Conservatorship by definition eliminated any fiduciary responsibility of the company to private shareholders. After that the only defined party in interest was the US government. The third amendment was good for the government, and so the companies met their fiduciary duties. The private shares are effectively worthless from day one of conservatorship, the sweep just institutionalized that fact. So the sweep was in fact perfectly legal.
If you think otherwise, then you are arguing that they shouldn't be in conservatorship. That's not true either, because (a) they were severely undercapitalized at the time and no private investors were willing to fill the hole (in late 2008 the world was ending) and (b) the Charter Acts and other governing legislation provided for conservatorship in just that case. Ever since Fannie and Freddie issued private securities conservatorship was the specified method for dealing with severe undercapitalization. And the concept of conservatorship always (not just with the 3rd amendment) transferred all control to the Treasury, not eliminating the private securities but allowing the companies to do whatever was necessary to protect taxpayers. That was always a risk to investing in Fannie and Freddie. That was the original deal shareholders cut with the government.
I know if you don't understand the history of these companies it's all very confusing, but at least try a little bit? Certainly more constructive than making feel-good rant posts and trying to solidify conspiracy theories.
