Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

So What does Fairholme want in Sweeney’s Court ? (13-465C)

now although this sounds like an easy one, as they only demand “just compensation” the difficulty starts with, what has the government done to plaintiffs, to demand “just compensation”, this can mean 2 things, either the 3th amendment prohibited rehabilitation and therefore ”just compensation” should be awarded, or the conservatorship itself was a taking as the complete rolled out action ending at the 3th amendment forbids the companies to be rehabilitated and since they had 10+years to fix the problem, they neglected a problem and therefore “just compensation” should be awarded for the conservatorship itself

Once again, you somehow post all the correct facts while coming to a completely incorrect and indefensible conclusion.

Read #84-88 in Fairholme's complaint that you linked to, which comprise the bulk of Count I. They only challenge the NWS. Sweeney can not and will not review or change any government (FHFA or Treasury) decisions from 2008 for two reasons: the plaintiffs do not ask Sweeney to do this and the plaintiffs do not have standing to do this. The idea that Sweeney can or will change any part of the original SPSPAs as a result of the Fairholme case just plain ignores the law.

this is a catch-22 as both are not legal

The idea that the conservatorships themselves are illegal is only your opinion. It is not an allegation of the plaintiffs.

1) For claim one “The just compensation” it not specified as to what action violated the 5th amendment, the conservatorship itself, or the 3th amendment in the SPSPA only, maybe this is somewhere in the redacted documents or maybe fairholme did this by intent, but sure this results in TOLLING, so future litigation can have standing because the rest of the world only received redacted documents

Absolutely false. First, it is quite clear from reading the complaint that the "just compensation" that the Fairholme plaintiffs seek only relates to the NWS and not the entire conservatorships. To reiterate, the Fairholme plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge the entire conservatorships! Sweeney cannot and will not ignore such standing issues by somehow working a change to the original SPSPAs into a ruling.

Second, future litigants do not magically gain standing due to the release of the documents, whether redacted or not. Standing is not a right and does not travel with the shares. Anyone who wants to challenge any part of the original conservatorships or original SPSPAs would have to have owned shares on the day(s) that the conservatorships started and the original SPSPAs were signed. Full stop, no exceptions.

4) The Breach of Implied-in-Fact contract is also NEW in the second amended complaint and makes the conservatorship itself impossible, while we currently do not know what the demands of the Implied-in-Fact contract are, it doesn’t matter from a legal point of view, the BOD represents the interest of shareholders and they have a “duty of candor” that does not allow a verbal Implied-in-Fact contract, this problem is something the government cannot overcome, and will eventually lead to unwinding the conservatorship itself

Once again this is completely and 100% wrong. This breach of implied-in-fact contract does not make the conservatorships impossible because the allegation only refers to the NWS.

While FnF are in conservatorship, the boards of directors only do what FHFA tells them to do, and Sweeney found that FHFA does not have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. This is why Count VII was dismissed.

What you will be forced to accept, once all of Sweeney's cases are either settled or wind their way to a conclusion via court orders and appeals, is that the Fairholme plaintiffs do not and cannot challenge events from 2008. Your insistence on the Fairholme case, or any case other than Washington Federal, somehow being about the original conservatorships and SPSPAs rather than just the NWS is pure wishful thinking.

The only outstanding case that has standing to even look at events from 2008 is Washington Federal, and they only want money damages for pre-conservatorship plaintiffs.