“Your concept of standing is off base.”
No, its the correct legal representation of standing. Whether “correct” is “off base”...that I couldn’t tell you.
“Ability to sue does transfer with the sale.”
The only time that a sale of goods or services will affect the ability to sue is if there is an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause will transfer with the sale.
“For example in lending arrangements, if a note is defaulted and the creditor sells the a defaulted note at less than note amount, the purchaser is not precluded from suing for the full amount”
Your example is faulty. Standing is a constitutional issue and only comes into play when you are suing the government. Providing an example where you are suing creditors does not apply to the discussion.
“The net worth sweep can be waived / changed by the fhfa at any time and like the making of this bogus third amendments BS could be altered at any time.”
This is a false statement.
“What you have here is that the net worth swipe is only done, if "declared" by the entity. If its not declared its not owed.”
This is also a false statement.
“Since the net worth concept is cummulative, if not declared and paid in one quarter it could be the next. Alternatively, it could be suspended or replaced.”
This COULD be a true statement...depending on the context.
“Shareholders should absolutely, have the ability to sue to adhere to the contractual promises embodied in the commons share rights.”
Shareholders who bought before the NWS?...yes. Shareholders who bought after will likely not have standing to sue.
“What the governement continues to do is a total farce.”
I agree.
Report TOS
