In addition to the valid points made by Chessmaster, Valueinvestor and Radclifff below, the preponderance of evidence is already established in the act of the taking. We are all "eye witnesses" so to speak and don't really have to prove anything else. One doesn't need any documentation to prove that. The act in itself is proof without reasonable doubt. What the discovery is intended to establish is premeditation whereby the companies were taken over by the powers to be, predicated on the planned stealing by Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson, De Marco and all their partners in crime.
Most people here presumably own stock in numerous other companies that also have board of directors who are chartered with safekeeping of ethical and smooth operations of companies. Do they have the right to hand over our investments to anyone ? What if FnF were handed over to Bank of America, or Citibank etc. instead of the government, without investor's knowledge and consent, and without just compensation ? Would the courts force a plaintiff to prove that their company was taken ?
If there is any integrity left in our judicial system, this government WILL LOSE (and MUST LOSE) this case because documentary evidence will establish that they premeditated the heist, and the eye witness proof of the taking has already been established. Sure, every guilty defendant would attempt to drag out in their best interest, but they will eventually have to pay an arm and a leg for their crime. The most pathetic facts standing out in our face is the government's lack of remorse, the intent to wind down by our elected representatives, the arrogance and idiocy of their attorneys, and the sluggish confidence of judge Sweeney (despite her latest stand).
FnF shareholders need to chew that for a moment, and put a stake in the ground to not retreat from holdings in order to teach this body of criminals a real lesson in Constitutional Law. You don't change my Bill Of Rights unless I change my Bill of Rights.
Very well said isis. The government's interpretation of our Bill of Rights appears to be that they "have the right to take anything they want and the right to remain silent." The leader of this nation was supposed to be teaching Constitutional Law in Chicago, stood on the platform of transparency at elections, and is now stealing 'in your face' with impunity.
Hey, this is just the beginning, so why talk of it being over. I'm sure the old guard will continue to hold fort and poke fun at each other too. One thing we all can agree on is to disagree when necessary. That does not diminish friendship. Best, BullChase.
That has been my personal issue since the very start. I feel, once an illegal taking is established then recovery and punitive damages are in order absolutely. However, that said, the folks on the spot who have filed suit have to be thinking on same lines and pursue every avenue to recovery. The IRS charges interest on any/all dues not paid in time. Why should there be different application of the same laws to the government.
I just followed a google search provided by a poster here and arrived at a pdf document of Sweeney's order and opinion. Try google the following "Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 72 Filed 07/16/14" and see if you can reach it.
I read the entire case and feel reassured to the extent that judge Sweeney's highlights have hopefully redrawn lines of modus operandi. Since none of the circumstances or attributes of the case have changed over past many months, Sweeney wishfully should have taken this same stance 3-4 months ago, and brought the case so much closer to judgment. While I commend her language, tone and apparent intent, I feel we have lost valuable time in stopping the bleeding from the continuing illegal sweep. So I remain cautiously skeptical of future unfoldings in looking toward more predictable and controllable times. The mockery of the government must come to an end.
All this is over Sweeney's head. In a corporate setting, she would have been given ten days to assemble discovery requisites and start proceedings or lost her job. I have started to suspect that she is incompetent. She will probably wait long enough for Judge Lambert (sp?) to arrive at his decision and use that as a crutch before she will summon courage to declare anything herself. Thumbs down to Sweeney.
Agree with your last statement absolutely. Unfortunately, there's no stopping that momentum, regardless of political persuasion.
Thanks for your unsolicited editorials. As for your agenda, you know what you can do with it. Oh and one final suggestion .... this is not your father's board. Don't like what you see here ? Go pound salt.
Everyone to themselves jog49. I don't submit my opinions for people's approval or otherwise. Personally, I would never step on the American Flag to express my freedom of speech and expression, but accept our Constitution's granting to those who would, with humility. My freedoms are meaningless unless yours are meaningful.
Agree with most of your substance eddie, and I remain fully cognizant of the reality that a bright and intelligent individual appeared on the scene with a message of hope, amidst the cacophony of the Republican party breakdown. Something most people (from all political persuasions), myself included, admired and approved of Obama's apparent sincerity in ushering transparency, bipartisanship, and what have you, at the time. Most intelligent people choose the candidate over party, because involved electorates serve national interests better than the ones not involved. Thence representative democracy. Most people would also agree wholeheartedly that 1) Obama was unfortunately served with a very skewed inheritance in shambles, 2) That he faced nothing short of animosity and hostility from The Congress, and 3) That the Republican caucus simply wanted to create obstruction and failed to act their capacity to lead the country. I'm sure many admirers of RR and GWB would disagree with some aspects of their presidency.
The big difference, however, is that in using Executive Order during their terms, they did not hurt the country's citizens en mass, knowingly, in the face of the Rule Of Law. Sometimes it does become necessary to stand for what one believes in. That said, most intelligent Americans would be remiss in not expressing their inalienable rights ordained within our Constitution. And the abuse of Constitutional powers is not what people voted for. For that people don't need a president. For that all one has to do is to walk down a dark alley at midnight in Chicago, New York etc. To be truly an American president, one's primary responsibility is to become the non partisan vehicle in safeguarding our defining values. What was Obama's opposition to that ? Pray tell.
"are they fully convicted that they are right" ? "Convicted" ? I'm sure you meant "convinced." But don't pay it any mind. Nobody noticed !
LOL !! My bad !!!! SEEK is what I meant. Perhaps my sixth sense told me that I was going to make a sweeping profit !!!! So I SEEK a SWEEP !!!!! Hey it all ties together.
Thanks for sharing your post MaryJones. I bought a few million shares of SWEEP a few months ago purely as a gamble to try my luck (never won a lottery though !), but feel some sense of encouragement reading your post. I see a lot of folks here call it a scam and hope that is not right. Time will tell how it all pans out, but for now I am holding since I am way under water ! Thanks anyway.