Yes, CLAIMS (generically speaking) are valid. CLAIMS have merit in Sweeney's Court. That was evident in her statements 19 Nov 2019 when she stated (regarding purchase of shares after NWS. This is really a great argument put forth by our lawyers, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hume. Initially, it appears Judge Sweeney didn't see the difference between owning stock and owning property.):
249
23 THE COURT: And what people do after the date 24 of taking is on them, but I won’t necessarily find that 25 they have standing in a Fifth Amendment taking lawsuit.
250
1 MR. THOMPSON: And I would just say, Your 2 Honor, I think stock is different. I agree with your 3 world view, but because of the fungibility, because of 4 the way the capital markets work, it’s -- and because 5 rights do travel, like the contract claim, that’s what I 6 would respectfully ask the Court just to think about is 7 stock different, and we say it is. 8 Thank you. 9 THE COURT: And I’ll get you one -- I just -- I 10 think in my ruling what I may do is include standing. 11 I’ll just have to -- I’m still mulling. I have a solid 12 draft of a decision, but what I may -- I think logical 13 next steps would very well be for -- because clearly one 14 or all parties will be dissatisfied or disagree with my 15 ruling, and certification of questions to the Federal 16 Circuit, I think, would make good sense because perhaps 17 by that time we will have rulings in other cases, and the 18 Federal Circuit can give guidance in this case, and then 19 I’m not guessing. 20 The Federal Circuit can take a look at what its 21 sister circuits have done in similar cases, and it may 22 say -- the panel may decide we don’t care what other 23 circuits have done because this is a Court of Federal 24 Claims Fifth Amendment takings case or an illegal 25 exaction case. You know, I think it was in the Winstar
251
1 cases, every Circuit Court ruled against the Plaintiffs, 2 but in this Court, Judge Loren A. Smith, who was then the 3 Chief Judge, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and he was 4 the one who was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court. 5 So, you know, numbers can give a lowly trial 6 judge comfort, but it doesn’t tell the story. It depends 7 upon the claims and what the jurisdiction is of the 8 Court. So I think perhaps after I rule, and I promise to 9 give you a lot to chew on and mull over and meditate on, 10 I think next step should be certifications of questions 11 to the Circuit. I just throw that out. 12 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Hume. 14 MR. HUME: Thank you, Chief Judge Sweeney. 15 Just very quickly, I wanted to offer two thoughts in 16 response to the Court’s observation that those who bought 17 the stock after the net-worth sweep, it’s on them in 18 terms of -- 19 THE COURT: And I don’t mean they’re evil or -- 20 MR. HUME: No, I know you don’t. 21 THE COURT: -- I mean this whole -- 22 MR. HUME: No, no, I know you don’t mean that. 23 THE COURT: -- this country has been built on 24 people with moxie and grit who speculate and they have 25 foresight and they can find a way to legitimately find a
252
1 place in the market where they can take an advantage, as 2 you will, and be highly successful. And godspeed to all 3 those people. So I wasn’t -- 4 MR. HUME: No, no, no. 5 THE COURT: -- I wasn’t -- 6 MR. HUME: I didn’t interpret it that way -- 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. HUME: -- at all. I interpreted it through 9 the lens -- through the lens of the takings clause legal 10 standards because what I heard, maybe incorrectly, had 11 nothing to do with hostility to the people, but was if 12 somebody buys -- and this is normally, I think the issue, 13 when somebody buys property that’s already subject, say, 14 to a land use regulation. In the context of a regulatory 15 taking, their reasonable investment-backed expectations 16 are going to collide with what they knew when they bought 17 the property. 18 And what I wanted to suggest for your 19 considerations -- consideration -- and, again, the class 20 is sort of straddling this issue because our Plaintiffs 21 meet -- our class representatives meet the definition 22 both ways and we’ve pled the class in a way that covers 23 both, but is this -- the taking -- if it’s per se taking, 24 which we think it is, then the whole issue of 25 expectations about the property being taken isn’t
253
1 relevant. It’s simply a per se taking, and that stock, 2 which really has no rights left to it, they keep saying 3 we still have the stock. We have stock with 100 percent 4 zero right under any circumstances to get anything, no 5 matter how much money these enterprises make. So what is 6 it? It is nothing more than the claims -- the legal 7 claims against that net-worth sweep, and those travel 8 with the stock. And if it’s a per se taking, I think 9 it’s easier to see that. 10 However, even if it’s a -- even if you decide 11 to test this case through the regulatory takings 12 framework, which we don’t think is the correct way, but 13 even if you did, in the District Court, and maybe this 14 will be fought out, but I think it’s pretty clear that 15 the legal standard there is a breach of the implied 16 covenant, which also looks at reasonable expectations, 17 and it looks at what a reasonable investor would have 18 expected before the net-worth sweep. 19 And so I think the standard would still be an 20 objective one of what a reasonable investor would have 21 expected, even if you went the rubric of regulatory 22 takings, but my suggestion was it might be helpful to 23 seeing how the claim would run with the stock if you 24 looked at it as a per se taking, and maybe that legal 25 standard impacts this question potentially.
254
1 So I just wanted to offer that suggestion. 2 THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate your 3 insights. 4 MR. HUME: Thank you. 5 THE COURT: Thank you.
Judge is granting defendant's motion to dismiss WITH RESPECT TO DIRECT CLAIMS AND denies defendant's motion to dismiss with RESPECT to derivative claims.
IN OTHER WORDS.
DIRECT AND DERIVATIVE CLAIMS MUST BE RESPECTED. this is how I read from it.
========================= Not necessarily. If impeachment hearings are successful and President Trump is removed, this will all come to a screeching halt real fast. Rule of law will be ignored. Even if President Trump is not impeached, there's a lot of damage that can be inflicted by rogue Treasury/FHFA/TBTF banks/Federal Reserve/DEMS.
The latest is FHFA desire to hire an advisor from the investment banking community to oversee capital raise. Weren't they the ones who caused so many of the problems leading up to the '08 financial crisis?
DEM policies have been and continue to be utilizing F&F to enhance 'affordable housing' for under-qualified, economically challenged sections of the population thru the politicization process. That can only mean one thing. The lowering of the bar for loan qualification to substandard levels and DEMS have made it clear their intent to accomplish that by maintaining a "death grip" control over the GSE's. TBTF banks and Treasury seem perfectly happy in going along with that mantra as demonstrated by their actions to date, as long as it continues to serve them well in satisfying their voracious appetites for cash.
Also, keep a watchful eye on the out-of-control Federal Reserve pumping $4 TRILLION+ into the repo markets since mid-Sept 2019 to keep interest rates in check. This cannot have a happy ending. We're not out of the woods yet. Watch your six.
Another possible hiccup: A change in presidential administrations with a Democrat in the White House and the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. While the Trump administration is leery of the government playing such a direct role in housing market, Democrats are likely to want to retain control of both agencies to make sure they follow through on their public-policy goals of providing affordable housing (Both Fannie and Freddie were created through acts of Congress).
AI
