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.
True
Agreed. Not saying dems dont share in the blame, but definitely dont own the blame.
As an independent, I guess Im able to actually recognize the blame from both sides.
I do hope we eventually win...but if its thru the courts, we have a minimum of 10 years of fighting ahead of us.
Any time! Just wish it was better news. Haha
What I said couldn’t be clearer.
If you know the type of harm, the limitations are ticking.
You are referencing the NWS, but the NWS is not a cause of action.
Breach of Contract
Takings
Illegal Contract
Fraud
Each has its own statute of limitations and some are ticking but some may not be.
A breach of contract sol is probably ticking since you know when the contract and nws amendment happened.
A fraud sol might not be ticking since hidden documents might show levels of fraud that you arent aware of.
Just saying “I sue over the NWS!” Is meaningless to statutes of limitations.
“So every single quarter the sweep happens resets the timeline - so one can maybe sue for each quarter's draws - that's good to know! “
That’s obviously not what I said.
I wont, cause then I still cant sell! Haha. As I said a decade ago, ill sell at 20 dollars or 0 dollars...whichever comes first.
If the harm is ongoing, how can the extent of the harm be known? That doesn't make sense. If that is indeed the case then the statute of limitations clock hasn't started here right?
If someone stole from you, you know someone stole from you. If someone defrauded you, you know they defrauded you. If someone vandelized your property, you know they vandelized your property. If you have a contract dispute, you know when the contract was entered into.
This doesn't have to be a debate. If you know you were harmed and you know what that harm was, the clock is ticking.
Yes, the statute of limitations has started here for any damages that are known.
ok but back to the substance - he's saying that a judge may have had outside influence from former political favors. But since it hasn't been proven in court it probably won't matter right? Wait how can you prove something in court if the judges are compromised?....... oh my god!!?!?!?! !
Interesting theory...key word being theory. I once had a theory that little elves were entering my kitchen at night and eating all the cookies. Never could catch those little trouble makers though... :(
$200...haha. Yah right. $20 maybe.
I agree...
Though I wouldn't say we are the poster child for "Kicking the can down the road" political catatonia as that indicates that a problem has been identified and the government just doesn't know how to solve it. In our case, I think the government just doesn't WANT to do anything. They are perfectly happy with the status quo.
What if the harm is ongoing?
Irrelevant. The statute of limitations begins when the extent of the harm is known.
Yes the judiciary seems to selectively castrate itself when it is convenient for it to do so. AGAIN I ask. Why wouldn't ever piece of legislation have a judicial review bar?? This is easily the most hilarious line of defense.
The judiciary did not castrate anything. This was a rule imposed within HERA by the Legislative...a right that belongs to them, as has been discussed here 1000 times.
And to answer your other question, I think its quite clear why the legislative doesn't impose judicial review bar on everything...because the American people wouldn't stand for it. But if the American people stopped caring, the Legislative might try just that. Unfortunately, we live in a time where the average person is complacent... so you may see attempted increases in abuse in power by the branches. Time will tell!
Why would such a measured person as this be willing to publicly expose himself to libel charges? Maybe he's not.
The comment you posted doesn't seem like libel to me. I'm not sure why you think it would be. In fact, in that comment, he hasn't made any libelous conclusions at all...or any conclusions of any kind, really.
People are allowed to have their opinions, hence why I said in my previous comment, it is good to start attacks on individuals with words like "Possibly" or "My theory is".
Simple, Mnuchin came on board and saw the billions coming in, and decided to love and embrace the concept of extortion that someone else set him up for as ho him daily routine.
As I said before, Mnuchin isn't going to make his own decisions. He'll do whatever Trump tells him to do.
I therefore change your comment to the below:
Simple, Trump came on board and saw the billions coming in, and decided to love and embrace the concept of extortion that someone else set him up for as ho him daily routine. He then informed Mnuchin to continue the status quo.
That analysis was pulled merely from the causation portion of the standing ruling.
The government was trying to claim that shareholders didn't have standing because the acting director's actions don't trace to shareholder harm because the acting director isn't covered under HERA...only the director is. The court was merely saying that they don't agree with that argument and that the acting director was covered under the same rules as the director.
That comment had no bearing on the ruling of the court for the merits of the case.
This is the crux of the ruling:
Beyond the removal restriction, Congress may impose other
independence-promoting features.142 For example, Congress may:
• Empower a single director or a body of co-equal leaders to
manage the agency;
• Establish fixed terms of service for agency leadership;
• Mandate the agency be composed of a bipartisan leadership
team;
• Exempt the agency from the standard appropriations process;
• Require the Senate to formally approve agency leadership
nominations;
• Establish a formal oversight board that monitors and manages
the independent agency’s activities; and
• Grant the agency unilateral litigation authority, untethered
from the Department of Justice.
