Quote: “(3) FUNDING.—For the purpose of the authorities granted in this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury may use the proceeds of the sale of
any securities issued under chapter 31 of Title 31, and the purposes for
which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of Title 31 are extended to
include such purchases and the exercise of any rights in connection with
such purchases. Any funds expended for the purchase of, or modifications
to, obligations and securities, or the exercise of any rights received in
connection with such purchases under this subsection shall be deemed
appropriated at the time of such purchase, modification, or exercise.” End of Quote

THE ABOVE TAKE NOTE:

PURCHASES,
WITH SUCH PURCHASES,
EXPENDED FOR THE PURCHASE OF,
CONNECTION WITH SUCH PURCHASES,
AT THE TIME OF SUCH PURCHASE.


SEC. 304 Purchase Obligations
Subsection (c)

$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 anything. What did the $200 billion buy? NOTHING

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).

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.

Neither the Charter Act nor did HERA authorize the Treasury to charge a commitment fee on a line of credit to be paid by the Enterprise. 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).

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

Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

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

NeoSunTzu,
Saw the term on this board.
Regards

Had to edit to meet community standards.

‘LEGACY COMMONS’

I would like to ask each investor to kindly share your personal thoughts.

Quote: “New investors want the existing common to be diluted as much as possible The more dilution, the more money for the new investors. Leaving anything behind for legacy commons (more than what is absolutely necessary, which might be a nickel per share) is what would be stupid.” End of Quote

This could easily be settled where each equity holder could come out of this conservatorship to some degree satisfied. If a secondary IPO is necessary to meet the capital requirements new investors can also profit, almost everyone would be happy.

I gave my thoughts on what I believe to be the real reason behind the cram-down. If the legacy commons are wiped out the naked short outstanding position of the Market Makers goes away. The Market Makers do not have to cover the COUNTERFEIT SHARES.

Thoughts Please?

Link to my reasoning: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171696080

I appreciate Chessmaster and his thoughts on this subject.

Quote “Great question! Of course, we dont know how/when/if that will be resolved. However, the brokerage firm(s) which delivered (fake, phantom shares) should be liable.” End of Quote.

Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171697011

Was an ‘Appropriations Clause’ claim saying that FHFA being funded outside of the Congressional appropriations process is a violation of the Constitution in one of the lawsuits? What became of this?

Before the theft of the Undocumented Purchase, the plan is to cram it down.

The limited damage is laughable! The lawsuits are based on the third amendment going nowhere.

Barron, has it right!
The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.

Quote: “In any event - 2023 should be an important year to see who is most right and most wrong. Perhaps you will prove to be right”. End of Quote

Who is most right and who is most wrong prediction on how the unjust judge will rule.

We all know what is right and what is wrong. The cram-down advocated by the dishonorable want the existing common shareholders wiped out, anyway possible, right or wrong. We all know the truth, but the truth does not matter because the unjust judge said so.

Let’s put this in the proper prospectus, as reported by Bloomberg, 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.

The plan is to wipe out the shareholders right or wrong. Both common and preferred. And for some unexplained deception the cram-down people think they will escape by reason of the unjust ??

Quote:” When u move to real exchange, naked shorts are wiped out.” End of Quote

I understand, but what about the investors who purchased these phantom shares? The writer of the white paper calculated the massive number, that’s a lot of shares.

Failure to Deliver. This possibly could end as the greatest take down in the history of Wall Street. What happens when the shareholders find out their shares possibly do not exist?

If the powers that be bring the legacy common down to a nickel per share we will never know.

The real reason the dishonorable want the existing common shareholders wiped out.

The People calling for a cram-down use the term

‘LEGACY COMMONS’

Quote: “New investors want the existing common to be diluted as much as possible The more dilution, the more money for the new investors. Leaving anything behind for legacy commons (more than what is absolutely necessary, which might be a nickel per share) is what would be stupid.” End of Quote

Our Friend said it best,

Quote: "benefit all as opposed to the enrichment of the few and dishonorable." End of Quote

Real reason, If the legacy common are wiped out the naked short outstanding position of the Market Makers goes away. The Market Makers do not have to cover the COUNTERFEIT SHARES.

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.

Why did the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit, reason?

Judo Jeff,

Quote: “This sets the stage for dealing with FHFA since it seems to satisfy the three Thunder Basin work arounds that were created in Axon and Cochran today.” End of Quote...

Help me out?

The executive branch entities are not given the power to hold in-house tribunals, constitutional propriety.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies precedent to determine that Axon Enterprise’s and Michelle Cochran’s structural constitutional claims need not be channeled through the administrative review schemes at issue. I write separately, however, because I have grave doubts about the constitutional propriety of Congress vesting administrative agencies with primary authority to adjudicate core private rights with only deferential judicial review on the back end.


The taking of private property in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

FHFA and its Director are executive branch entities. They can not make changes to federal laws. Only Congress can change the law. 

Therefore, the U.S. Congress did not give DeMarco the power to take all the future profits of their wards in conservatorship into perpetuity, thus Nationalizing the GSES, based on an Incidental Power in HERA. 

The U.S. Congress would have given the FHFA more explicit instructions to do so than merely drafting in the HERA to do whatever it feels is in its best interests.  DeMarco, this non-elected bureaucrat, has been allowed to steal the companies for the Treasury.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf

You mention the illegal stock, SPS certificate, statement “cumulative" dividend. A certificate that also states that a dividend is paid out of available funds for distribution. And you think this is legal. You think this is okay? Ha

IT IS ALL ILLEGAL!

LISTEN! IF MR. Fisher can get us out of this prison under the terms he set forth, personally I am all for it.

Barron, has it right!

The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.

SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16

Under this subsection the FHFA / Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...

(And this will open the door for the plaintiffs to bring out the forced write down of the deferred tax assets, treasury's charge of an illegal commitment fee, violated the law by not adding the liabilities onto the national debt, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc...)


There was no 'Emergency.'

FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized, evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.

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

NeoSunTzu,

Your invocation is spot on. Appreciate your post and contribution to our efforts. This conservatorship should be settled where each equity owner benefits as you said,

Quote: "benefit all as opposed to the enrichment of the few and dishonorable."

Regards,

Bryndon, one more question Sir, Our Friend Guido, made the statement,

Quote: "Bryndon has separately stated that he wasn’t able to challenge the SPSPA as he became a shareholder after that date." End of Quote

Statute of limitations?

Barron Quote: "The 6-year statute of limitations do not apply to constitutional claims."

"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." End of Quote

Below Thread Barron put forth the above 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

Thank you, Bryndon,
I do hope your firm wins.
Regards

Will you kindly help me out here, what am I missing?
Thanks

“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

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171648502

Bryndon, first off, I appreciate everything you are doing along with every other person that knows this is wrong what the FHFA / Treasury is doing to the Shareholders both Common and Preferred. In my opinion the Conservatorship should be challenged, not the Third Amendment only. Mistake of the JPS Lawyers: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008."

Freely admit, I am not a Lawyer.

Best Regards.

Again,
The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit to the SCOTUS, Third Amendment.

I think Barron has the best approach on how to win: The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.

THE CHARTER ACT

If I am reading this wrong, please help. Thank you.

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

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171655775

Guido, I appreciate you going back in forth with this discussion. We know what has not worked.

Mistake of the Lawyers: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in
September 2008."

The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit to the SCOTUS, Third Amendment.

I think Barron has the best approach on how to win: The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.

THE CHARTER ACT

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171666023

Quote: "Bryndon has separately stated that he wasn’t able to challenge the SPSPA as he became a shareholder after that date." End of Quote


Barron Quote: "The 6-year statute of limitations do not apply to constitutional claims."

"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." End of Quote

Below Thread Barron put forth the above 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

My question,

"Bryndon’s suit"
Quote: "The First Step – What Our Government Should Do"

2) Unwind the net worth sweep (the “NWS”), beginning January 1, 2013, by
recharacterizing the quarterly dividend payments on the senior preferred stock (the
“SPS”) from exclusively dividend in nature to a combination of a redemption of the SPS
and what would have been paid to the Treasury using the original 10 percent after-tax
annual dividend rate." End of Quote Page 3

Why is this any different than what MR. Thompson asked the SCOTUS to do?

The Plaintiffs lost.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LNWzb9QhI1GiOk8W_2MYgERyE4yNRU04/view?pli=1

Guido said Quote: "What Thompson argued was neither derivative nor takings." End of Quote

Guido, will you kindly explain to me what Justice Breyer said to Mr. Thompson?
Thank you.

Asking the board, what am I missing here??

JUSTICE BREYER “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

What Thompson said, done, doing is not the point.

The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING!
JUSTICE BREYER: Bring us a takings claim, not a derivative action.

Guido, Again I appreciate your contribution to this board. And I do hope that one of the lawsuits ends the conservatorship in our favor. You stopped reading Thompson's filings does not change the fact how the SCOTUS ruled, 9-0... Please answer this.

Again:
My question,
Quote: "The First Step – What Our Government Should Do"

2) Unwind the net worth sweep (the “NWS”), beginning January 1, 2013, by
recharacterizing the quarterly dividend payments on the senior preferred stock (the
“SPS”) from exclusively dividend in nature to a combination of a redemption of the SPS
and what would have been paid to the Treasury using the original 10 percent after-tax
annual dividend rate." End of Quote Page 3

Why is this any different than what MR. Thompson asked the SCOTUS to do?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LNWzb9QhI1GiOk8W_2MYgERyE4yNRU04/view?pli=1

Patswil, I understand, and do appreciate everyone's contributions to this board,

My question,
Quote: "The First Step – What Our Government Should Do"

2) Unwind the net worth sweep (the “NWS”), beginning January 1, 2013, by
recharacterizing the quarterly dividend payments on the senior preferred stock (the
“SPS”) from exclusively dividend in nature to a combination of a redemption of the SPS
and what would have been paid to the Treasury using the original 10 percent after-tax
annual dividend rate." End of Quote Page 3

Why is this any different than what MR. Thompson asked the SCOTUS to do?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LNWzb9QhI1GiOk8W_2MYgERyE4yNRU04/view?pli=1

Barron, instead of contacting the lawyers, contact the Firms paying these lawyers. That should get their attention. (Had to edit to meet community guidelines).

Let's simplify this...

JUSTICE BREYER: “Well, why didn't you bring a takings claim?”

The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit to the SCOTUS.

TAKINGS CLAIM: Your Honor, The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract: The Charter Act is the Law.

SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16

Under this subsection the FHFA / Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...

(And this will open the door for the plaintiffs to bring out the forced write down of the deferred tax assets, treasury's charge of an illegal commitment fee, violated the law by not adding the liabilities onto the national debt, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc...)


There was no 'Emergency.'

FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized, evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.

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

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