Cannabis Report
Home > Boards > US OTC > Banking and Finance > Fannie Mae (FNMA)

THE COURT: You know, I thought by analogy,

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgNext 10 | Previous | Next
Hvp123 Member Profile
 
Followed By 23
Posts 1,548
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/29/13
160x600 placeholder
Hvp123   Thursday, 06/11/15 05:29:07 PM
Re: Hvp123 post# 302797
Post # of 466277 
THE COURT: You know, I thought by analogy, it’s
like if I owned a nice house in the country, it’s sort of
analogous to a situation where the government might say,
Well, you still own your house, but we’re going to make
you live only in the master bedroom.

From page 66, line 11:

THE COURT: No. But, I mean, one view of the
case — and it’s not farfetched; it seems plausible — is
that the government took the stock. They didn’t pay
anything for it. I guess 500,000 they paid for it. And
then they pocketed the revenue from the sale. I mean,
come on.

MR. DINTZER: Your Honor, the — so when you say
the term — and I just want to make sure that I’m clear
in my answer — when you use the term “took the stock,”
are you using it just in con- — or are you saying took
the stock as a matter of the Fifth Amendment?

THE COURT: Well, call it what you will. The
government acquired the stock without paying anything for
it and then pocketed the revenue from it.

From page 70, line 2:

THE COURT: Now, I think there are in fact restrictions in
13(3) about what kind of interest the government can
acquire in the company being lended to, but my question
is what incentive is there ever for the government to
follow the restrictions of the law if the recovery is
always going to be zero. It doesn’t matter what
13(3) says. The government can just do whatever it wants
and never have to pay anything.

MR. DINTZER: Well, respectfully, Your Honor,
again, we disagree with your — the suggestion of
interpreting 13(3), but respectfully, Your Honor.

From page 92, line 24:

THE COURT: You know, despite all of the
maneuvering and finessing that went on, nevertheless, if
you look back at the events of September 16 through 22,
approximately, there’s no question in anybody’s mind
that there had been a change in ownership of
AIG Corporation. The people who were the owners and
operators of the company are now out and the government
is in there running the show completely, no question
about that.
So that’s the dilemma I’m having. I’m listening
to your arguments, but nevertheless, in that very first
week, the government assumed control, and there was no
doubt about that.

From page 94, line 18:

THE COURT: Well, I’m just — the premise of my
question was that — well, looking at this maybe
simplistically, we had new ownership of AIG shortly after
September 16. And how can it be that there wasn’t some
sort of illegal exaction or taking for that to have
happened?



http://timhoward717.com/2015/04/28/peter-wallisons-aei-calls-for-reformrelease-as-judge-wheeler-defends-omaha-beach-d-day-vet/


Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgNext 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
X
Current Price
Change
Volume
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist