some of the people who are in this investment. Would be nice to get a resolution on this soon. Markets are looking wobbly again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 I can understand Corker investing in them (being the former mayor of Chattanooga and from Tennessee) but how does a senator from Virginia just happen to be invested in the same fund as bob corker and they both just happen to be on housing, finance committee? Seems like more than just a coincidence I think this is mainly an optics issue -- they're both well off, so it's not that unlikely that they would be in the same fund invested in something neither of them knew about. But, this is politics, and them's the breaks -- I suspect this is additional pressure being put on by some of the people who are in this investment. Would be nice to get a resolution on this soon. Markets are looking wobbly again. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision. whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point. now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion. it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law. meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision. whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was his the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point. now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion. it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law. meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting... I wondered the same thing. He made it very clear that the State department was grossly negligent, but there was no hard evidence of an intent to commit a crime. I'm surprised that there will be no action brought for gross negligence or that the willful use of the private server and cell phone which had previously been prohibited didn't count as "intent", but I'm not a legal expert.... That being said, I think the case here clearly has more in the way of evidence in regards to "intent" than what I've seen with HRC, so that has to count for something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision. whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point. now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion. it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law. meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting... I'd like to know from Comey what is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence". When top officials rewrite law like Comey just did, it provides clearance for other to do the same. This is the biggest risk to the GSE investment thesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision. whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point. now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion. it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law. meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting... I'd like to know from Comey what is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence". When top officials rewrite law like Comey just did, it provides clearance for other to do the same. This is the biggest risk to the GSE investment thesis. what i was getting at onyx1. my only hope re GSE thesis is that we have seen it already with lamberth, and lightening wont strike twice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rros Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion. How about when you read judge Wheeler's compelling argument to have Greenberg get paid in AIG lawsuit yet he did not? Add this one too to the list of compelling arguments that win nothing for plaintiff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Berk Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Reading through Comey's statement, I think that he's interpreting 'gross negligence' the way that it's usually interpreted--it's typically read to be similar to intentional misconduct or just a hair short of it. Similar to reckless indifference -- in order to reach that level of negligence, the person really has to have almost no regard for the law or their conduct's impact. Comey goes out of his way to say that Clinton didn't engage in intentional misconduct but was extremely careless, which is not a legal term but just a regular description. To me, extremely careless sounds more like negligence but not gross negligence, but that's the thing about terminology that is used colloquially--it's hard to match up with terms that have legal meaning, because different people are going to interpret them in different ways. I'm not too worried about what this means for the GSE litigation. Prosecutorial discretion is exercised all the time in a way where authorities do not prosecute people who may very well be guilty of illegalities because of a lack of evidence--those people who aren't prosecuted may still be sharply criticized by the police or authorities, but prosecution may still not make sense--here, Comey says there's insufficient evidence for prosecution. comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision. whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point. now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion. it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law. meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting... I'd like to know from Comey what is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence". When top officials rewrite law like Comey just did, it provides clearance for other to do the same. This is the biggest risk to the GSE investment thesis. what i was getting at onyx1. my only hope re GSE thesis is that we have seen it already with lamberth, and lightening wont strike twice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 "Reading through Comey's statement, I think that he's interpreting 'gross negligence' the way that it's usually interpreted--it's typically read to be similar to intentional misconduct or just a hair short of it. Similar to reckless indifference -- in order to reach that level of negligence, the person really has to have almost no regard for the law or their conduct's impact. Comey goes out of his way to say that Clinton didn't engage in intentional misconduct but was extremely careless, which is not a legal term but just a regular description. To me, extremely careless sounds more like negligence but not gross negligence, but that's the thing about terminology that is used colloquially--it's hard to match up with terms that have legal meaning, because different people are going to interpret them in different ways. I'm not too worried about what this means for the GSE litigation. Prosecutorial discretion is exercised all the time in a way where authorities do not prosecute people who may very well be guilty of illegalities because of a lack of evidence--those people who aren't prosecuted may still be sharply criticized by the police or authorities, but