PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Washington Federal, Michael McCredy Baker, and City of Austin Police Retirement System demand judgment in their favor and in favor of the Classes against Defendant, the United States of America, as follows:
A. Determining that this action may be maintained as a class action;
B. Certifying Classes of, (A) for Fannie Mae (1) all persons or entities who held shares of Fannie Mae common stock on or before September 5, 2008, and (2) all persons or entities who held shares of Fannie Mae preferred stock on or before September 5, 2008; and, (B) for Freddie Mac (1) all persons or entities who held shares of Freddie Mac common stock on or before September 5, 2008, and (2) all persons or entities who held shares of Freddie Mac preferred stock on or before September 5, 2008.
C, Finding that Plaintiffs have met the requirements of a class representative and may maintain this action as representatives of the Classes;
D. Finding that the Defendant has taken and/or illegally exacted Plaintiffs’ and the Classes private property in violation of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Constitution;
E, Determining and awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes damages suffered by them by virtue of the Defendant’s taking and/or illegal exaction in the amount of $41 billion, or some other amount to be determined at trial;
F, Prejudgment and post-judgment interest, together with any and all further costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees;
G. Granting all other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
Then on Apr 4, 2014 it was ORDERED in document 44: “As alluded to in the court's February 7, 2014 order, briefing regarding the motion to dismiss is stayed pending the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme. Once the parties in Fairholme file a postdiscovery joint status report, the court will issue an order in this case regarding further proceedings. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.”
Then on Jan-12-2018 following was filed in the Fairholme case 13-465C document 396 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/13-465-0396.pdf On January 11, 2018, the parties in the above-captioned case filed a joint status report (1) indicating that they had completed the quick peek discovery procedure
Not sure if the above 2 was an indication that Washington Federal could proceed or if plaintiffs are waiting on final discovery to get started again, Sweeney said “the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery” which is not “completed the quick peek discovery” but anyway
On Nov 14, 2018 the First Amended REDACTED Complaint was filed https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070.70.0_1.pdf this document states the same prayer for relief as the initial prayer for relief, so let Sum-up the REDACTION is Washington Federal’s (13-385) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT and look for clues in the redactions to understand the scope:
Page 7(4.) probably a report from MS that concludes 'Forgery And Fraud' Page 8(6.) probably FHFA’s August 22, 2008 letters, that state FnF soundness Page 11(11.) probably proofs FnF were solvent and because of false narrative of their financial distress the DTA needed reduced Page 23(46.) probably a statement of Secretary Geithner approving or applauding an increase of their retained portfolio Page 23(47.) probably a journal or financial result that shows OFHEO is flip flopping capital restraints Page 26(54.) F) probably about a statement former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, made about What to Do about Them http://people.stern.nyu.edu/svnieuwe/econvoice_ARVNW.pdf g) & h) unknown context but probably about the flip flopping of capitalization standard, that a week later FnF miraculously became under-capitalized Page 28(57.) probably news coverage that the governments opinion is now indeed undercapitalized Page 28(58) probably about https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-docs/2008-09-04%20FHFA%20Dickerson%20ltr%20to%20Fannie%20Mae%20Mudd%20-%20Mid-year%20letter.pdf That proofs here is some serious flip flopping going on, “and we even put a confidential stamp on it” LOL Page 29(59.) probably proof about (58.) that they openly stated the undercapitalization Page 29(60.) probably a secondary proof of (58) Page 29(61.) probably statement or report from MS that says FnF are undercapitalized while two other letters (to Mudd & Syron) proof the opposite just 13 days earlier Page 30(62.) probably a statement from FHFA’s DeLeo that says FHFA concluded FnF are undercapitalized Page 30(63.) probably the same statement as (62.) but a different part of it with her proving MS also confirmed her undercapitalization fabrication Page 32(70.) probably excerpt of document or email from GT, that says the PSPA has nothing to do with the financial solvency, or is asking reasons as to why they think the PSPA has any meaning in financial solvency Page 33(71.) probably a statement in a document after conservatorship that proves the old BOD thought the terms of the PSPA were too harch Page 33(73.) probably several quotes from officials who at the time said FnF in the future will no longer exist in prior form and a wind down scenario is in place Page 36(79.) probably something from treasury and FDIC admitting the decrease in value of the preferred and common stock value Page 40(88.) the most important one. probably a script from a meeting between the BOD and FHFA/Treasury that proves they entered with Coercion/Duress into the conservatorship (UST00530714.) (later Judge Sweeney quotes this section as death grip) Page 40(89.) probably breathtaking Script that proves ”the highly unusual provision in HERA, that immunized the Companies’ directors against liability for consenting to the appointment of the FHFA as conservator. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(6).” Page 41(90.) probably an agency who has criticism on FnF management and board of directors, it later goes on with the (89.) script and ex Freddie CEO Syron “that the letter was there as a mechanism to bring about a result”. (later Judge Sweeney quotes this as either agree or you’re out”) Page 42(92.) probably proof of a meeting quote or fraise that “Suddenly” the BOD agreed to the terms while all the other documents prove there is still uncertainty to approve Page 43(93.) probably this is about the same meeting as (92.) but goes on with more quotes from either Paulson or Lockhart stating unconstitutional things Page 45(100. &101. ) have no context and are 100% Redacted Page 51(127.) probably a document from BlackRock that confirms Freddie’s core capital only decreased from $37.9B to 37.1B and was not depleted and fannie core capital increased from $45.4B to $47.0B Page 54(135.) probably a document from BlackRock that proof solvency two weeks before conservatorship Page 56(146.) probably proof of the government mantra “we are rescuing FnF because they are insolvent” (while they were not) and proof of all the Smoke and mirrors they used to prove their point Page 62(156.) probably a BlackRock document that proves Freddie’s future condition would be solvent Page 65(166.) probably documents that show FnF could pay the non-market conform 10% interest rate and simultaneously pay down the liquidation preference and be profitable in the foreseeable future Page 65(167.) probably document(s) from discovery or document numbers that show treasury and FHFA knew they would be profitable in the foreseeable future Page 66(169 &170.) have no context Page 67(174.) has no context
