Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If you will read the Thread the statement was made, “ Bryndon Fisher's cases are derivative.” And “ Bryndon is asking the court to refund the overpayment to the corporations.”
I was simply pointing out MR Thompson had already ask the SCOTUS to do the same, refund the overpayment.
The SCOTUS said, ‘NO’ vote 9-0.
So, why are the Lawyers continuing to bring a derivative action?
JUSTICE BREYER: a takings claim, not a derivative action.
What I’m reading only one statement in this entire article is correct, “ Shareholders, both common and preferred, are likely to be left with nothing.” …
The Government Bailout WAS NOT Necessary,
There was no 'Emergency.'
And will not even mention the forced DTA write down.
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized.
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS
Minimum Capital
Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.
Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/mobile/Pages/public-affairs-detail.aspx?PageName=FHFA-Announces-Suspension-of-Capital-Classifications-During-Conservatorship-and-Discloses-Minimum-and-RiskBased-Cap.aspx
This is the mistake of the JPS Lawyers, Your Honor, I work for JPS Shareholders and these JPS Shareholders don't care about the company or the common shareholders, matter of fact we want the Treasury to cram-down, place the company in receivership or whatever it takes so we can collect Par Value on our investment! The Contract, first amendment, second amendment we don't care. My clients are asking this Court to draw a line in the sand (third amendment) with a 'color-able claim' so we can collect Par Value.
Be careful what you ask for...
“wipe out common and preferred shareholders”
Quote, “On July 11, the New York Times published a front-page article saying, “Senior Bush administration officials are considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen. "Shares of the companies plunged, and in response Paulson publicly pledged support for them on July 13, saying, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. "Yet he had a very different private message for Wall Street insiders. As reported by Bloomberg in November of 2011, Paulson met with a select group of hedge fund managers at Eaton Park Capital Management on July 21, where he told them that Treasury was considering a plan to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, which would effectively wipe out common and preferred shareholders. This, of course, is precisely what happened six weeks later. End of Quote, From “Treasury, the Conservatorships, and Mortgage Reform” January 11, 2015
JUSTICE BREYER: a takings claim, not a derivative action.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, Your Honor, two points. Number one, principles of constitutional avoidance would counsel in favor of not reading the Congress as having authorized nationalization. There's no reason to think Congress would have wanted to stick the taxpayers with a bag tab for a takings verdict in the Court of Federal Claims. But also, if the Court were to apply traditional measures of derivative direct, we say we win. We would point to the Alleghany case.
JUSTICE BREYER: I see that, but you have a rather special company which your shareholders brought into -- bought into with knowledge, and that is a company that has a public as well as a -- more of a public aspect than ordinary. They're there and both parts are relevant. And so even if this is at the border of derivative action, shouldn't we interpret the derivative actions -- why not? -- to encompass what goes on here with a colorable argument that they did it for the benefit of the -- of the corporation? Page 71 and 72
The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit to the SCOTUS.
AGAIN !
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win!
UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12
By memory the SCOTUS vote was 9-0? Why, would this change with any other derivative suit?
The question was asked on this board, “Why did Breyer vote along with the other Justices?” This is a takings claim, not a derivative action.
LInk: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf
Guido, I appreciate your diligence towards our concern regarding getting out of this prison. I’m hesitant to repeat this, but it’s how I see it.
Again “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING! By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.
THE CHARTER ACT IS THE LAW
Quote: “ Bryndon is asking the court to refund the overpayment to the corporations.” End of Quote
MR. Thompson asked the same.
SCOTUS Quote:
“MR. THOMPSON: Number 1, we're seeking prospective relief so that in your hypothetical the Senate confirmed director would be enjoined from making any future sweep dividend, approving any future sweep dividend payment; and, number 2, we're asking to go back and have the overpayments, over and above the $18.9 billion, to be treated as a pay down of principal. And that would essentially deem the government paid back.
We calculate
those overpayments to be 124 billion dollars,
and each one of those overpayments was an
implementation of the Net Worth Sweep.
So, if there had not been a Net Worth
Sweep, there would be 124 billion dollars of
capital on the balance sheet today.