While “[t]he Supreme Court has long recognized that, as deployed to
shield certain agencies, a degree of independence is fully consonant with the Constitution,”145 a vast “field of doubt” remains regarding how much Congress can insulate an independent agency from Executive Branch influence.146 In other words: “where, in all this, is the role for oversight by an elected President?”
The court is saying that, while Congress can definitely insulate an agency from the executive branch, and thereby create an independent agency, the idea that an agency can be 100% insulated violates the Constitution...because the Executive Branch must have at least the ability to oversee its own departments in some way.
I can’t pretend to see inside Trumps head as to why he does anything.
But the why aside, he obviously doesn’t want to release them. The actions and words of Mnuchin, along with Trumps silence for 2 years, on something both said would be a top priority before the election, are evidence enough.
Reko you need to step outside the class room and meet the real world. The real world responds to this corruption through out history, it is at the door.
That's easy enough to test....
Please reference one time in recorded American history in the last 100 years where there was corruption where the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch colluded together against the wishes of the American people and that corruption was responded to in a way that resulted in remedy for the injured.
I thought back thru all of history, and the only time I can think of where there was major dissent in the public against the actions of the combined government/court powers was the issue of Slavery which lead to the Civil War. But that's the ONLY example I can think of.
Well they're probably just hiding them from public scrutiny for no reason.
Since this was the only part of your comment that was constructive to the conversation, it's the only part I'll respond to.
The original conversation was about statute of limitation timing...and I was trying to give you examples as to how the statute of limitations may have expired or not. I assume you now understand that the fact that the government has prevented the release of documents does not necessarily bar a future suit based on limitations if a new harm is discovered.
That being said, I have no doubt they want to hide the documents from public scrutiny for a reason. Of course, that reason may or may not have something to do with FNMA. They could be claiming privilege because Trump admits to an affair with Stormy Daniels in the documents for all we know. My point of this paragraph is, the government DEFINITELY has a reason for claiming privilege...its just whether that reason is beneficial to the GSE shareholders is what would decide whether there is a cause of action or not.
Mmm... wouldn't it be better to just Sue and claim the extent of the damage already? I've been on both sides of the litigation and attorneys just sue and throw up some crazy numbers claiming all these damages so they can cover the statute of limitation? I'm so glad I didn't become a lawyer.
Haha, I think this was a joke, but just to be clear... In example 2, Bob didn't even know the carrots were stolen! It wasn't until the documents were released that he even knew there was something to sue for.
That's the point of statute of limitations...time limit from the time KNOWLEDGE of the wrongdoing is acquired.
Ah, yes...no problem :)
In that case, I agree with you. Acting with dual roles as conservator and receiver flies in the very face that HERA intended. I don't know that it is a Constitutional issue, but it is definitely not fulfilling HERAs creed.
It should be illegal and it should not be allowed.
And yet...it is :(
No, the limitations aren't up BECAUSE they were withheld, the limitations were up because they were withheld for so long... the time period to sue expired. Does that make sense? Basically they were able to withhold material information thru improper executive privilege long enough to not get sued. Great! Let me know if that makes sense because that is my understanding.
No, this is not how the statute of limitations works. Statute of limitations begins when the extent of the harm is known. If the documents that create knowledge of harm are not released, then the statute of limitations has not yet begun. The exception is, of course, if the withheld documents do not create any new knowledge of harm.
Basically, to better understand, I offer two scenarios:
1. Bob sues the President of the United States for mowing his lawn without permission. Bob wants the documents of the lawnmower to be released so that he can figure out the extent of the damage. He knows that the lawnmower mowed the lawn at the Presidents request because the lawnmower told him. Bob delays suing because he wants the documents first to determine the extent. Bob's statute of limitations expires. The documents are then released showing that the President did order the lawnmower to mow the lawn. Bob cannot sue because he had knowledge which had started and then expired the statute of limitations.
2. Bob sues the President of the United States for mowing his lawn without permission. Bob wants the documents of the lawnmower to be released so that he can figure out the extent of the damage. He knows that the lawnmower mowed the lawn at the Presidents request because the lawnmower told him. Bob delays suing because he wants the documents first to determine the extent. Bob's statute of limitations expires. The documents are then released showing that the President did order the lawnmower to mow the lawn...and also to steal his favorite carrots from his garden! Though Bob had previous knowledge of the mowing, he did not know about the stolen carrots. Bob can still sue for the stolen carrots.
