Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Really? That's Bryndon Fisher's defense, knowing that you are the de facto spokesperson for Pagliara and Fisher?
That he could have done it better. So, all comes down to a fight about who is a better attorney, notwithstanding that our negotiator on #Fanniegate is requesting penalties on all the attorneys and plaintiffs, plus the sponsors, for stock price manipulation and making false statements, for the cover-up of multiple statutory provisions and financial concepts (Restriction on Capital Distributions, original UST backup of FnF, FHFA-C's Rehab power, etc.), besides a conspiracy to rip off the shareholders.

Fairholme didn't make a convincing case and even ruined a sure dunk for Fisher in the COFC.

You still don't get that a declaration of Taking is NEVER a victory, because there's been no Taking during a Conservatorship, but a Separate Account plan for the rehabilitation of FnF (justice Alito's and judge Willett's prerequisite)
Pagliara and Fisher turned into Shareholders' Rights advocates, spreading misleading information contending that we don't have rights, concealing that this is only for the period of the Conservatorship by design. Later, the rights and powers of the management (thus, illegal named Defendants in the Lamberth court), BOD and the Equity holders are returned.
So, we don't need neither these phony Shareholders' Rights advocates, nor we need the attorney Rebecca Musarra in the Lamberth court, hired by the attorney for the hedge funds, Hamish Hume, for being a household name in Human Rights advocacy, after she was arrested by state troopers for staying silent. A correct arrest by the way, as no one can simply stay silent when being asked during a policial deed. Huh?


So, we can't allow these rogue attorneys to settle this case as a Taking case, which means giving the companies away to the government, just because they don't understand a Conservatorship and also the Charter Act, Prompt Corrective Actions, etc., and the fact that, prior the amendment inserted by HERA, the FHEFSSA Conservatorship permitted anyone become conservator (image below), which rules out the possibility of linking the conservatorship to a "Taking", after calling it "Federal Government Conservatorship", as stated, precisely, by Guido recently, paraphrasing representative Maxine Waters. Coincidence? Currently, only the FHFA can be conservator, but it doesn't make it a Taking case. That's a different status, called Receivership.


Evidence that the plaintiff Bryndon Fisher now just seeks to steal the limelight, when he prepares an illegal third appeal in the CFC. The same he did when he stole two of the six controlling questions of law already submitted by the lead plaintiff Fairholme in its interlocutory appeal, when Fisher submitted a motion to certify his interlocutory appeal, after insisting to judge Sweeney on the submission.
To begin with, zero sense of what "lead plaintiff" means during the court proceedings.
Even Fisher claimed in his motion, that "the Fairholme interlocutory appeal would dispose of the Fisher and Reid cases".
Also, his innovative "Derivative Taking claim" was already submitted in a question presented to the Supreme Court by one of the Fairholme Plaintiffs, Andrew Barrett, but he wants to steal that question too in the third appeal mentioned, to be in the limelight.
A petition denied by the Supreme Court for a reason.

FISHER SEEKS TO BE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
Derivative Taking claim was already dealt with several times:
-J.Willett/J.Alito:"Rehabilitate FnF"(Separate Acct)
CFC-related cases:
-Interlocutory appeal
-Plaintiff Barrett(Fairholme)filed Derivative Taking claim @ SCOTUS👇
Denied.#Fanniegate https://t.co/AtqspKqUUx pic.twitter.com/cuerNTlvuf

— Conservatives against Trump (@CarlosVignote) December 25, 2023