And if you do the math, the government's been paid back in toto plus 10 percent interest and there's 29.5 billion dollars left over.” End of Quote
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf
By memory the SCOTUS vote was 9-0? Why, would this change with any other derivative suit?
Again, Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win.
derivative? Everyone benefits if he succeeds.? Please explain. Maybe I’m misunderstanding this.
A takings claim, Breyer said bring a takings claim.
JUSTICE BREYER: -- and this seems like a takings claim, why should we stretch out of recognition or stretch or try to draw lines unnecessarily on the question of derivative actions? Page 71
JUSTICE BREYER: I'm -- I'm aware of derivative action of the conservator. In fact, he so -- goes so far that the company's hurt, really hurt, and the shareholders are destroyed, bring a takings claim, but as long as there's a colorable claim, as long as there's a colorable defense, forget it. Apply ordinary derivative law. Page 71
Don’t give up my friend. Like you said, “time to get back to working on filing ourselves in district courts.”
Best Regards
FOFreddie, I appreciate your contribution to this board.
I am not a Lawyer, and do not claim to understand the in-depth of the Lawsuits. If I am wrong about MR. Thompson, I apologize for that. Why can't MR. Thompson introduce the Charter Act into the argument.? From what I am reading, it's not too late.
Barron put forth this statement:
Quote: “Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Show me any law that allows the Treasury to increase the taxpayers debt to provide the 200 billion commitment. When did Congress amend the Charter Act to allow Treasury and in the future the Federal reserve to assess fees on FNFA not in relation to FNMA corporate debt obligations? The answer to these questions are important. I truly want to be shown I'm wrong before I submit my claim and ask that the SPSPA be nullified.” End of Quote
Reply Quote: “I'll show you one that'll get you sent right out of court, regardless.
28 U.S. Code § 2501” End of Quote
Answer Quote: “The law you site deals with the court of federal claims. This is an Article I federal tribunal created by Congress in the 1980s. The Judges are federal employees with limited terms indirectly answerable to POTUS. No thanks. Shareholders will limit direct money damages to a minimum to preserve their right to have their claim heard in an independent Article III district court.
The 6-year statute of limitations do not apply to constitutional claims.
If Treasury would have left the illegal fee at 10%, then the claim in the first instance would have continued and the 6 years statute of limitations would apply to a common law claim for a violation of statute. But lucky for shareholders Treasury keeps changing the material nature of the fee. Treasuries letter agreement and fourth amendment to increase the LP as earnings are retained is a new injury well within the 6-years.
If the claims are thrown out, then brand new constitutional claims will be put forward. By that point I wont be surprised if a constitutional construction claim of separation of powers on Treasury’s overreach is filed.” End of Quote.
Link to Start of Thread: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171076613
“Well, why didn't you bring a takings claim?”
JUSTICE BREYER: -- and this seems like a takings claim, why should we stretch out of recognition or stretch or try to draw lines unnecessarily on the question of derivative actions? Page 71
JUSTICE BREYER: I'm -- I'm aware of derivative action of the conservator. In fact, he so -- goes so far that the company's hurt, really hurt, and the shareholders are destroyed, bring a takings claim, but as long as there's a colorable claim, as long as there's a colorable defense, forget it. Apply ordinary derivative law. Page 71
JUSTICE BREYER: “FORGET IT” …
MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, we have brought a takings claim, but that doesn't absolve this Court of -- under the APA, of addressing our challenge to the lawfulness of the agency action. There's no reason to think that – Page 70
Let me interpret MR. Thompson, Your Honor, I work for JPS Shareholders and these JPS Shareholders don't care about the company or the common shareholders, matter of fact we want the Treasury to cram-down, place the company in receivership or whatever it takes so we can collect Par Value on our investment! The Contract, first amendment, second amendment we don't care. My clients are asking this Court to draw a line in the sand (third amendment) with a 'colorble claim' so we can collect Par Value. JUSTICE BREYER: “FORGET IT” …
The question was asked on this board, “Why did Breyer vote along with the other Justices?” Ha
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win!
UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf
DERIVATIVE. Coming from another; taken from something preceding, secondary; as derivative title, which is that acquired from another person. There is considerable difference between an original and a derivative title. When the acquisition is original, the right thus acquired to the thing becomes property, which must be unqualified and unlimited, and since no one but the occupant has any right to the thing, he must have the whole right of disposing of it. But with regard to derivative acquisition, it may be otherwise, for the person from whom the thing is acquired may not have an unlimited right to it, or he may convey or transfer it with certain reservations of right. Derivative title must always be by contract.
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING! By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.
THE CHARTER ACT IS THE LAW
The FHFA had no right to take over the companies under the Law of HERA.
When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat. This fact has been stated in the Washington Federal Lawsuit filed against the government.
Page 30-31 Twelve Conditions
Link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxUYhg0cYUOTbkZYVVJkaGtoS1E/edit?resourcekey=0-gU6I5hW3ndG5E3uY2VEyGA
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING! The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.
THE CHARTER ACT IS THE LAW
Donotunderstand said,
Quote: “ as always - I encourage you to start and engage in communication with the various attorneys fighting” End of Quote
The below writing was sent to two of the Lawyers.
Dear Sir,
How to win with the Charter Act
The United States Treasury in violation of the Charter Act has failed to treat as public debt the transactions of the United States when the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This obligation was never recorded as public debt as required by law.
The Congressional Budget Office publication states, “Federal Government effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
The Enterprises have been Nationalized by the Government according to the CBO: The liabilities have not been added to the National Debt nor have the Shareholders been compensated by U.S. Law of the 5th Amendment.
Congressional Budget Office
From: Estimates of the Cost of Federal Credit Programs in 2023
Page 1, Foot Note 1.
Quote: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in federal conservatorship since September 2008. CBO treats the two GSEs as government entities in its budget estimates because, under the terms of the conservatorships, the federal government retains operational control and effective ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For more discussion, see Congressional Budget Office, Effects of Recapitalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Through Administrative Actions (August 2020), www.cbo.gov/publication/56496; and Congressional Budget Office, The Effects of Increasing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Capital (October 2016), www.cbo.gov/ publication/52089” End of Quote
Link: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58031-Federal-Credit-Programs.pdf
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
Charter Act SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATIONS
(c)
Terms and Rates
Quote: “All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such obligations under this subsection SHALL BE TREATED AS PUBLIC DEBT TRANSACTIONS of the United States.” End of Quote Page 14
Link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
More on the Charter Act.
SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
Under this subsection the Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized. And the Treasury (as defendants) would open the door for the Plaintiffs to bring the evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
The FHFA did not have Congressional Approval to enter into contract with Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises.
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS
Minimum Capital
Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.
Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/mobile/Pages/public-affairs-detail.aspx?PageName=FHFA-Announces-Suspension-of-Capital-Classifications-During-Conservatorship-and-Discloses-Minimum-and-RiskBased-Cap.aspx
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
Treasury Department is in violation of the law.
The Treasury Department has commanded periodic commitment fee from the Enterprises. Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the Enterprises.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land
Therefore, the Treasury Department of the United States is in violation of the LAW by placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorships under the terms of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs).
The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) provides Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with financial support through the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs), which were executed on September 7, 2008, one day after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entered conservatorships.
In exchange for Treasury’s financial support, the SPSPAs require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other things, to make quarterly dividend payments to Treasury, provide Treasury with a Liquidation Preference, and beginning in 2010 pay Treasury a periodic commitment fee that reflects the market value of the outstanding Treasury commitment, as well as Stock Warrants for the purchase of common stock representing 79.9% of the common stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively, on a diluted basis.
On May 6, 2009, Treasury and the Enterprises amended the SPSPAs, increasing Treasury’s commitment of financial support from $100,000,000,000, respectively, to $200,000,000,000, respectively.
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
Therefore, the FHFA was not given authority by Congress to enter into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop. This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA. The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
Back-fire: (of a plan or action) rebound adversely on the originator; have the opposite effect to what was intended: Evidence of by price per share of your JPS.
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING! By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.
THE CHARTER ACT IS THE LAW
Ace Trader,
I appreciate your attitude. Really like your suggestion.
Quote: "Best thing we could do is find a young keen lawyer fresh out of law school hungry to make a name for him or herself." End of Quote.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171611458
Also, I like what Barron had to say...
