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.
Donotunderstand,
You seem to be lost. It is about common sense interpretation. Read the plaintiff's court filings.
Why did the Perry's appeals court revised the ruling?
Did anything change from first ruling to revised ruling?
Most people have been paying very big price since 2008 crisis with their jobs, health care, homes, life savings, and much more. FnF shareholders have lost in billions to bailout the others. Why only FnF shareholders have been singled out?
At some point in time the people who caused this need to be held accountable.
You seem to be the only person contented and happy when most people are suffering - how American is that?
Do you believe that FHFA conservatorship has not violated laws and not using judicial bar to shield itself from public accountability through judicial review? Read Judge Brown's minority ruling. How American is that?
Judges really looks silly to rule that judicial bar is lawful irrespective whether FHFA conservator respects any laws or violates all laws or just ignores all laws. In addition, Judge Lamberth also points out at Congress to make lawmakers look like morons to create such laws even though lawmakers created FHFA/HERA modeled after well proven and well served FDIC/FIRREA model. Lawmakers passed HERA at the peak of the crisis relying on FDIC/FIRREA model to solve the 2008 crisis without suspecting that FHFA conservators will ever abuse the authorities granted under HERA using perverse interpretations. FHFA conservators have betrayed the trust of Congress, public and investors.
HERA should have been interpreted so as to avoid conflict with constitution and other laws. But by choosing to avoid common sense interpretation in compliance with constitution and other laws, unnecessary distractions and highly expensive litigations have been spawned. The reputation of the country as a land of laws has been put in doubts in the minds of investors.
It is time for courts to apply common sense interpretation to HERA and conservatorship and end the fake conservatorship.
It is not about being knowledgeable.
It is about how the knowledge is being used or even being used.
In case of FnF, Majority Judges ruled that knowledge/facts are not relevant because of convoluted invention of judicial bar irrespective whether FHFA conservator respects any laws or violates all laws or just ignores all laws.
All have seen how courts/judges work in case of FnF. It looks very scary.
It is a big myth to believe that public servants really work for public, probably it is other way around.
FHFA conservatorship official who are claiming total immunity from judicial reviews need to be impeached or desciplined for violating constitutional principles.
FHFA official acting in this manner have exposed taxpayers and the economy to massive risks.
People were not expecting the revised ruling without hearing.
So this was unexpected and that too on Monday.
Big investors must have known this the moment it was published or even earlier..
Agree. In this case there is undisputed clear overreach by the Majority Judges with the malice against the FnF shareholders. This pattern is not any different than bureaucratic overreach by FHFA consevatorship, but in this case it is by the Majority Judges.
Judge Ms Brown deserves deepest admiration and respect for minority ruling for preserving and defending the constitutional system. Judge brown is a role model example for the honesty, bravery and patriotism in public service. Same thing can also be said about Judge Ms Sweeney. Looks like we have to depend on woman for honesty, bravery and patriotism in a world old boys club.
Probably the ruling was quickly changed because it would have also screwed the bond and MBS/PLMBS holders equally. In the end it would have disrupted the US capital markets with total confusion and rendered all the securities illiquid. Original ruling was mischievous a decision.
Majority Judges need to be recognized for these clearly established bias and overreach. Majority Judges should recuse from future FnF cases.
Clearly Fed's bias against FnF and bias in favor of banking institutions is very obvious. As an independent regulator and monetary authority how can Fed Gov express such an opinions against GSEs (also private companies under FHFA Conservatorship), that have been created for public policy purposes.
It amounts to meddling and influencing the policy makers and FHFA.
The FHFA can not pull off receivership as easily as conservatorship.
During conservatorship FHFA mislead shareholders with false promises to prevent challenging conservatorship.
Shareholders can challenge receiverhsip in court and there is no judicial bar on this.
Saxton Plaintiffs have used this argument in reply brief to Eighth Circuit.
Very well written filing, please read.
One of the main argument is:
If HERA is interpreted under cannon of constitutional avoidance, then FHFA/TSY violated the HERA. But if one goes by FHFA/TSy arguments then HERA provisions are unconstitutional.
rek,
Thanks, But you missed the point, please re-read.
Another question, how is that the constitutional laws that apply to states do not apply to United states.
Is not United States manifestation or sum of all the States?
Should not governing principles of US be model for constituent States?
FHFA seem to be the most ugliest form of governing shown to whole world.
To make it fair justice for all, Judges need to be appointed from diverse group of professionals from health care, technology, banking, finance and insurance, industrialists etc ... for a limited number of terms apart from legal profession.
