Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Markus45]

DO WE REALLY HAVE A CHANCE IN FRONT OF A COURT?

We all know: To be in the right is a big difference compared to get your right in front of a court.

I assume that 99% of all readers would agree that the "10% Divident agreement" from 2008 was ok.

If yes, then from a juristic point of view what would 15% be?
And what about 20% or 90%?
And just to make it clear we are not talking about moral.
If we strict follow juristic and mathematic rules, we come to a point where we have to agree it is conservators decision how much "Dividend payment" he takes from the companies. If we say 10% are ok then we have to say 100% too.

In HERA we can read: "The conservator should put the companies in a sound and solvent condition."

Nowhere we can find, "The conservator has to recapitalize the companies."

Are they kept sound? Yes
They are working, every day.
Are they kept solvent? Yes
They can have as much capital as they want from the gov.

Interesting and important the sentence from the HERA: "The conservatorship will end when the FHFA finds that a safe and solvent condition has been restored."
FHFA can keep them in conservatorship for 100 years, and then they can decide if they put them into receivership or put them back to the market.

I like to make it clear again, these all are not my convictions, these are just inconvenient questions to find out,

DO WE REALLY HAVE A CHANCE IN FRONT OF A COURT?

Please keep in mind how fast judge Lamberth made his decision against us.