Barron4664
Re: Louie_Louie post# 748255
Monday, 02/13/2023 8:20:19 AM
A very valid concern. But we have to make an effort. The Charter was amended in 2008. Treasury tells us in the SPSPA that their authority to provide a commitment of 200 billion arrises from sec 304 of the amended charter act. It is up to a judge to decide if sec 304 allows the commitment fee to stay. Should a judge find the Charter Act to not allow such a fee arrangement, then relief sought is to make null and void the SPSPA in its entirety. As if it never happened and reverse all the actions back to GSEs. Simply stated we would ask that the terms of the agreement be enforced. All dividends paid including the 10% go back to the companies balance sheets. Should the Courts agree with Treasury that Congress allowed the commitment fee then the theory anticipates that constitutional claims of separation of powers, major questions doctrine, and 14th amendment claims would be made. Based on the 14th amendment debt clause and FASB the theory would ask that the GSEs be consolidated as federal entities. This would then require all equity to stop trading, US taxpayers would own all MBS products outright including all the 5 trillion in assets. Of course a takings will then have occurred and the entire enterprise value would need to be paid back to the equity holders. The US gov would need to decide whether or not they want to go back to 1938 or keep the GSEs private companies. This is what a major questions doctrine is all about. Treasury actions could amount to a solution that only Congress could have made.
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171193506
Trunkmonk, I think you are right, in plain sight of defense not good. Yesterday, I was throwing out thoughts on the subject, asking for others' opinion. I appreciate shareholders as yourself. I did notice the communication vanished; Did you see that? Regards
Yes, with two...
Starting Point
Anyone?
This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity in FNMA? It's all illegal and unconstitutional.
Page 5
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION CHARTER ACT
As amended through July 25, 2019
link: https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
Link: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Dated September 7, 2008.
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
ALL THE AGREEMENTS
link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Barron Quote: “The statute of limitations will expire in 2025, 6 years from the 2019 letter agreement.”
Letter agreement link: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm786
Ace Trader, IronMan, Barron.
IronMan Quote: “Barron 4664: I would like to be in this also, let me know what is needed.” End of Quote
It's obvious a lot of intelligent investors posting here. Need to get as many on board as possible. As Ace Trader said, “find what complaint is appropriate to file.” Argue it back and forth until we get it right. Do it here on this board.
Barron,
When will you put forth your claim? Timeline?
Regards,
This has been the MISTAKE of the JPS Lawyers from the beginning. And making the same mistake over and over.
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP,
Filed 04/03/23
Quote: "8. This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in
September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September
2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and
Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by
Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote. Page 7
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises?
Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252/gov.uscourts.uscfc.37252.30.0.pdf
Treasury Department is in violation of the law.
The Treasury Department has commanded periodic commitment fee from the Enterprises. Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the Enterprises.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land
Therefore, the Treasury Department of the United States is in violation of the LAW by placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorships under the terms of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs).
The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) provides Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with financial support through the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs), which were executed on September 7, 2008, one day after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entered conservatorships.
In exchange for Treasury’s financial support, the SPSPAs require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other things, to make quarterly dividend payments to Treasury, provide Treasury with a Liquidation Preference, and beginning in 2010 pay Treasury a periodic commitment fee that reflects the market value of the outstanding Treasury commitment, as well as Stock Warrants for the purchase of common stock representing 79.9% of the common stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively, on a diluted basis.
On May 6, 2009 Treasury and the Enterprises amended the SPSPAs, increasing Treasury’s commitment of financial support from $100,000,000,000, respectively, to $200,000,000,000, respectively.
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
Therefore, the FHFA was not given authority by Congress to enter into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop. This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA. The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
I stand corrected, miss quoted on my part. Thanks (don’t say I’m selling snake oil.) I’m not selling anything. Doing what I can to help all shareholders get out of this prison. So, stop with your sarcasm. Regards
Correct calculation
“PURCHASE OF SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK AND WARRANT FEES
Initial commitment fee
One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share.”
Page 5
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
Read the SPS agreement, the warrants, and the liquidation preference are defined as an “Initial commitment fee” an illegal charge attached to the purchase of 1000 shares of equity securities by an agency of the United States Government to access the 200 billion commitment. This charge is expressly forbidden by the Charter Act.
SPSPA
Paragraph 3 Quote: “In exchange for Treasury’s financial support, the SPSPAs require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other things, to make quarterly dividend payments to Treasury, provide Treasury with a Liquidation Preference, and beginning in 2010 pay Treasury a periodic commitment fee that reflects the market value of the outstanding Treasury commitment, as well as Stock Warrants for the purchase of common stock representing 79.9% of the common stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively, on a diluted basis.” End of Quote
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Pages/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Purchase-Agreements.aspx
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
You’re missing it!
“Initial commitment fee” an illegal charge…
Treasury was given authority to purchase stuff (obligations, MBS, equity) for one year in this emergency situation. They purchased exactly 1000 shares of senior preferred shares for 1 billion dollars. That is it. If you read the SPS agreement, the warrants, and the liquidation preference are defined as an “Initial commitment fee” an illegal charge attached to the purchase of 1000 shares of equity securities by an agency of the United States Government to access the 200 billion commitment. This charge is expressly forbidden by the Charter Act.
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
Therefore, the FHFA was not given authority by Congress to enter into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop. This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA. The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Barron4664
Re: Louie_Louie post# 748255
Monday, 02/13/2023 8:20:19 AM
A very valid concern. But we have to make an effort. The Charter was amended in 2008. Treasury tells us in the SPSPA that their authority to provide a commitment of 200 billion arrises from sec 304 of the amended charter act. It is up to a judge to decide if sec 304 allows the commitment fee to stay. Should a judge find the Charter Act to not allow such a fee arrangement, then relief sought is to make null and void the SPSPA in its entirety. As if it never happened and reverse all the actions back to GSEs. Simply stated we would ask that the terms of the agreement be enforced. All dividends paid including the 10% go back to the companies balance sheets. Should the Courts agree with Treasury that Congress allowed the commitment fee then the theory anticipates that constitutional claims of separation of powers, major questions doctrine, and 14th amendment claims would be made. Based on the 14th amendment debt clause and FASB the theory would ask that the GSEs be consolidated as federal entities. This would then require all equity to stop trading, US taxpayers would own all MBS products outright including all the 5 trillion in assets. Of course a takings will then have occurred and the entire enterprise value would need to be paid back to the equity holders. The US gov would need to decide whether or not they want to go back to 1938 or keep the GSEs private companies. This is what a major questions doctrine is all about. Treasury actions could amount to a solution that only Congress could have made.
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171193506
Subsection (c)
Purchase Obligations
$200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): subsection (c)
This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA. The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
Read it again,
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
Therefore, the FHFA was not given authority by Congress to enter into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop. This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA. The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
Therefore, the FHFA was not given authority by Congress to enter into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop. This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA. The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Will you kindly answer the below question? Thank you
Quote: “This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for 1000 shares of senior equity in FNMA? It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.” End of Quote.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Quote: “The NWS is not an issue. The SPSPA itself is just a symptom of the real violation of statute and Constitution. The questions that no one has yet to ask is. Under what congressional authority did Treasury increase the tax payer debt to provide the $200 billion funding commitment? Treasury says in the SPSPA that it was authorized by section 304 of the amended Charter Act. It was not. Had treasury purchased 200 billion of FNMA debt obligations, MBS, preferred stock or common stock, then they would be correct. They did not! So there remains a statutory violation and 2 constitutional violations, separation of power/major questions doctrine and public debt clause 14th amendment violation. I am doing what I can to move these claims foreword, hopefully you will as well.” End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171186329
The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal. In which case did any lawyer mention the Charter Act, the Treasury in violation of the Charter Act, and the Contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises?
Wrap your head around this!
Calculated damage?
Barron’s forthcoming Lawsuit
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Not paying attention:
Quote: “I am laying the groundwork for just such a claim focusing on the Charter Act and SPSA, bringing together the MQD, Separation of Powers structural violation, violations of the Charter Act, HERA, GAO act and CFO act. All of these violations by Treasury result in violations of the 14th amendment and of course the 5th amendment.” End of Quote
Quote:” has been so STATED argued to court and court and court and no court has come within a mile of agreeing” End of Quote
Will you kindly answer the below question? Thank you
Quote: “This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for 1000 shares of senior equity in FNMA? It’s all illegal and unconstitutional.” End of Quote.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
With Barron’s forthcoming Lawsuit it doesn’t matter what Ackman has said.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Not paying attention:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171376046
Ha,
"Why in the world" would you WANT to convert to commons, if you think they are worthless?”
