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.
Great points, thanks, what's somewhat refreshing is that MC AND ST have both stated that "conservatorship" was suppose to be temporary.
Did Mel Watt say the same thing, do you remember?
It seems clear from DeMarcos testimony in the Lamberth trial that his aim was to "let the US Congress replace or decide the future of the US Housing Finance Industry" and he believed it was more imminent than what actually happened (which is nothing).
I think all FHFA Directors and administrations have stated publicly that they want the US Congress to decide the future of the Secondary Mortgage Market in the US.
I think MC and the previous administration is the only one who told the US Congress that they will end the Conservatorships if Congress fails to act.
If the courts continue to find that the US Government has clean hands here, what would prevent all future FHFA Directors from kicking the can down the road and deferring actions on ending the Conservatorships to Congress?
Not bad, (I added bold). In theory could any of the 8,000+ Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders initiate a lawsuit in their local federal district courthouse arguing that the August 17, 2012 Net Worth Swipe was unconstitutional and therefore void?
"54. FHFA's unilateral self-funding initiative is a permanent power and is not
temporally limited as it should be.
55. The 2008 Congress that enacted HERA cannot purport to tie the hands of all future
Congresses to exercise oversight over the FHFA. Congress cannot simply delegate or cede the
power to budget, raise, appropriate, or spend money entirely to an executive agency.
56. Accordingly, FHFA's self-funding structure cannot be reconciled with the text,
structure, and history of the Appropriations Clause or the Supreme Court's separation-of-powers
precedent, including the Nondelegation Doctrine.
57. HERA and, specifically, 12 U.S.C. § 4516 violate the Appropriations Clause, the
Separation of Powers, and/or the Nondelegation Doctrine by allowing FHFA to self-fund and
unilaterally spend public money without an appropriation from Congress. As a result, 12 U.S.C. § 4516 and related portions of HERA must be declared unconstitutional and unlawful.
See also 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2).
58. All FHFA actions taken without a constitutional appropriation from Congress are
void, unlawful, and must be set aside."
As I recall, HERA gave only a very short fuse on challenging the CONservatorships, like 90 days or something.
Besides, James Lockhart, PUBLICLY STATED THAT THE CONSERVATORSHIPS WERE TEMPORARY, right?
The Gubmint would NEVER lie to its own citizens would it?
The KING can do NO WRONG !
Real live legal counsel for the mortgagor (it could just be a way to buy some time for the Mortgagor and delay the foreclosure proceedings, as I recall, filing for bankruptcy also can stay a lot of these civil litigation cases):
"DATED this 23rd day of June, 2023.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
By: /s/ Jordan T. Smith
Jordan T. Smith, Esq., Bar No. 12097
Brianna Smith, Esq., Bar No. 11795
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiff"
Here's the gravamen of the Compliant:
"FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Appropriations Clause of the United States Constitution.
45. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates all of the allegations contained in the
preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
46. The Supreme Court has recognized a cause of action for equitable relief to redress
constitutional violations by federal officials, particularly those that violate separation of powers
principles. See Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 491 n.2 (2010).
47. Additionally, the Administrative Procedure Act requires the Court to hold unlawful
and set aside any agency action that is "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or
immunity" or "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(B). Similarly, the Declaratory Judgments Act empowers the Court to
"declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration,
whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
48. FHFA is an agency of the United States.
49. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution provides, "No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]"
The power of the purse belongs solely to Congress. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 1 ("[a]ll legislative
Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.").
50. Contrary to this constitutional command, HERA and 12 U.S.C. § 4516 provide that
the FHFA shall be funded through assessments from the entities that it regulates rather than from
an appropriation passed by Congress and signed by the President.
51. FHFA's Director unilaterally sets the amount of assessments and establishes its
own budget without congressional oversight or any democratic accountability.
52. The Supreme Court has recognized that "FHFA is not funded through the ordinary
appropriations process." Collins, 141 S. Ct. at 1772.
53. FHFA openly admits that it is a so-called non-appropriated entity and does not
receive any appropriated funds from Congress.
54. FHFA's unilateral self-funding initiative is a permanent power and is not
temporally limited as it should be.
55. The 2008 Congress that enacted HERA cannot purport to tie the hands of all future
Congresses to exercise oversight over the FHFA. Congress cannot simply delegate or cede the
power to budget, raise, appropriate, or spend money entirely to an executive agency.
