faster: @hilfe zur wamu geschichte #176210
................ - über die aussage eines usrichters, das die fdic angestellten korrupte gauner sind
Der Richter heisst Judge Lynn Hughes
As usual, Judge Hughes is acerbic in his opinion regarding the FDIC's conduct, noting in particular that FDIC officials
"lied about it all under oath" and they “discarded the mantle of the American Republic for the cloak of a secret society of extortionists."
Richter Hughes ist sauer in seiner Opinion betreffend dem Verhalten der FDIC. nichts ungeweohnliches das FDIC Offizielle "unter Eid luegen" und Sie haetten " den Mantel der Amerikanischen Republic abgelegt fuer die Buerde einer geheimen Gesellschaft von Erpressern"
Wer es genauer wissen will
Houston's Clear Thinkers: Judge Hughes hammers the FDIC in the Hurwitz case
August 24, 2005
Judge Hughes hammers the FDIC in the Hurwitz case
One of the more interesting (and longstanding) local civil lawsuits turned an interesting corner yesterday.
District Judge Lynn Hughes - imquestionably the Houston federal judge
most likely to challenge the governments position in any case -- handed down this 133 page iwroatlside yesterday ordering the federal Deposit to pay Houston Hnancier and longuirne
Hurwitz $72,5 million in sanctions for the FDIC's conduct in connection with prosecuting a civil lawsuit to hold Mr. Hurwitz and other directors of the defunct United Savings of
Texas personally responsible for $250 million in connection with the $1.6 billion loss resulting from the S&L's 1988 failure.
There is a lot of background to this saga. The FDIC sued Mr. Hurwitz -— the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Maxxain Inc. -- and other United Savings directors (including in 1995. Interestingly, the FDIC did not contend in the lawsuit that Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam had looted United Savings; rather, the agency contended merely that Mr.Hurwitz and Maxxum had an obligation to invest more money in the sinking ship of United even aher it was clear that the S&L was going down the tubes.Meanwhile, Mr. Hurwitz and his attomeys smelled a rat, and they contended in a counterclaim that the lawsuit was simply a device to mollify environmentalists and pressure Maxxam subsidiary Pacific Lumber to give up 5,000 acres of redwood forests in Northern Califomia. The FDIC denied any such political motivation, but discovery in the lawsuit revealed that the FDIC representatives had, in fact,consulted extensively with environmental groups on the so-called "debt-for—nature" swap before filing the lawsuit. Judge Hughes was not pleased when that evidence was revealed to him, and he reiterated that displeasure in his opinion:
"The record shows that the swap was the only reason for this suit. It also shows that the FDIC knew that it had no factual or legal basis for its claims, and that its cases here and
in Washington were shams."
At any rate, the lawsuit lagged on for years, and I had a running joke with Mr. Hurwitz’s attomeys when would see them at the federal courthouse that they were engaged in the legal equivalent of Bill Murray's plight in Groundhog Day. After imnumerable run·ins with Judge Hughes, the FDIC tried to
just drop the whole mess in 2002, but Mr. Hurwitz refused to drop his counterclaim against the agency for improperly funding another govemment agency's investigation against Maxxum on the
same subjet matter of the lawsuit. As a result of that investigation, the Ofuce of Thrift Supervision tiled a similar suit against Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam for $821 million, but settled that lawsuit in 2002 for a paltry $200,000.
Houston's Clear Thinkers: Judge Hughes hammers the FDIC in the Hurwitz case Page 2 of 2
As usual, Judge Hughes is acerbic in his opinion regarding the FDIC's conduct, noting in particular that FDIC officials
"lied about it all under oath" and they “discarded the mantle of the American Republic for the cloak of a secret society of extortionists."
Another gem: "It's hard to find a word that captures the essence of the F DIC's bringing this action.Irresponsible is close. Arbitrary, dishonest, exploitative, extortionate, and abusive all tit."
Judge Hughes concluded that Htuwitz and Maxxam "will recover their costs because the record reveals corrupt individuals within a corrupt agency with corrupt influences on it, bringing this litigation." The $72.3 million awarded to Maxxam and Hurwitz covers attorneys costs and interest
incurred in connection with the governmental investigations, which will be reduced to $15.3 million if the Fifth Circuit rules that Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam can only recover costs from the FDIC.
Posted by Tom at August 24, 2005 5 :21 AM
Comments
Ugh. This is a scandal of the first degree. Heads will roll at the FDIC. Responsible reporters will be
descending on Houston in droves to fully report this latest example of governmental abuse. And we
the people will now be much more skeptical of the motives of those who serve us in the federal
government. Right?
Posted by: Preston Tucker at August 24, 2005 6:55 AM
Post a comment
You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. g;n;_tn
© 2003 - 2011. Tom Kirkendall. All Rights Reserved.
Lg
Zurück
Weiter
