% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Валгрин Ко. Message Board

big.yank 75 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Jul 28, 2010
  • big.yank big.yank Sep 22, 2016 5:59 AM Flag

    Of course you are right. Silly me. Happy to oblige: GET LOST IDIOT !!!

    Thanks for the helpful suggestion.


  • big.yank big.yank Sep 21, 2016 3:48 PM Flag

    Drop dead, jerk. I want transparency in in the secret pipeline that is funneling courtroom info and strategy between plaintiffs, their attorneys, blogs, Glen Bradford, Investors Unite, timhoward717, Josh Rosner, fannieandfreddiesecrets, Seeking Alpha, Tim Pagliara, ad nauseum... assuming that is how the conspiracy is being manifested.

    Hey, I've got an idea for you. Why don't YOU quit sniveling over documents and let this case go to orals? It's only been 3 years and, obviously, you never had enough ammo to go to trial. You are just wasting everybody's time and money. Why not give it up and get a life, you boring and ineffectual P-O-S?


  • big.yank big.yank Sep 21, 2016 11:41 AM Flag

    No.You can sue anybody for anything... yes, i know... but publishing a report is not illegal. Parrott might have a claim for libel, I suppose but would be lucky to get a retraction. No, the contempt violation is a court function for violating a court order. There are very limited ways that protected data can get accessed and released to unqualified parties. Three groups have access. Plaintiff legal. Defendant legal. And Court employees. Period. Unless there is some other-worldly event like a Watergate break in, computer hack or alien invasion. The court simply asks the website for the source of the information they published. Then if they don't comply, THEY are in contempt of court. Freedom of the Press is actually infrequently claimed in such matters (unless you are the NY Times) because further "mining" of sources releasing under protection materials in any future article would be contra-indicated by earlier illegal activities of the same party.

    Many claims were opined that the government actually released the Parrott stuff, especially right here on this board. So it would not be partial of the court to subpoena fora conclusive and fair revealing of who leaked the5th Amendment claims. It is actually more strange that the entire matter, which from a legal perspective is considered serious enough to warrant disbarment if leaked by an attorney, would just be dissed and dumped like a hot potato.


  • big.yank big.yank Sep 21, 2016 11:10 AM Flag

    I am not sure that I agree. Look at Sweeney's dismissal of the violation of protected information claim raised by defendant's over the leaked particulars of James Parrot's testimony. Sweeney ruled to dismiss because no proof was offered to explain how a third party website acquired access to protected material under an order from her court. The violation, thus, confirmed but discarded an apparent violation, without any further investigation such as a court ordered subpoena signed by her directing the website to reveal the source of its published report. Federal judges doe this all the time. I know. I have received such subpoena reactions.



  • Too many "missing pieces" absent from the normal docketed flow of information in the Court of Claims? Is there a formal motion to compel? If not, when will a redacted version be published? What content will be available to the public? Is that the same content being reported by various blogs, websites and pundits? Is there a request from plaintiffs for compensation for legal costs on documents? If so, where is it? If not, why did the court inject this discussion? Or did they? How does so much content get revealed to some people and not to everyone? Is this "The People's Court" or is this The Pundit's Court"? Or, "The Plaintiff's Court"?

    Is a campaign to ressure Judge Sweeney for documents a function of resolving the Fairholme complaint? Or is it to actually produce documents needed to influence the Perry Appeal? Would such actions, if true, represent a legal conspiracy? Is a pipeline exchanging under-protective-order information a contempt of court? How have blogs, Twitter, Google, timhoward717, Investors Unite, Google and Investors Hub become the disseminators of court room events and details before they are ever docketed or made public?

    Does anybody care? Just me?


  • Was a sealed motion to compel leaked, days before any official court filing, prompting a bizarro world skein of "events" that started with Bradford's teaser on Thursday, the divorce between Glen and th717, Tweets, blog and Goog posts out the wazoo... many with detailed specifics??? Is informational control from Sweeney's courtroom, chambers or the court clerk's office compromised??? Is there an underground railroad of leaks and inside courtroom news that favors some, and excludes others? Are there political overtones in any of this? Were earlier document releases from this same court timed to influence oral arguments in the Perry Appeal? Could bad behavior in or around this court be driving this matter into a mistrial setting???

    Somebody seems to be spreading court ruling stuff, seemingly with inside knowlege, with lots of very specific details like "50 documents" being reported via social media before any public info gets released in any controlled kind of way? Look at how much the stock volume and share prices moved while all this stuff was dangled on message boards and in stock chat rooms?

    I am not making any accusation. I am asking some serious questions.



  • Omigosh, page 8 in his filing in Timothy J. Pagliara v. Federal National Mortgage Association dated August 1,2016 references this case as supporting his suit to remand to Court of Chancery to hold Fannie directors accountable. It may be a good point. If it works, he can sue the board but maybe no part of the Federal government like FHFA, U.S. Treasury, etc.?

    How much of a gainer is suing the directors likely to deliver to shareholders?

    Looks like a very strange strategy to me.


  • big.yank big.yank Sep 17, 2016 7:40 AM Flag

    Hunter Thompson was like the Jim Morrison of journalism. A huge talent in a life cut short by excesses beyond a mere mortal's ability to either experience or comprehend.