56. Accordingly, FHFA's self-funding structure cannot be reconciled with the text,
structure, and history of the Appropriations Clause or the Supreme Court's separation-of-powers
precedent, including the Nondelegation Doctrine.
57. HERA and, specifically, 12 U.S.C. § 4516 violate the Appropriations Clause, the
Separation of Powers, and/or the Nondelegation Doctrine by allowing FHFA to self-fund and
unilaterally spend public money without an appropriation from Congress. As a result, 12 U.S.C. § 4516 and related portions of HERA must be declared unconstitutional and unlawful.
See also 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2).
58. All FHFA actions taken without a constitutional appropriation from Congress are
void, unlawful, and must be set aside.
59. FHFA's efforts to control, manage, supervise, direct, and/or fund the foreclosure
on Plaintiff's Property are unconstitutionally funded and without a constitutional appropriation.
Therefore, the foreclosure action constitutes unconstitutional agency action and it is void,
unlawful, and must be set aside.
60. As described above, FHFA's directing, supervising, controlling, managing,
funding, and/or otherwise participating in the foreclosure action against Plaintiff without a proper
appropriation violates the Appropriations Clause, Separation of Powers, and the Nondelegation
Doctrine. The FHFA's action – and all those that are caused by and flow from it – must be
declared unlawful, enjoined, and set aside."
Thoughts?
When I worked at Fannie Mae (88-93), they would actually fly the original Mortgage Notes into Dulles airport and store them in a huge storage facility nearby.
Today, I think it is all digital (although I imagine the original Mortgage Notes have to be stored somewhere).
If you ever read a MBS Prospectus, you will see that Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is the trustee of the MBS Pool of mortgages, on behalf of the beneficiaries, the MBS Investor(s).
When a mortgagor defaults on their mortgage, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (since they have guaranteed the timely payment of the Mortgage principal and interest payments to the MBS Investor) have the Mortgage Servicer initiate foreclosure proceedings.
Here, the Nevada mortgagor is claiming that the Fannie Mae foreclosure is improper since the FHFA (who has 'stepped into the shoes' of Fannie Mae as CONservator) is Unconstitutional.
Do Not, check out how long this guy avoided foreclosure while someonelse was paying the mortgage interest, real estate taxes, and hazard insurance while he was living there. Illinois and California are also delinquent mortgagor friendly states...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/05/01/ny-man-dodges-eviction-for-20-years-living-in-foreclosed-house/amp/
"A Long Island man who only ever made one mortgage payment has deftly used the courts to stay in the house for 23 years — for free, according to legal papers."
The King can do No Wrong !
Here, Fannie Mae is taking the house (that's what happens when you don't pay the Mortgage!) and the delinquent mortgagor is claiming that Fannie Mae's foreclosure is Unconstitutional.
This case challenges a Nevada foreclosure, stating that the FHFA funding structure is Unconstitutional.
"Daisey Trust sued FHFA yesterday, and a copy of the complaint is attached to this e-mail message. Daisey complains FHFA’s self-funding structure is unconstitutional because it violates the Appropriations Clause. Daisey wants the U.S. District Court in Nevada to halt or delay a residential foreclosure proceeding."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DAISEY TRUST, by and through its trustee,
Eddie Haddad,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY;
SANDRA L. THOMPSON, in her official
capacity as the Director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency,
Defendants.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. Article I of the Constitution states, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury,
but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]" But, in 2008, Congress created the
Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") as an "independent" agency that is wholly outside the
constitutional appropriations process. Rather than receive funding through bills enacted by
Congress and signed by the President, FHFA is self-financed through assessments collected from
the entities it regulates. Thus, FHFA generates its own slush fund out of which it unilaterally sets
its own budget and spends money without any congressional oversight, including funding its
operations like the foreclosure of Plaintiff's property. FHFA's structure violates the plain text,
framework, and history of the Appropriations Clause and its underlying separation-of-powers
principles that date back to the Founding. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court currently has
pending before it a similar question regarding the constitutionality of another federal agency (the CFPB) that funds itself outside the normal appropriations process. See CFPB v. CFSA,
No. 22-448 (cert. granted Feb. 27, 2023).
