Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

When the suing executive and independent agencies of the Federal government and the US Government itself, all of which are protected by an armor of law (i.e. Hera 2008, Tucker Act, etc.) and legal precedents, a plaintiff must have a substantial and provable cause of action to pierce that armor to strike at the heart of any defendant defense while wearing impervious body armor to prevent a damaging counterattack.

Using provable violations of the procedural, statutory, and constitutional laws of APA, HERA 2008 and the 5th Amendment, the injunctive and takings claim Plaintiffs forged an armor piercing sword of the rule of law and thrust it into legal armor of the US Treasury, FHFA and US Government.

The Defendants desperately tried to deflect the sword thrust and to strike back with HERA, the Tucker Act and legal precedent. So far they have failed.

The point of the Plaintiffs swords has already pierced the legal armor of the Defendants and is being plunged deeper into the body of the Defendants who are fighting wildly to pull it out before a major artery or the heart is reached.

Will the judges allow the Plaintiffs' to fully plunge their swords into the Defendants and will they reach the Defendant's heart?

This is where the battle is now with discovery in the US Court of Federal Claims and awaiting a ruling on motions made in the US District Court in Washington, DC.

The wise and well-informed moves were to forge an unbreakable armor piercing sword from a provable cause of action along with wearing an impervious body armor before approaching a formidable foe.

The Plaintiff in the unrelated shareholder derivative case was not wearing impervious armor and the Defendants easily deflected the Plaintiff's easily broken sword with a few swings of the law and legal precedent.

Reference:
Cause of Action
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/27

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cause+of+action