Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[rekcusdo]

"Piszel lost his 'ownership' of the 'Golden Parachute' property , because Fannie Mae was put into HERA-Guardianship by Congress - and the HERA bylaws state that original 'Golden Parachute' 'property' would be delivered if HERA decided to deliver it. In Piszel's case HERA did not allow the Golden Parachute - but, did not forbid Piszel filing a lawsuit for 'breach of contract' - which HE DID NOT DO - and lost this ability due not filing within the Six(6) year window - thus losing his ability use the 'Takings' clause. This is where the Appeals court disagreed with the lower court. The Takings clause was not vitiated(ie. impacted in a negative way) by HERA , just that the 'Takings' protection was not utilized by Piszel. "

Ding ding!!! Finally someone gets it.

The only thing I disagree with is your claim that the appeals court "disagreed" with the lower court thru this ruling.

In fact, just like Lamberth, the appeals court indicates that it will not even make an opinion about the Takings case because the plaintiff can't sue for Takings anyway.

Where I think people are getting confused on this issue is because the court says that Piszel could have sued for Takings if he didn't take so long...but that isn't a disagreement with the lower court...it is merely a comment as to Statute of Limitations violations. They do not say anywhere that if the Statute of Limitations weren't violated that Piszel would have been successful in a Takings claim. They only say that Piszel can't bring a Takings claim because the Statute of Limitations was violated.