Clear?
It's a lie when they said one thing to the courts (death spiral) and said something else to each other at the same time (gold age of profitability) and this includes the courts as having a defendant lie to you and then that lie not hurting them in any way and you continue to take them at their word seems like a bad idea to me, but I'm no blessed judge who are completely immune from outside undue influence (sure!).
The only reason any of this would matter is if HERA didn't bar judicial review. Let's not forget that the courts have STILL yet to rule on the merits of the case. Lies don't matter when the courts can't even rule.
here is your help! This guy sure seems like he doesn't know what he's talking about! https://howardonmortgagefinance.com/2018/02/05/waiting-for-mr-corker/#comment-6177
Your link doesn't appear to work for me. Not sure if the link is mis-typed. That being said, if you are referring me to a link that is full of opinion and theory, that is not proof of "favors". There better be hard evidence or you're just wasting my time.
If I were dreaming it would be a nightmare - so far it has - and here you are again attempting to explain it all away!
I agree that it is a nightmare. I disagree that I am trying to "explain it all away". You must live within the reality of the systems we have in place, whether you disagree with them or not. Just because you disagree with my explanation does not make the explanation any less true.
This is systemic issue - you want to know why Trump won? Shit like this is why. This is just one major case. No one believes the rich anymore get it? The internet killed all of your information control and man doesn't Ajit want to help you get that back!
No, this is not why Trump won. It amazes me how often people throw out "This is why Trump won" without fully understanding why. Because why Trump won is not relevant to the conversation, I won't digress. I will stay within topic though and repeat that there is not going to be a revolution over this, regardless of your hopes. As I said, most people don't even know what FNMA and FHFA are.
did I help you at all?
Don't worry about helping me. I have a firm grasp on what is going on. Helping yourself seems more worthwhile for your time.
so why did the court not feel it was NOT able to rule on an agency they were told they could not review?
Wow...double negative much? haha. I THINK you are asking how the court could rule on the Constitutional aspect but not the Statutory aspect. And that, is in itself, the answer. The court found that it was able to distinguish between Constitutional claims and Statutory claims.
seems if a court can rule on this - it can rule on NWS but we have not seen a court do that yet
There is nothing unconstitutional about the NWS, with the possible exception of a Takings claim. Of course, as I've said before...even if shareholders won a Takings claim, they would not like the outcome, I guarantee.
hiding the ball for a decade (sure we improperly withheld these documents but we did it long enough so limitations is still up, so you lose!) - check (wow what a great judicial system)
I'm not sure where you received the information that the limitations would be up because the documents are withheld. This information is not correct.
lying to courts with impunity (death spiral anyone?) - check
I thought we were talking about court corruption. But even if we are talking about non-court corruption, you still have to prove that it was a lie and not a mistake. But I do agree with you...the Trump administration lies with such impunity, that though I can't prove it, I personally believe there has been a lot of corruption there.
judges backing into conclusions w/ no actual logic to get to the answer they want (Ginsberg & Millett) - check
This appears to be your personal opinion rather than anything evidentiary.
narratives being accepted because the actual facts are too complex for the judges or they're pretending not to understand - check
I'm not sure the purpose of this comment. Are you saying that the the courts should not be the ones to determine legality? You are inferring (true or not) that the judges don't understand the facts in front of them. So, what is your remedy...to take the case out of the courts hands? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be Constitutional either. haha.
And, by the way, though the facts are important to decide a case, often the technicalities are not in order to determine legal implications (not always, of course).
connections of political favors directly to judges ruling in the case by a biased 3rd party - check (don't know what I'm talking about!?!? I can help there)
Uhm, yah...you'd have to help me here. Not sure what "favors" you are referring to. Either way, this seems nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
media covering for all of the above - check and check
So, now you are tying in the media to the overall corruption? Is anyone NOT corrupt in your daydream?
what's the actionable outcome when there is no course for Justice that is left to the people? I think you know the answer and boy howdy they're pushing it closer all the damn time.
Well, this took a quick turn from defamation to all out anarchy. haha. Somehow, I doubt the revolution will be over something that most Americans simply don't care about. Most Americans probably couldn't even tell you what FNMA is.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
only libel if it's not true - you don't know either way.
The burden of proof is always on the defendant making the statement to prove it is true. The plaintiff doesn't need to say anything if the defendant can't prove the statement is true. If the defendant can't prove it is true, then it is libel...even if it is true.