prosecution may still not make sense--here, Comey says there's insufficient evidence for prosecution." this is a good explanation steve. i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other. frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors. i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy. as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce. i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better. see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen. i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 "Reading through Comey's statement, I think that he's interpreting 'gross negligence' the way that it's usually interpreted--it's typically read to be similar to intentional misconduct or just a hair short of it. Similar to reckless indifference -- in order to reach that level of negligence, the person really has to have almost no regard for the law or their conduct's impact. Comey goes out of his way to say that Clinton didn't engage in intentional misconduct but was extremely careless, which is not a legal term but just a regular description. To me, extremely careless sounds more like negligence but not gross negligence, but that's the thing about terminology that is used colloquially--it's hard to match up with terms that have legal meaning, because different people are going to interpret them in different ways. I'm not too worried about what this means for the GSE litigation. Prosecutorial discretion is exercised all the time in a way where authorities do not prosecute people who may very well be guilty of illegalities because of a lack of evidence--those people who aren't prosecuted may still be sharply criticized by the police or authorities, but prosecution may still not make sense--here, Comey says there's insufficient evidence for prosecution." this is a good explanation steve. i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other. frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors. i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy. as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce. i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better. see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen. i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens. I also find it weird that the DE court is making no progress at this moment. Six weeks have passed and the DE court is not doing anything after knowing the MDL decision. I wonder if this is an implication that the judge there is in the deferential camp like Lamberth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 this is a good explanation steve. i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other. frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors. i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy. as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce. i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better. see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen. i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens. I've met Comey before in person, and I don't think that he made this as a political calculation of any sort. Regardless, I agree w/ steve that extremely careless probably doesn't seem to rise to the level of gross negligence, but I can see why people would think it might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 I also find it weird that the DE court is making no progress at this moment. Six weeks have passed and the DE court is not doing anything after knowing the MDL decision. I wonder if this is an implication that the judge there is in the deferential camp like Lamberth. I have made inquiries on this, and it seems like Sleet is slammed on his docket. I am more wondering about Sweeney's court at the moment. She has had the motion to compel on her desk for a while now. I would love to see some more documents come through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 this is a good explanation steve. i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other. frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors. i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy. as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce. i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better. see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen. i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens. I've met Comey before in person, and I don't think that he made this as a political calculation of any sort. Regardless, I agree w/ steve that extremely careless probably doesn't seem to rise to the level of gross negligence, but I can see why people would think it might. last bit on comey/HRC, i promise. greenwald gets it right re double standard: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 I also find it weird that the DE court is making no progress at this moment. Six weeks have passed and the DE court is not doing anything after knowing the MDL decision. I wonder if this is an implication that the judge there is in the deferential camp like Lamberth. I have made inquiries on this, and it seems like Sleet is slammed on his docket. I am more wondering about Sweeney's court at the moment. She has had the motion to compel on her desk for a while now. I would love to see some more documents come through. i am in no hurry for sweeney to decide as long as she gets it right. if perry remands, then it will be awhile for the additional evidence from sweeney discovery to be useful. as i read hindes/jacobs, the case is not fact-dependent, so no loss there if sweeney takes her time. and robinson/saxton both have plenty (hopefully enough) of sweeney discovery evidence in their replies to MTDs as it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Berk Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/06/corker-withdraws-as-potential-trump-running-mate/?postshare=6391467824023204&tid=ss_tw Corker will not be Trump's VP candidate.... He says that it's an overly political position and that's just not him.... hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 can't day trade being a vp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 perry class plaintiffs (hume) supplemental brief: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Perry-070616-Reply.pdf edit: this is beyond even an advanced class in federal civil procedure. sort of why i became a deal lawyer rather than litigator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cherzeca Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 and fairholme has its say: http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Perry-070616.pdf edit: fairholme's brief more straightforward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Very solid briefs, and the class plaintiffs responded essentially how I expect them to respond on question 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now