Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

in their amended complaint count XI and XII are about the conservatorship itself

Wrong. Reading the entirety of Counts XI and XII shows that the plaintiffs only allege that the NWS constitutes a breach of the implied-in-fact contract that the conservatorships created. They do not challenge the conservatorships themselves.

Yes the allegation fairholme makes in their second amended complaint is conservatorship is illegal (Count XI XII)

You have repeatedly been proven wrong about this. Please quit stating it. Again, to anyone who is reading this, go back and read Counts XI and XII of Fairholme's amended complaint to see why.

Bottom of page 47 to 49 (copy below)

No part of this proves your claim correct. If you think any of it does, point out which part(s) do.

you are under the impression if it is not demanded in a lawsuit an illegal thing can go on forever, while it cannot regardless of the demand in the lawsuit, if something is illegal it must stop, forced or voluntary

Yes, I am under the impression that if a plaintiff does not challenge something then a court won't rule on it. This is how the court system works.

Again, no plaintiff is seeking to have the conservatorships overturned. Not even Washington Federal. It would take a new lawsuit to do so, one you have refused to initiate.

We just differ in opinion, read between the lines, if something is ruled illegal it just can’t go on, illegal is illegal and must be stopped, so if WF or fairholme are awarded with compensation for a breach in implied in fact contract something illegal is done and must be “undone”,

You're starting with the assumption that the conservatorships are illegal, but that is exactly backwards. This would have to be proven by the Washington Federal plaintiffs. No other plaintiff has standing to challenge any events from 2008.

If Fairholme wins a damages award for FnF, undoing the NWS would amount to Treasury sending FnF a $125B check. Nothing more, unless there is interest awarded too.

somehow you keep pointing fingers but without any backup, please explain to me how the consent/duress/coercion can be overcome in a legal way

You can't "read between the lines" when it comes to the law and court opinions, no matter how much you wish it were possible.

All the Washington Federal plaintiffs ask for is money damages for pre-conservatorship shareholders. They do not ask for, and Sweeney does not have the authority for, an unwinding of the conservatorships or any change to the original SPSPAs.

You are also assuming that a finding of coercion is a foregone conclusion. Sweeney found that there was no coercion at all when it came to the NWS in her Fairholme opinion. It is quite possible that she will find that no coercion happened with the original conservatorships, no matter how convinced you are by the limited evidence you have seen. If Sweeney finds that the original conservatorships came about as a result of coercion then this conversation can continue. But not until then.

You can’t probably answer these questions (nether can I), so your arguments become moot

This list of questions will be answered by Sweeney when she decides which, if any, of Washington Federal's claims to dismiss and which to allow to proceed to trial. She has a lot more information to work with than we do, and I expect her to rule on the motions to dismiss for all her other FnF cases (including Washington Federal) soon, so there is no point in me speculating at this point.

Since you are the one who is alleging coercion, though, it is you who should be answering these questions.