  • big.yank big.yank Sep 15, 2016 6:11 PM Flag

    That's a really good impression of obiterdictum on peyote, maybe with a few magic mushrooms thrown in for hallucinogenic clarity.

  • Government takes leave to gain court permission to respond to misrepresentations of fact?

    Is desperation setting in as the dominoes continue to teeter and fall?

    Not good!


  • big.yank big.yank Sep 14, 2016 6:18 AM Flag

    I have no problem with Cooper saying whatever he wants. What I'm suggesting may be unacceptable is some claim that Judge Caldwell said something she didn't actually say. Looks like I am not the only person that noted a problem with this letter filed before the court.

  • It appears that attorney for plaintiffs, Charles Cooper, is claiming that Judge Caldwell said or inferred that it is okay for Treasury to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as ATM machines? I re-read her decision twice and do not see any such text. The ATM reference was contained in the Robinson complaint which Judge Caldwell dismissed. Stating that her dismissal was equivalent to such a conclusion seems totally outrageous and at variance with the opinion rendered by the court.

    I see genuine problems with the panel if one of the judges becomes offended by this, assuming that I read things correctly. Anyone else see the Cooper letter in some different light? Misstating the text of a lower court ruling would not serve to reinforce the credibility of counsel. Right? Anyone?


  • big.yank big.yank Sep 10, 2016 1:09 PM Flag

    No, I don't think you can successfully argue that point because the judge did not create HERA, the law, and only ruled on what it empowered government to do. Her decision was very consistent with all the other rulings in Fanniegate cases, going back to the original Lamberth decision.

    The problem you have is with Congress that wrote and passed the law. Don't blame the judges for simply doing their jobs within the framework of the constitution.

  • They just keep dropping like flies.

  • First he is told that Hindes, Jacobs wants a supreme court ruling on novel matters and that plaintiffs have requested that a more senior justice than him rules on the matter. Now Tim Pagliara tells him to "take a hike" because he has no business ruling on his demand to review records.

    Bet Judge Sleet gets up, early each morning, and tells his wife how excited he is to be heading to court to advance the Fanniegate cases pending.



  • Reply to

    obama will let court decide our fate.

    by regalbastard Sep 2, 2016 8:46 AM
    big.yank big.yank Sep 5, 2016 9:24 AM Flag

    Actually, it is the House of Representatives that prepares the budget. Then both House and Senate must pass it.

  • big.yank big.yank Aug 27, 2016 4:38 PM Flag

    Assuming that you are right, which I can't really assess since I don't follow HLF, Icahn would rightfully still be mad as hell at Ackman for screwing up his exit strategy and attempt to salvage something out of a very costly investment. So my point remains. I believe Icahn is sitting on around 5 million common shares in FNMA. If he dumps them en masse at the gavel and unloads what has been two days of normal trading action during the August slowdown, he will drive FNMA S/P down to around a buck and cost Ackman a fortune and a new round of redemption pressures on Pershing Square going into Seeking Alpha,

    Not a good idea to kick a big dog in the nuts. You might just get bitten back, Will be interesting to watch this play out.


  • The Herbalife contest between Ackman and Icahn moved into uncharted territory as Ackman announced on CNBC that he was tipped off Icahn was selling off his HLF position. HLF took steep declines during the Friday session, only to have Icahn emerge after the market close and reveal that he wasn't selling, and in fact bought millions of additional shares when Ackman drove the price down.

    Next round belongs to Icahn. Watch him dump his Fannie shares to get even with Ackman on Monday, or soon thereafter.

    Also, you don't want to miss CNBC @ 9AM on Monday when Cramer and Faber return to address the circus of their fill-in's putting the Ackman story front and center on Friday with no valid verification that the story had any merit or basis in fact. David Faber, in particular, is an absolute sticker for this and frequently declines comment pending confirmation of rumors and such. This is a huge black-eye for the network...a faux pas of enormous reporting bad judgement. It also could leave Ackman in jeopardy for furthering his short position in HLF, on top of his redemption problems that have been widely reported elsewhere.


  • Reply to

    $2 in sight

    by tightcoil Aug 27, 2016 12:05 AM
    big.yank big.yank Aug 27, 2016 12:14 PM Flag

    You are truly delusional. It goes down on active trading days and it inches up 3 cents on a slow trading day and you proclaim victory and a buy, buy, buy signal?

  • big.yank big.yank Aug 26, 2016 5:07 PM Flag

    Ryan Lochte lied to police? Show me ANY vehicular accident report given to police where both driver and victim don't blame the other guy for what happened? Somebody either lied or was wrong. Who cares? There are summary offenses where disagreement is expected. What did Lochte do that was very much different? Why does Brasil expect him to return to their jurisdiction at enormous personal expense and inconvenience (not to mention RISK) so they can pursue some childish misdemeanor-level offense against an Olympic visiting athlete that celebrated the Brazilian tradition of getting inebriated?

    Brazil would be better focused on prosecuting its own elected officails for corruption instead of trying to deflect world opinion against American athletes whose primary offense was celebrating their winning on a LOT of medals in swimming events in which Brazilian swimmers simply could not compete.