Rek,
What is your expert legal opinion on this:
"Section 4617(f) - (that is bar on Judicial review) does not apply when FHFA violates HERA"
Plaintiffs should ask court to apply “Square Corners” Doctrine to defendants. FHFA and FHFA conservator have made mockery of bill of rights and justice by using contradictory court filings and official statements at different times and at different forums and still winning the cases hands down. Even FHFA officials have perjured with false statements under oath besides obstructing the justice by delay and hiding documents that are required as material evidence.
If private parties were to do the same courts would have held defendants responsible for perjury and contempt of courts and ruled in plaintiff's favor. Many legal experts have expressed frustration with courts saying that If private parties were to do the same they would have been prosecuted by the Both US/State Govs long time back.
At least for the sake of their country, Judges need to stop siding with corrupt Conservator.
rek,
Is it a good law, when people debate about the meaning of word "may" in HERA?
Thanks, You are right.
rek,
Do doctrines depend on case subject matter?
If it depends on case subject matter then it is a case law not a doctrine.
"Like Scalia and Thomas and Alito? "
Why are you bringing these Judges in FnF matters?
Read clearly, the message was about FnF cases.
"Court rulings are unpredictable, by definition. Since the objective standard can not allow for unpredictability, court rulings can not adhere to a reasonable expectation. "
rek,
Are sure this a good theory?
Currently we have unpredictability mainly because of badly written laws or antiquated laws on books, convoluted labyrinth of court legislated common laws, dependency on english laws and non-constitutional doctrines...
These are also main reasons why court cases have become numerous and there are long delays in interpreting the laws.
If laws are clear and easy to understand and people know the laws for sure, then there is more compliance and less litigations. Taxpayers can save tons of money.
The "insular" judges wrote that facts of the case did not matter because of HERA Judical bar. That is also the main reason why other Judges are dismissing these cases without giving plaintiffs their day in the court.
"insular" :
ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience.
narrow-minded, small-minded, inward-looking, parochial, provincial, small-town, shortsighted, hidebound, blinkered; set in one's ways, inflexible, rigid, entrenched; illiberal, intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, biased, partisan, xenophobic; informal redneck
"insular attitudes"
Probably shorts got 75days notice to unwind the positions.
Guess, during hearing it was made public so that no one can blame that it was insider information.
rek,
Have federal courts ever ruled on “Square Corners” Doctrine?
-------------------------------
The “Square Corners” Doctrine
http://appellatelaw-nj.com/the-square-corners-doctrine/
In FMC Stores v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418 (1985), the Supreme Court announced the “square corners” doctrine. That doctrine says, in essence, that in dealing with the public, government agencies must “turn square corners,” “comport itself with compunction and integrity,” and not “conduct itself so as to achieve or preserve any kind of bargaining or litigational advantage” over a member of the public.
As the Court observed, this means that “government may have to forego the freedom of action that private citizens may employ in dealing with one another.”
rek,
Your seem to be right.
All over the world, Bureaucrats, lawmakers and Judges work together to rob the wealth, freedom and happiness of common people in the name protecting taxpayers (coded word for themselves). These people have unlimited money, legal and police powers.
In US, founders tried to design a constitutional system to limit these powers. But these people have used extensive invented doctrines and convoluted case laws to defeat the system and the constitutional checks and balances.
As you mentioned earlier it all depends on "who is suing".
It is very simple, if Gov sues they win, if common man sues he loses.
Even when common man wins in courts, he loses because he has bankrupted himself in litigating the case.
I posted earlier saying that you are correct.
US Gov contract interference results in taking claims.
rek,
You are right about applicability of "Article I, section 10, clause 1" to only states. It does not apply to US or Courts.
US interference results in taking claims.
Here is a good article by
When Congressional Legislation Interferes with Existing Contracts: Legal Issues
Robert Meltz, Legislative Attorney
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R42635.pdf
"You are mistaken. The Constitution does not protect private contractual rights from Government Interference. It only protects contractual rights from state government interference (Article I, section 10, clause 1). "
Article I, section 10, clause 1:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
You are saying that "United States" is separate from "States" and Article I, section 10, clause 1 does not apply to US. So US can do all these below things:
"pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Do you have any reference to such ruling?
"Again, it depends what the ruling is and who is suing. "
How does "who is suing" matters?
Actually the ruling is about conveyance of contractual rights to next buyers and not about securities themselves. In case of securities the primary and as well as secondary buyers are aware of only original contractual terms at the time of issue. No changes can be made to these original contractual terms by intermediate sellers and buyers.
These are private contracts and constitution protects private contractual rights from Gov interference.
Then how it depends what the ruling is and who is suing?
rekcusdo,
Perry's appeals court for no reasons and on its own ruled that shareholders rights change depending time of purchase without hearing or giving any opportunity to plaintiffs to present their arguments. FHFA is supporting this ruling because it is liable for lawless NWS damages.
Some people argue that NWS is legal because Appeals Court did not reverse it. But appeals court is not the final authority on this. If SCOTUS removes the unconstitutional HERA bar on judicial review and injunctions, then taxpayers will be on hook to payback all the NWS with interest and damages.
1. The question to you is, will not this ruling apply to all the contract based securities including shares, MBS, Bonds, derivatives etc?
2. If this ruling were to stand, how will the buyers be sure about their rights?
3. How are courts going to decide based on day to day changes in investment backed expectations?
It is slim majority in Senate, that gives individual senators added advantage. May be in the next senate elections things may change.
One can argue either way.
Bummer King was very closely involved with Hank and Wall Street that is why title "Wall Street President". Wall street contributed at highest level.
What about lack of transparency and openness involving WH in FnF conservatorship and using NWS to fund Obcare subsidies.
You need to read the opinion of majority opinion to understand the context.
Majority 2 judges used HERA anti-injunction provisions as an excuse to rule in favor of FHFA. These judges did not say that FHFA conservator did not violate laws or did not abuse the authority. Basically they said HERA prevents them looking in to conduct of FHFA.
So far there is nothing for which Shareholders can thank fake conservator. FHFA has never communicated with shareholders or investors. FHFA has only shown eagerness to please short traders, lobbyists and crooks who are betting against American people.
FHFA court filings/arguments are nothing less that treacherous acts to not only citizen shareholders but also the future prosperity of the nation. FHFA has been weakening basic foundation of the nation with lawless dictatorial acts. When a Judge of the second highest court of the court criticizes FHFA for its abuse and lawless overreach of authority, it is time to start investigating the past and present FHFA Directors.
If common citizens were to do the same crimes, all the Gov agencies would be prosecuting them without any doubts. FHFA as an unaccountable independent agency should be held to standards much higher than what common citizens or other Gov agencies are expected to comply with.
At this stage shorting is no less than playing Russian Roulette.
One bad bet can wipe out all previous gains.
For a moment think of how much difficult it has been to reverse health care mess created by the ob. GOP passed repeal bill 50 time during ob administration, but now they are struggling to repeal it.
With so much lawless mess that has happened under ob conservatorship in the last 10 years, it takes time to reverse all these things. MBA lobbyists are still lobbying hard with lots of contributions. Judges have contributed their part complicating the situation. Plaintiffs are now realizing their mistake in not challenging on constitutional basis.
DJT Administration will be focusing on FnF during next few months and there are good chances that it will be resolved before 2018.
If anything goes wrong because of continued lawless NWS and conduct of FHFA resulting in another major crisis, it will certainly end the second term for DJT and GOP.
US economy is dong ok without cyclical major crisis since 2008. So the wall street short sellers must be plotting/yearning for another crisis soon. DJT needs to be aware of this and should not allow another crisis to happen.
MBA lobbyists made all the decisions about FnF during king bummer administration.
rekcusdo,
It depends on who are the parties to agreement. If licensed lawyers, bankers or brokers involved then they need to comply with ethical and legal standards of licensing Gov authorities. No excuse will absolve these people from their responsibilities.
Wheeda,
Thanks for your efforts to detail all the relevant points.
However Please review the below point.
FnF BOD/CEO did not consent for conservatotship voluntarily. Tsy-Hank, fed-Ben, fed-Tim, and FHFA-Lokhart blackmailed FnF BOD/CEO to consent and to resign. Then Hank and Lokhart made false official promise that conservatorship is temporary and shareholders value have economic value in the companies.
"1. Fannie and Freddie entered conservatorship in 2008 by consent. None of the other requirements in HERA were met that would allow them to be forced into consent."
Thank you
rek,
How MBS are different from any other securities like bonds or shares or promissory notes?
How can this be applied selectively to only common and preferred share only?
Looks like the Perry appeals court ruling is changing generally accepted principles and applies to all contracts that can be transferred or traded.
Does speculation violate "Investment backed expectation" principles?