Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[ano]

the summery tells you what happened and when, and the initial prayer for relief was updated and now contains

“additional details, add claims for illegal exaction, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, and style various claims as both “direct” and “derivative.”

a key point is

COUNT XI
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Barrett)

COUNT XII
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Freddie Mac by Plaintiff Barrett)

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, and because this claim is now made in the second amended complaint in 13-465C, it is now in the public territory, that the takeover of FHFA is illegal, as the BOD cannot step into an Implied-in-Fact contract, because of their “duty of candor”
Link to implied-in-fact contract: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact
Link to BOD duty: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/cgri-quick-guide-03-board-directors-duties-liabilities.pdf

did Sweeney confirm if our damage (the taking or exaction) is related to the conservatorship (pre NWS) or the NWS or both or neither or ?

With the latest ruling we are now past the motion to dismiss, on jan-10-2020 the parties will tell judge Sweeney how or if they want to proceed, for what Sweeney so far communicated (mobsters etc), we must conclude she thinks the conservatorship is illegal