I can't see how anyone following this saga maintains that there aren't rampant corruption issues at work.
I deal in actionable outcomes. I really couldn't care less if there are corruptions at work if those corruptions don't equate to money in my pocket. Even if what you said WAS true, and the courts are secretly siding with the government...then there isn't much you can do about it. One of the first things I learned in Constitutional Law class was that when the Government and Courts agree on something, that's how its going to be...case closed.
Therefore, I must assume there is not corruption at work within the courts. To believe otherwise simply means I've lost no matter what.
If you are up to the extended challenge, try and consider the conflict side of FHFA acting in the duality as both conservator and regulator. I think this may well be at the core of the problem and any cure to restore constitutionality.
I assume we are now talking outside of the scope of the ruling, since the ruling does not address any issue of constitutionality about duality of serving as conservator and regulator.
As regulator, the FHFA director is charged with overseeing the operations of the GSEs. As conservator, the FHFA director is able to perform its actions unilaterally.
There is no inherent constitutional crisis from the FHFA director being able to be both conservator and regulator at the same time. As the court ruled, the only limitation is that the FHFA conservator must be subject to Executive Branch authority as long as it also acts as regulator. Basically, as long as the FHFA director is executing law, they must be subject to the Executive Branch. Because they are regulator, they are executing law. Their role of conservator still will insulate them from shareholder influence, and this is not a Constitutional issue.
What WOULD be an issue to discuss is the FHFA's apparent dual role as conservator and receiver. Under HERA, the director should be acting in only one of these roles at a time...but the way this has gone down, he appears to be acting as both at the same time. Courts have been unsympathetic to this argument in the past...though to me, it is an issue that should be addressed. Too bad my opinion doesn't mean much past the time I hit "Submit Post" below.
If Mnuchin brings him a release from conservatorship in administrative form and Watt objects, who would Trump go with? I bet he would support Mnuchin and fire Watt. Thoughts?
First, let's be clear...Mnuchin is NEVER going to bring a release from Conservatorship to Trump. Mnuchin would only consider Conservatorship if Trump TOLD HIM TO. So, the real question here is, if Trump decided to release, and Watt opposed, would Trump fire Watt? And I think that's a non-issue...Trump will never want to release the GSEs.
So, I've now read the full ruling...
The crux of this ruling is that Congress, while able to create agencies with a degree of independence, can not create fully independent agencies that are completely insulated from the Executive Branch.
This makes sense because the idea of an agency existing within the government but not belonging to ANY branch falls outside of the Constitution, which clearly defines 3 branches of government. Even the FBI answers in some way to the Executive, as we saw with the Comey firing.
Under the Constitution, Congress creates the laws and the Executive Branch must execute the laws. It is impossible for the Executive Branch to execute laws thru an agency that they have no ability to influence, and the court has determined that this makes the agency fall outside of the Constitution's creed.
A key portion of the ruling is on page 29, where it says "excessive insulation allows Congress to accumulate power for itself". This is indicating that by insulating an agency entirely from the Executive Branch...an agency that has the job to execute laws in this Country... Congress is effectively creating an agency that only answers to Congressional law change, and thereby is taking a hand in executing laws which is the role of the Executive Branch.
They go on to say that the current "for cause" restriction on the Presidents ability to remove the Director is insufficient to uphold Constitutional separations of power, because "for cause" is a dull tool.
The ruling says that because "President may be stuck for years with a [FHFA] Director who was appointed by the prior President and who vehemently opposes the current President’s agenda", the President should be able to fire the leader of the independent agency. Essentially, why should a President be forced to work with someone that may or may not agree with them fundamentally, in an agency that, regardless of independence, falls within the Executive Branch list of Constitutional duties.
The relief discussed for the violation of separation of powers is to either sever a single portion of HERA or to sever HERA entirely. The court rules that it is clear that Congress would rather have had HERA with Executive Power oversight rather than no HERA at all, and therefore determines the appropriate remedy is to merely strike the portion that removes Executive Power oversight.
What does this mean for us?
Not much...Basically...
-HERA still exists in its entirety.
-HERA has been remanded to the district court to re-rule that the for cause limitation is unconstitutional...how the district court rules exactly is still unknown and could be appealed again if the re-rule goes beyond what the appeals court has ruled.
-Assuming the remand is limited to the appellate court ruling, the President will be able to fire the Director of FHFA at will...if that is his wish.
That is all.
I would never defend libel.
I wouldn’t say the ruling has as much of a profound impact on how FHFA operates as it does on Congress’s ability to establish independent agencies.