Chessmaster, I don’t think anyone answered your question.
Anyone?
Quote: “This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for 1000 shares of senior equity in FNMA? Its all illegal and unconstitutional.” End of Quote.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Barron asked,
(SPSPA) link provided below in reference to his statement.
Quote: “The warrants, and the liquidation preference are defined as an “Initial commitment fee” an illegal charge attached to the purchase of 1000 shares of equity securities by an agency of the United States Government to access the 200 billion commitment. This charge is expressly forbidden by the Charter Act.” End of Quote
Quote: “This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for 1000 shares of senior equity in FNMA? Its all illegal and unconstitutional.” End of Quote.
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
September 7, 2008, between the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (“Purchaser”) and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
PURCHASE OF SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK AND WARRANT;
Quote: “FEES 3.1. Initial Commitment Fee. In consideration of the Commitment, and for no additional consideration, on the Effective Date (or as soon thereafter as is practicable) Seller shall sell and issue to Purchaser, and Purchaser shall purchase from Seller, (a) one million (1,000,000) shares of Senior Preferred Stock, with an initial liquidation preference equal to $1,000 per share ($1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) liquidation preference in the aggregate), and (b) the Warrant. 3.2. Periodic Commitment Fee. (a) Commencing March 31, 2010, Seller shall pay to Purchaser quarterly, on the last day of March, June, September and December of each calendar year (each a “Periodic Fee Date”), a periodic commitment fee (the “Periodic Commitment Fee”). The Periodic Commitment Fee shall accrue from January 1, 2010.” End of Quote. Page 5-6
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/SPSPA-amends/FNM-SPSPA_09-07-2008.pdf
Treasury Department is in violation of the law.
The Treasury Department has commanded periodic commitment fee from the Enterprises. Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the Enterprises.
The Charter Act the Law of the Land
Therefore, the Treasury Department of the United States is in violation of the LAW by placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorships under the terms of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs).
The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) provides Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with financial support through the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPSPAs), which were executed on September 7, 2008, one day after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entered conservatorships.
In exchange for Treasury’s financial support, the SPSPAs require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other things, to make quarterly dividend payments to Treasury, provide Treasury with a Liquidation Preference, and beginning in 2010 pay Treasury a periodic commitment fee that reflects the market value of the outstanding Treasury commitment, as well as Stock Warrants for the purchase of common stock representing 79.9% of the common stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively, on a diluted basis.
On May 6, 2009 Treasury and the Enterprises amended the SPSPAs, increasing Treasury’s commitment of financial support from $100,000,000,000, respectively, to $200,000,000,000, respectively.
PUBLIC LAW
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).
Therefore, the FHFA was not given authority by Congress to enter into contract with the United States Treasury in the amount of $200,000,000,000 (two hundred billion dollars): This amount of money is construed as a commitment from the Treasury, a line of credit, backstop. This money was not used to purchase obligations of Fannie Mae as permitted in the HERA legislation under terms as defined by the changes of the company's Charter Act by HERA. The HERA legislation granted temporary authority to the Treasury to purchase obligations of the Enterprise, above the limits written in the Charter, (Charter limitation of 2.25 billion).
SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION
Fee Limitation
Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16
SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)
Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf
Edited, hope this meets guidelines.
This whole charade reminds me of the abused concubine mentioned in the closing out of the book of judges. In type the GSEs were used and abused by the Treasury with the Fed. Only game in town, ha. They ran it through!
Evidence
The Toxic Waste seems to have been funneled through Fannie to the Fed.
