This is it folks all of our hopes and dreams now lie in the hands of two judges. We can only hope that they are courageous and impartial enough to overturn this purely criminal scheme that our government is trying to get away with. The politicians in DC on both sides of the aisle have made it more than clear that they feel they are entitled to every dime of the profits from Fannie and Freddie. Many have outright made these claims and the silence from the others speaks volumes. It is truly sickening, but these are the facts. All of the money you have invested in these companies hinge on these two cases. I highly suggest you study these two cases in depth and if you have any doubts as to our chances for success you should act accordingly. I personally do not see any way that we could lose both cases, but that does not mean we can’t. I currently place the odds on motion for summary judgement in the Perry injunction case at 7 to 1 in our favor. Up until recently I had this motion at 3-1 in our favor. I am awaiting more data as we speak. The Fairholme lawsuit I would place at 10-1 in our favor. I have received many requests as to my feelings on this so there it is. There are no 100 percent guarantees which are why we are currently trading at $4.50 per share and not $20.00. I will say that if Judge Lamberth grants the motion for summary judgement in the Perry case you will never have a chance to buy at these levels ever again we could quite possibly double in price so rapidly you would not be able to fill even in the ascent. Basically, what I am saying is that if you feel as strongly as I do, time may be very short to get in but if you disagree with me time may also be short to get out. If we lose on the summary judgement its by no means over, but we will likely take a big hit. In the Fairholme lawsuit, I highly doubt Judge Sweeney will side with the government on the protective order but if she does it will be a very bad sign. I hate to discourage anyone from missing out on what may be a gigantic opportunity to make extraordinary gains, but I can not with a clear conscience recommend that anyone invest any money they can not afford to lose. I can assure you I will be with you to the end as this is about far more than making a quick buck in the stock market to me. If we were to lose these cases, it would rock our great nation at its core. America will be forever changed, and the least of our problem will be the dollars we lost on our trades. It is for these reasons that I have devoted a vast amount of time and resources to do everything I can to prevent our country from stepping into this abyss. Keep the Faith!

The following was filed in the Fairholme lawsuit. I have attached a pdf. There is a tremendous amount to analyze here. I will add to this post within an hour. There is a wealth of information in this response. The Appendix is a literal treasure trove. I will copy and paste a few key items here but will be offering more commentary in the coming days. I would like to thank those that have taken the time to add to our discussions in the comments sections. I encourage you to study this and future legal documents and post clips you find important and even offer some commentary. These issues can be very complex, and I know we have some keen legal minds participating here. My favorite clip so far us this one, sound familiar? I warned the government officials weeks ago to be careful about their testimony, this reeks of perjury Mr. Watt. Keep the faith

“The Government’s assertions, backed by sworn declarations, that the financial markets could be destabilized by public disclosure of the Government’s internal “projections of the future profitability
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (or lack thereof) under a range of economic, business and policy scenarios,” Watt Decl. ¶ 7, raise this all but inevitable inference: either the Government’s
public reporting of precisely this same type of information has been misleading, or its alleged concerns about market destabilization are a pretext for some other reason(s) to conceal the requested information.”

Another great clip-
“A hypothetical example helps illustrate why the protective order sought by the Government is premature and would enable it to withhold responsive nonprivileged materials. Suppose
that Secretary Geithner sent an email to several of his subordinates at Treasury on August 18, 2012 explaining that he had signed the Third Amendment the previous day to use the Companies’
profits to reduce the federal deficit and ensure that existing shareholders will not have access to any such profits. Such an email would be directly relevant, at a minimum, to the Companies’
future profitability and the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ investment-backed expectations at the time of the Net Worth Sweep—two of the subjects on which the Court authorized discovery.
And it would not be protected by the deliberative process privilege because it post-dates the Third Amendment, the only policy decision discussed. See Judicial Watch, 449 F.3d at 151 (A
document is pre-decisional only “ ‘if it was generated before the adoption of an agency policy.’ ”). Yet the relief sought by the Government would allow it to withhold that probative email.
The Court should reject the Government’s blanket assertion of the deliberative process privilege and make clear that the Government cannot rely on the privilege without providing a
privilege log that explains why each document is properly withheld. Without a log, it is impossible for Plaintiffs or the Court to assess the adequacy of the Government’s privilege claims.”
Is this really “hypothetical”?

6:10:14PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 2