Therefore, FHFA's self-funding structure must be declared unconstitutional and all
unconstitutional actions that flow from it – including the pending foreclosure sale – must be
declared unlawful, set aside, and enjoined. At minimum, the Court should enjoin the pending
foreclosure until the Supreme Court provides guidance on this question."
https://www.glenbradford.com/2023/06/fnma-fanniegate-1289/
"Housing's performance is a testimony to the strength of demographic-related demand in the face of Baby Boomers aging in place and Gen-Xers locking in historically low rates, both of which have helped keep housing supply at historically low levels. Homebuilders continue to add to that supply, but years of meager homebuilding over the past business cycle means the imbalance will likely continue for some time. We do expect housing will be supportive of the overall economy as it exits the modest recession.”
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/mixed-data-complicates-economic-forecast-though-recession-remains-likely
In the Lamberth trial they showed a chart that demonstrated steady and consistent dividends for DECADES, then since September 2008, NOT A DIME!
The Government's CASH DIVIDEND IN 2013: $100B PLUS!
Outrageous!
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-releases-may-2023-monthly-summary
•Fannie Mae's Guaranty Book of Business increased at a compound annualized
rate of 1.7% in May.
•The Conventional Single-Family Serious Delinquency Rate decreased 2 basis
points to 0.56% in May.
•The Multifamily Serious Delinquency Rate increased 2 basis points to 0.40% in
May.
•As of May 31, 2023, Fannie Mae's maximum exposure to Freddie Mac collateral
that was included in outstanding Fannie Mae resecuritizations was $226.0 billion.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Fannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) acting as conservator, since September 6, 2008.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/27/home-prices-rose-for-third-straight-month-in-april-sp-case-shiller.html
“The ongoing recovery in home prices is broadly based,” Craig Lazzara, managing director at S&P DJI, said in a release."
I don't think it's that easy, plus there's zero signs of movement toward that end currently. Pretty sure you could describe the current FHFA's and UST's tenure as simply "letting the US Congress decide on the future of the US Housing Finance Market", while they hand out political subsidies to their targeted political base and allow the gses to build much needed capital organically.
Will that be until 11/05/2024 or 11/28?
There may or may not be political issues ("They're Socialist's!", is what their political adversaries will say) and Seperation of Powers/Legal issues with the "Cashing out the LP for big boatloads of cash for Uncle Suggy and applying the proceeds to the latest administration's targeted voting base." motivation to end the 15 year CONservatorships.
The Status Quo is the way to go and allows whatever political party is in power to hand out subsidies to their targeted voter base.
I mean who cares about a bunch of 'evil mortgage banksters/hedge fund guys'?
How many are left, a couple thousand?
After all, most Americans and probably politicians and Judges believe that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the Great Financial Crisis anyway, right?
Cheers! HeeeeHeeee !
Here's a crazy idea, FOLLOW HERA AND RELEASE THE TWINS!
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/24/costcos-buck-fifty-hot-dog-and-soda-combo-went-viral-and-became-a-t-shirt.html
“If you raise the [price of the] f---ing hot dog, I will kill you.”
Jim Sinegal
FOUNDER OF COSTCO
The shirts start at $22.95, equivalent to the price of 15 hot dog and soda combos.
Jacob, who says the design is a best-seller for his side hustle, thinks..."
https://eatonprintshop.com/products/costco-hot-dog-combo-quote-on-back
I think this Fall term we will begin to see some forward progress.
It appears that there is some bipartisan support for the 5th Amendment in the US Congress as the left AND right came together to finally reign in federal government overreach when the feds confiscate private property (including CASH) during Criminal Proceedings.
From todays WP:
"House Judiciary Committee members last week unanimously approved proposed legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture, a policy that allows police to confiscate personal property from a person who has not been convicted or even charged with a crime.
"Despite the partisan gridlock of Washington, it is still possible to move forward with significant bipartisan reforms," Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said by email of the 26-0 vote. He has been trying to overhaul asset forfeiture since 2014. "With the FAIR Act's unanimous passage at the Judiciary Committee, we have more momentum to not only pass this important bill in the House but pressure the Senate to take it up and get it to the President's desk." He co-sponsored the legislation with Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.).
FAIR stands for Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration, a reference to the Constitution's directive that no person should be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Under the legislation, only federal courts could impose civil forfeiture. Administrative forfeitures that lack judicial protections would be prohibited. Feds would have to prove individuals knew or should have known their property was related to a crime, instead of the lower standard that the property probably was connected to wrongdoing. The bill would stop financial forfeiture incentives by sending proceeds to the Treasury's general fund instead of to law enforcement agency budgets.