Quote: "It's a big event that the Federal Reserve is offering to buy up nearly 10% of the agency mortgage market," said Art Frank, a mortgage strategist with Deutsche Bank Tuesday morning, the Federal Reserve announced that it would buy up to $500 billion of mortgage bonds guaranteed by Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae, providing the ultimate support to prop up the $4.8 trillion market of these securities. The central bank also will buy $100 billion of the mortgage finance companies' debt securities, including that of the Federal Home Loan Bank, through reverse auctions starting next week. So far, other initiatives to prop up the market including a plan to have both the government-sponsored enterprises buy nearly $200 billion of these bonds and the U.S. Treasury's unlimited purchase of these bonds have done little to stop the weakening of risk premiums on mortgage bonds. As a result, mortgage rates have remained at elevated levels with little relief to consumers." End of Quote
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33791597
From Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
95th Annual Report 2008
Quote: "In secondary mortgage markets, securitization of mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has fallen in recent months, and gross issuance of GSE-backed MBS has lately just out paced maturing issues so that levels outstanding have only inched up since the summer." End of Quote
Quote: "since the November 25 announcement of the Federal Reserve’s program to purchase MBS issued by the housing GSEs and Ginnie Mae, and they currently stand at 5 percent." End of Quote page 19
Link: https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual08/pdf/AR08.pdf
Barron,
Per discussion of the emergency funding,
Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171545520
If the Treasury claims this as cause for conservatorship all the dirt leading up to and into the take down of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be exposed.
(If) Treasury claims the SPSPA on subsection (g).
Under this subsection the Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized. And the Treasury (as defendants) would open the door for the Plaintiffs to bring the evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
NOT ONLY THE EVIDENCE OF EXCEEDING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS.
ALSO, ALL THE DIRT LEADING UP TO AND THE TAKE DOWN OF THE ENTERPRISES.
I recommend incorporating the below information in the presentation to the Jury.
The taking of private property in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Premeditated Eaton Park
Counterfeiting
The Take Down
Deferred Tax Assets
Paulson, statement to UNITED STATES SENATE
(GSEs remain adequately capitalized)
The subject of the 'Deferred Tax Assets' should be explained in simplicity, so simple that a Juror with no knowledge of finance could easily understand.
COUNTERFEITING
INFORMATION FROM: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission web site.
The counterfeiting of U.S. assets. Theft from pension funds, State employee retirement accounts, and U.S. Citizens. The counterfeiting of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Where are our regulators and who are they protecting?
Quote: “Without the counterfeiting of the GSEs shares and the concerted effort to manipulate the stock prices, the GSEs potential to raise significant capital would have been much greater and it is unlikely that the U.S. Taxpayers would be the conservators of these companies at this time. This report shows why this is true and that illegal sellers of the shares of the two GSEs made a vast sum of money taking down these companies to the detriment of the U.S. Citizens. This report names who the key market participants are in the trading of the GSEs.” End of Quote.
Link: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-407a.pdf#:~:text=Fannie%20Mae%20and%20Freddie%20Mac%20are%20publicly%20traded,was%20occurring%20in%20the%20trading%20of%20the%20GSEs
THE TAKE DOWN
The Market-Makers Naked Short of Fannie Mae stock into oblivion, created the sense the company was bankrupt too big to fail and would destroy the U.S. Economy if something was not done. Afterwards, forced the company into a takeover (nationalization) making the company write off the deferred tax assets creating a huge loss to further the appearance the company to be bankrupt in an attempt to never ever allow Fannie Mae to return to profitability ever.
EVIDENCE
Mr. Howard Quote, “Convincing evidence exists that the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were planned well in advance, and that they were intended to remove the companies permanently from private ownership.” End of Quote
Quote, “On July 11, the New York Times published a front-page article saying, “Senior Bush administration officials are considering a plan to have the government take over one or both of [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] and place them in a conservatorship if their problems worsen. "Shares of the companies plunged, and in response Paulson publicly pledged support for them on July 13, saying, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. "Yet he had a very different private message for Wall Street insiders. As reported by Bloomberg in November of 2011, Paulson met with a select group of hedge fund managers at Eaton Park Capital Management on July 21, where he told them that Treasury was considering a plan to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, which would effectively wipe out common and preferred shareholders. This, of course, is precisely what happened six weeks later. End of Quote, From “Treasury, the Conservatorships, and Mortgage Reform” January 11, 2015
Treasury, however, lacked authority to put the two companies into conservatorship; only the new regulator, FHFA, could do that. And Treasury had kept neither the old OFHEO nor the new FHFA apprised of its nationalization intentions. Paulson was unaware that the FHFA had sent both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac letters saying the companies were safe and sound and exceeded their regulatory capital requirements. Paulson told Lockhart that he had to change his agency’s posture on the two companies, and FHFA did exactly that. FHFA sent each company an extremely harsh mid-year review letter, and two days later, Paulson, Lockhart and Fed chairman Bernanke met with the companies’ CEOs and directors to tell them they had no choice but to agree to conservatorship.