As long as Watt continues to keep in step with Trump’s wishes of continuing the status quo, I don’t imagine any changes, really.
I can provide a more in depth analysis of the order tomorrow, as its 3 am and Im typing with one eye closed. Haha
Thanks for the compliment!
I don’t really post much right now cause seems to be the same arguments and debates on repeat...but I do log in about once a week to see what’s going on.
Nothing fundamentally has changed in our position...so I’ll just keep on watching!
There are only four avenues of release...the courts, the President, Congress and Mel Watts. My opinion is that the courts will take another decade to sort this out, the President has no interest in our release, Congress is still trying to figure out how to turn on their computers, and Mel Watt is sticking to the black and white of his mission.
So it will be a while till we have a chance at freedom.
You should be more careful of your use of the word “we”, as it makes your post no more than unfounded bull.
Accusing judges of being paidoff is a serious accusation.
Doing so without evidence is libel.
Haha. I disagree with the first comment.
Agree with the second.
Actually, preferred stock shares a lot of the same characteristics as a bond.
It is often referred to as the child of a common stock and a bond because it shares characteristics of both.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012715/how-does-preferred-stock-differ-company-issued-bonds.asp
Nothing
That 15 cents is of such great discussion is disheartening.
Im somber at 1.55 AND at 1.70.
Its about 6 dollars short of a “good close” imo. Lol
Why? Lol
There would be plenty of investors.
It would be foolish to rely on a potential lack of investors to deny a possible outcome.
“I have seen some plaintiffs complaining that every NWS payment causes damages to them.”
Plaintiff’s can claim whatever they want. Theres no requirement for your case to be good in order to file it. But lack of standing will end it pretty quick.
“If this is true then wouldn't any shareholder, even post-NWS, have standing?”
No, even if this were true, post-NWS owners wouldn’t have standing because the injury has to be quantitative and specific. For example...if I bought shares at 20 dollars and then the NWS dropped the PPS to 1 dollar, I have quantitative and specific damages of 19 dollars per share. If someone else bought the shares at 1 dollar, and then the PPS went back up to 2 dollars, the post-NWS owner does not have quantitative or specific damages. The damages are speculative (if the harm weren’t continuing, the PPS would go up...to what value, who knows). Standing can never be established on speculative damages.
I agree with you in theory.
In practice, it’s impossible to know what will affect public opinion. One thing we do know is that public opinion is to NOT be outraged over the GSE “theft”.
“When a contract gets transfered, what happens to the rights of the seller to sue for contractual violations?”
Contract transferred? I’m having trouble thinking of an instance where a contract can be transferred. The closest I can think of is a novation.
A contract is an agreement between two parties. If one party breaches, the other party can sue.
If one of the parties wants to give up their rights to a 3rd party, a novation must occur which will effectuate the termination of the contract between the first two parties and create a new contract between the 3rd party and the remaining of the original 2. The rights of the original contract don’t “transfer” though. The original contract is terminated and a new contract is formed.
If there’s a specific instance of contract transferring that you are thinking of, please post it and I’ll consider it, but most likely it isn’t actually a transfer.
“When contracts gets transfered all the rights and obligations get transfered unless specified otherwise in the agreement to transfer.”
See above. And to expand, when a novation occurs, the rights are not transferred. The original parties have the rights to sue for any breach that occurred during their participation unless the novation states that all liabilities are released. The new party only will have the ability to sue for breaches that occur after the transfer unless the novation states that the right to sue is still alive within the new party...unlikely since all 3 parties would need to agree.
“With this reasoning, standing should not be an issue here.”
Again...people keep trying to compare unlike things.
I’ll say it again...STANDING TO SUE OVER ANY TYPE OF SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP REQUIRES OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES AT THE TIME OF THE BREACH OR DAMAGE AND THAT THE OWNERSHIP REMAIN CONTINUOUS THROUGH LITIGATION.
This isn’t open for debate because it’s an absolute truth.
Just because you don’t want to accept it doesn’t make it any less true.
“It does not make it legal because, judiciary does not want to judge the illegal acts of FHFA conservatorship.”
Actually, legally speaking, it does make it legal because a judge does not want to judge it as illegal.
Something cannot be illegal until AFTER it is heard in court.
For example, if you kill someone, did you commit an illegal act? You argue that it was self defense. The prosecutor argues it was not. The killing will not be determined to be legal or illegal until the court decides on whether the self defense claim holds water.
Under the same legal theory, when a judge finds something to not be illegal, it is not illegal (appellate courts not-withstanding).
I know that this may leave a sour taste in your mouth, but its still how it works.