It would also end "equitable sharing," which allows state and local police on a case to have federal law enforcement seize property, with the feds then sharing the take with the police agencies. The Institute for Justice, which has long fought forfeiture practices, said sharing allows police to evade "more-restrictive civil forfeiture laws that state legislatures have passed to protect their citizens' property rights."
A broad coalition of 15 disparate organizations, including the Institute for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Goldwater Institute and the NAACP, urged approval of the bill. Their letter said "this system is unjust on its face, has a disproportionate impact on poor and otherwise disadvantaged communities, and undermines public respect for law enforcement."
The record is replete with law enforcement at all levels taking property without due process. The FAIR Act combines Republican rejection of big government overreach with Democratic opposition to oppressive police practices.
This "lawless seizure and civil 'forfeiture' of people's private property by police officers is becoming standard operating procedure in many parts of the country," Raskin said. "Our bipartisan legislation is rooted firmly in the Constitution and is receiving tremendous support because it restores the presumption of innocence, fair judicial process, property rights and the opportunity of citizens to be heard."
"Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), the bill’s sponsor, told the Washington Examiner that both parties have weaponized the rulemaking process. Her legislation would require that every new “major rule” proposed by federal agencies be approved by the House and Senate before going into effect.
“Today, I think people can all agree, regardless of what political affiliation you have, that there is a new fourth branch of government, and it’s the regulatory regime,” she said."
Also, without single party control of the Legislative and Executive Branch, HERA's transfer of budgeting authority to the FHFA neuters the US Congressional "Power of the Purse" over the FHFA.
"And it was in 1976, in the Virginia State Pharmacy Board case, that for the first time a law banning commercial speech was held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional based on the First Amendment."
https://law.yale.edu/isp/initiatives/floyd-abrams-institute-freedom-expression/commercial-speech-and-first-amendment/commercial-speech-and-first-amendment-2020
https://freddiemac.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/freddie-mac-multifamily-apartment-investment-market-index-rises
"Property price performance was mostly negative, and prices nationally contracted by -7.2%. This is the first annual decline in property prices since the second quarter of 2010."
UST: "That's why we are taking all your profits into perpetuity, for a line of credit."
Pipe Dream! No way, the US Government would have to play with American Families largest asset on their Balance Sheet and "the total value of U.S. homes was $45.3 trillion at the end of 2022,"
https://themreport.com/news/data/02-22-2023/total-value-of-u-s-homes#:~:text=The%20total%20value%20of%20U.S.,a%20new%20report%20from%20Redfin.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I'm still only about 1/3 of the way through reading Kelly's filing, but he seems to be a unique JPS Shareholder for sure.
Could end up being an interesting piece of litigation especially if he can uncover more Discovery involving the intra governmental motivations behind the Nationalization of the GSE'S.
Nice win the other day for the Pacific Legal Foundation in the Takings case and good press coverage as well.
I like this Kelly argument, he was apparently the Sole Shareholder of fbop and is alleging that the federal government initiated a taking of his fbop corporation and almost all its subsidiary banks when they declared that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac JPS IS NO LONGER TIER 1 CAPITAL, THEREFORE YOUR BANK IS INSOLVENT AND WE ARE TAKING YOUR BANK.
I think I got that right. Anyone else reading the filing? (I added bold):
"Reflecting that fundamental difference, Washington Federal’s decision is limited to cases
that involve claims of diminished stock value. See, e.g., Washington Fed., 26 F.4th at 1268.
There was neither an examination of the legal viability of a constitutional taking claim where the
compensable property interest constitutes all of the banks’ assets, nor any analysis of how the
nature of an investment-backed expectation fundamentally changes under those circumstances.
Yet the Government improperly seeks to have the Court treat this threshold motion to
dismiss as a summary judgment proceeding and doubles down by arguing that Washington
Federal stands for the broad proposition and factual conclusion that Plaintiffs here had no
reasonable investment-backed expectation. Mot. at 24; see A&D Auto, 748 F.3d at 1159 (“…to
support a claim for a regulatory taking, an investment-backed expectation must be reasonable.”
(citing Cienega Gardens v. U.S., 331 F.3d 1319, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The Government is
wrong. Assessing the reasonableness of a plaintiff's expectations “is an objective, but fact-
specific inquiry into what, under all the circumstances, the [plaintiff] should have
anticipated.” Id., 331 F.3d at 1346; see id. at 1348–53 (engaging in extensive analysis of whether
“a reasonable developer in the [plaintiff's] circumstances” would have held the same
expectations). In other words, this is a factual dispute that will be the subject of litigation and
cannot be so cavalierly dismissed. The Government’s bootstrapped reliance upon Washington
Federal’s references to Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) and Golden Pac. Bancorp v.
United States, 15 F.3d 1066 (Fed. Cir. 1994), is similarly misplaced. Neither of those cases
address the investment-backed expectations of banks that were induced to invest their critical
Tier 1 Capital Reserves in the GSEs and then lost those reserves, and all of their other valuable
assets, due to the Governmental taking. Rather, the cases all addressed the expectations of the
ordinary shareholders that had simply invested in banks. Washington Federal neither governs
nor forecloses Plaintiffs’ takings claims."
The Kelly Compliant shows just how badly the federal government has abused its power and harmed the fbop Shareholder.
"Moreover, in making this argument, the Government grossly
misrepresents the factual allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
First, the Government argues that Plaintiffs’ taking claims, as in Washington Federal, are
premised upon the alleged illegality of the 2008 conservatorship. See Mot. at 23. To the
contrary, Plaintiffs make no claims asserting the illegality of the conservatorship."
"Next, the Government tries to sidestep Plaintiffs’ allegations by conflating the concepts
of coercion and illegality. Mot. at 24 (“…the takings claims continue to rest on the premise that
the appointment of the FHFA as conservator was coerced and unlawful.”). Indeed, Plaintiffs’
amended—and detailed—allegations do depict coercion which is, of course, distinct from
illegality. Plaintiffs’ allegation of coercion simply addresses the fact that the taking alleged was
“government action.” When the action that constitutes the taking is compelled by the
government, then the government can be held liable for the taking. See A&D Auto Sales, Inc. v.
U.S., 748 F.3d 1142, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The line between coercion (which may create
takings liability) and persuasion (which does not create takings liability) is highly fact-specific
and hardly simple to determine.”); see also Turney v. United States, 126 Ct. Cl. 202, 214 (Ct. Cl.
1953) (finding coercion where an embargo placed “irresistible pressure” on the plaintiffs to turn
the property over to the United States, [and] it created a taking).
Finally, the Government posits, under Washington Federal, that Plaintiffs cannot assert
any taking claims based on the imposition of the conservatorship as a matter of law—even if the
conservatorship is assumed lawful. Mot. at 24. This is incorrect."
"Plaintiffs in
this case, however, have pled an alternative cause of action: a taking of private property by
government action for a public purpose without just compensation in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. This government action, which occurred after enticing Plaintiffs into purchasing
GSE preferred shares as Tier 1 Capital, imposed a conservatorship on the solvent and profitable
GSEs, destroyed the value of the Tier 1 Capital GSE shares, which rendered the Plaintiff Banks
insolvent, and confiscated Plaintiffs’ compensable property interest in the banks and all of their
assets through that insolvency. This compensable property interest was not alleged by the
Washington Federal plaintiffs. But here, that compensable property interest is the very
gravamen of Plaintiffs’ taking claims. Compare No 1:13-cv-00385, ECF No. 70 at ¶¶ 17-19 with
FAC ¶¶ 139-156."
Nice Filing Kelly!
Just like, 'Corn Pop', THAT UNCLE SUGGY IS A BAD DUDE! !
"On September 7, 2008, the conservator transferred his authority and exclusive right to
terminate the conservatorship under HERA to the Department of Treasury. FAC ¶ 90. This direct
action was, in effect, a nationalization of the GSEs. See FAC ¶¶ 6, 67."
"Through this forced “nationalization,” the GSEs stopped operating for the benefit of their
shareholders, and the Government took for a public use the rights, protections, and duties that
adhered to the ownership of the GSE preferred shares. As of September 2008, the FHFA, as
conservator, succeeded to all of the power and authority of the Board of Directors, management
and the shareholders (FAC ¶ 165); the conservator delegated authority to a newly constituted
Board of Directors (FAC ¶¶ 143, 182); the conservator retained overall management authority (FAC ¶ 165); and shareholders no longer had voting rights (FAC ¶ 165).
The conservator transferred to Treasury the authority to end the conservatorship and then
proceeded to restructure the GSEs so that the Government controlled management of the GSEs
and redirected the GSEs’ focus from maximizing shareholder value to providing liquidity,
stability, and affordability in the mortgage market. FAC ¶¶ 78-93. As a result of this taking, any
investment in the GSEs that were a part of a bank’s Tier 1 Capital evaporated. FAC ¶¶ 101, 107.