When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat. This fact has been stated in the Washington Federal Lawsuit filed against the government.
Page 30-31 Twelve Conditions
Link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxUYhg0cYUOTbkZYVVJkaGtoS1E/edit?resourcekey=0-gU6I5hW3ndG5E3uY2VEyGA
Deferred Tax Assets
The deferred tax assets, Treasury forced the companies to write down and record these non-cash expenses making the companies appear bankrupted. Keep in mind deferred tax ‘ASSETS’...
Mr. Howard
Quote: “Between the time Fannie and Freddie were put into conservatorship and the end of 2011, well over $300 billion in non-cash accounting expenses were recorded on their income statements. These non-cash expenses, most of which were discretionary, eliminated all of the Companies’ capital and forced them, together, to take $187 billion from Treasury. But because accelerated or exaggerated expenses cause losses that are only temporary, Fannie’s and Freddie’s non-cash losses began to reverse themselves in 2012. Coupled with profits resulting from a rebounding housing market, the reversal of these losses enabled both Companies to report in August 2012 sufficient second quarter income to not only pay their dividends to Treasury but also retain a total of $3.9 billion in capital. As soon as it became apparent that a large percentage of the non-cash accounting losses booked during the previous four years was about to come back into income, Treasury and FHFA entered into the Third Amendment to the PSPA. The Third Amendment substituted for the fixed dividend payment a requirement that all future earnings—including reversals of accounting-related expenses incurred earlier—be remitted to Treasury. From the time the Third Amendment took effect through the end of 2014, Fannie and Freddie paid Treasury $170 billion, $133 billion more than they would have owed absent the Amendment.” End of Quote
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2008
STATEMENT OF HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Quote: “Fannie and Freddie play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “Our proposal was not prompted by any sudden deterioration in conditions at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. OFHEO has reaffirmed that both GSEs remain adequately capitalized.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “Let me stress that there are no immediate plans to access either the proposed liquidity or the proposed capital backstop. If either of these authorities is used, it would be done so only at Treasury's discretion, under terms and conditions that protect the U.S. taxpayer and are agreed to by both Treasury and the GSE.” End of Quote Page 6
Quote: “As I have said, we support the current shareholder-owned structure of these enterprises. Our plan addresses current market challenges by ensuring, on a temporary basis, access to both liquidity and capital, while also ensuring that the GSEs can fulfill their mission--a mission that remains critical to homeowners and homebuyers across the country, especially during this housing correction.” End of Quote Page 7
Link: https://ypfsresourcelibrary.blob.core.windows.net/fcic/YPFS/Senate-110-1008_2008.pdf
I encourage this board, Barron is in the process of filing suit, we should do what we can to help. Best Regards
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
As Barron said, “The key to unwinding this whole charade is to focus on the appropriations acts, and debt clause of the 14th amendment. We have to use the violations of charter act, FHE act, and FSAB to change the focus of the conversation to the acts of Treasury.”
Thank you, Guido,
Quote: "The SPSPA is NOT the law." End of Quote
The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
Quote: “FHFA/UST used subsection (g)” End of Quote.
That's great if the Treasury claims the SPSPA on subsection (g).
Under this subsection the Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized. And the Treasury (as defendants) would open the door for the Plaintiffs to bring the evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
The FHFA did not have Congressional Approval to enter into contract with Treasury under the terms of the SPSPA. By Public Law the whole contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises.
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS
Minimum Capital
Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.
Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.
Link: https://www.fhfa.gov/mobile/Pages/public-affairs-detail.aspx?PageName=FHFA-Announces-Suspension-of-Capital-Classifications-During-Conservatorship-and-Discloses-Minimum-and-RiskBased-Cap.aspx
The Charter Act the Law of the Land.
SUBSECTION
(g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.—
AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE.—
EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf