Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

Quote:
________________________________________
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.

Please read point 269:
269. Before Fannie was placed into conservatorship on September 6, 2008, FHFA and Treasury unambiguously offered to place Fannie into conservatorship by consent, under Section 4617(a)(3)(I), with certain conditions described below, and the board of directors accepted this offer. FHFA made no finding of insolvency, undercapitalization, or any other ground to impose conservatorship under Section 4617(a)(3)(A)-(H) or (J)-(L) without Fannie’s consent.

It reads as: Before Fannie was placed into conservatorship on September 6, 2008, FHFA and Treasury Forced Fannie into conservatorship by forced consent, the board was forced to accept this offer. The FHFA did not find anything of insolvency, undercapitalization, or any other ground to impose conservatorship, so FHFA entered on a coercion basis, because without Fannie’s forced consent it was not possible.

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.

I have repeatedly replied to your accusations, please note your point of view is only one of the many, it nowhere states you are correct, you often miss the complete picture and are drown in one particular word, and you don’t have to read my messages, I repeatedly provided other thoughts outside the government’s view, somehow we differ in opinion,Please read http://ling.ucsd.edu/~schane/law/ambiguity.pdf
And come to the conclusion that words can be interpreted various ways

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.

and I’m under the impression that if something is found in the discovery that is illegal, it will be stopped immediately forced or voluntary, that’s how the law 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.

But again if something is found in the discovery process that is illegal for instance the forced entry of FHFA into FnF, it can and will to be stopped, in or out of the lawsuits, if it is illegal it can and will stop

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.

Yes you can, we differ in opinion

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

You just fail to see the consequences of the actions taken