As a result of this loss of Tier 1 Capital, seven of the nine Plaintiff Banks were unable to
meet their capital requirements and the Government placed them into receivership. FAC ¶¶ 114,
127. While the other two FBOP subsidiary Plaintiff Banks remained solvent, the Government
invoked a rarely used authority to place them in receivership as well. FAC ¶ 128. The result was
that the Government took all of the assets of all of the Plaintiff Banks. FAC ¶¶ 129-130."
Kelly Compliant filed today.
"The Government then managed
and used the GSEs to avert an economic meltdown by keeping mortgage financing available,
which stabilized markets and protected taxpayers: a Government taking for the benefit of a
critical and clearly public purpose. However, when the Government assumed control of the
GSEs, it seized Plaintiffs’ Tier 1 Capital as well, leaving the Plaintiff Banks insolvent. Once
insolvent, the Government put the banks into receivership, thereby taking all of the remaining
assets of the Plaintiff Banks as well.
But no matter how benevolent the public purpose, the Fifth Amendment “prevents the
public from loading upon one individual more than his just share of the burdens of government
and says that when he surrenders to the public something more and different from that which is
exacted from other members of the public, a full and just equivalent shall be returned to
him.” Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U.S., 148 U.S. 312, 325 (1893).
Despite singlehandedly—and involuntarily—forfeiting their privately owned property for
the greater public good to save the U.S. economy, Plaintiffs have yet to be justly compensated
for their sacrifice. The glaring injustice here is that Plaintiff Banks were solvent, and held no
distressed assets or failing sub-prime mortgages, because they never engaged in such risky practices. Yet, the Government took them, and caused them to sacrifice everything, to save a
financial system on the brink of ruin caused by others who lacked the same moral and fiscal
responsibility.
This case exemplifies the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Neither this Court—
nor any court for that matter—has encountered a case like this."
15+ year CONservatorships = Involuntary Shareholder Servitude.
FREE THE TWINS!
FREE THE TWINS!
FREE THE TWINS!
"Revenue for FY 2022 was 5 percent less than FY 2021
due to lower assessments for legal and financial
services related to efforts to develop a plan to end the
conservatorships of the Enterprises. FHFA’s summary
costs and revenue are reflected in the Statements of Net
Cost for FY 2022 and FY 2021 as presented in Table 5."
Source: FY 2022 PERFORMANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT | pg. 24
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
Ronald Reagan
Tags: scope-of-government
Pg. 98, 2022 FHFA Report to Congress: "Housing Finance Reform ................... 98"
"It remains
with Congress to determine the structure of the
Enterprises and the secondary mortgage for the post conservatorship environment."
Pg. 87, "...$317.5 million..."
2022 Annual Assessment to fund the FHFA for 1 year.
So much 'smoking gun' evidence has already been excluded from the Jury. The Jurors are not receiving a clear picture of what transpired at the UST and Demarco testifies that he never put much thought or analysis from his senior management into the signing off of the Net Worth Swipe.
"So decades go by and NOTHING HAPPENS!", MM 3:33:
https://www.podplay.com/podcasts/the-vivek-show-1088900/episodes/unmasking-the-bureaucracy-philip-howard-on-the-administrative-state-144084883
Yellen, "We want to work on that with the Congress...."
Translation: "Not on my watch..."
Was Demarco a rung below James Lockhart, hand selected by James Lockhart and sitting in the FHFA Acting Director's Chair for YEARS?
AND THEN HE SIGNS OFF ON GIVING AWAY THE 2 CORPORATIONS PROFITS INTO PERPETUITY TO THE US GOVERNMENT?
This whole 15 year CONservatorships is a frickin joke...
Hang in there FOF, very few (less than 1%?) of Petitions for a Writ of Certerrori are routinely granted.
Demarco was the Acting and NON SENATE CONFIRMED FHFA Director for years.
After the August 17, 2012, Net Worth Swipe signed off by Demarco, as I recall, there were calls for OBama to fire him.
O'Bummer said he couldn't.
According to the US Constitution, these Federal Agency Heads wielding significant powers over American Businesses and the American People are suppose to be POTUS Nominated AND SENATE CONFIRMED.
Was Demarco ever nominated by a POTUS?