I will post the complete REDACTIONS ONLY file later as reply to this post, otherwise it will make this post unreadable
Then we look at the claims for relief that states following :
VIII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE (ILLEGAL TAKING AND/OR EXACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION) https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070.70.0_1.pdf 217. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 218. In imposing the unprecedented conservatorships over the Companies and in taking and/or illegally exacting more than 1 billion shares of the common stock and approximately 597 million shares of the preferred stock of Fannie Mae (with a redemption value of approximately $21 billion) and approximately 650 million shares of the common stock and approximately 464.1 million shares of the preferred stock of Freddie Mac (with a redemption value of approximately $14 billion) without just compensation, the Government destroyed the rights and value of the property interests tied to the common and preferred stock of the Companies held by Plaintiffs and the Classes, nullified their reasonable, investment-backed expectations, and violated the fundamental principles of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution. 219. In taking private property, the Government is required to adhere to due process of law and to respect the legal rights of affected parties. 220. The Government violated the statutory, contractual, and Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and the Classes in taking and/or illegally exacting virtually all the value of the above referenced common and preferred shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they owned, without providing just compensation. 221. HERA did not authorize the Government to assert a conservatorship over either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac at the time the conservatorships were imposed over them. 222. As described herein, as a result of the Government’s legally unsubstantiated imposition of the conservatorships, the Government destroyed the value of the stock held by Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, nullified their reasonable, investment-backed expectations, and violated the fundamental principles of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution. The Government took and/or exacted the property and property rights of the Companies’ shareholders to improperly and impermissibly benefit private parties and public interests in at least the following manners: a. By causing the Companies to assume a significantly increased level of risky mortgages and mortgage-related assets prior to the conservatorships, thus leading to greatly diminished net worth and capital of the Companies; b. By improperly imposing the PSPAs and conservatorships over the Companies under false pretenses with no valid statutory basis; c. By forcing the Companies to assume the toxic assets of other financial institutions following the conservatorships, thus engaging in a “backdoor” bailout of those other financial institutions and lowering the equity value of the Companies; and d. By improperly taking all of the net worth of the Companies. 223. Even when the Government takes or illegally exacts private property to serve public purposes, the United States Constitution requires the payment of “just compensation.” 224. The Government did not pay just compensation to Fannie Mae common and preferred stock shareholders or Freddie Mac common and preferred stock shareholders for the taking and/or illegal exaction of the value of their private property, equity interests in the Companies. The Government’s actions required it to pay just compensation to the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. 225. The Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution protect shareholders from having their property and property rights taken and/or illegally exacted without just compensation. As a direct result of the Government’s violations of the United States Constitution, Plaintiffs and the Classes were injured, including monetary damage, as a direct and proximate cause of the Government’s taking and/or illegal exaction of billions of dollars of property interests associated with their holdings of Fannie Mae common and preferred stock and Freddie Mac common and preferred stock. The Government is liable to Plaintiffs and the Classes for the injury it caused.
So now from the list above we can conclude: 1) violated Due Process 2) no due process 3) violated the statutory, contractual, and Constitutional rights 4) HERA did not authorize the conservatorship 5) conservatorships destroyed the value of the stock & its expectations 6) prior to the conservatorships they demanded an increase in risky loan witch diminished the net worth 7) improperly imposing the PSPAs with no valid statutory basis 8) forcing toxic assets from others into the company was a “backdoor” bailout for others 9) improperly taking all of the net worth of the Companies 10) no just compensation illegally exacts private property 11) just compensation is needed under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution 12) the Government’s violated the Constitution and is liable, as Plaintiffs were injured
Then in the end I’m concluding this Washington Federal case is a total-loss for the government, this is not something that can be repaired either way, if plaintiff loses in this case all the above accusations need to be proven wrong, and that is something they cannot do as the proof contradicting the governments right is already presented(although Sealed) in this case, you will need a deep pockets to settle this case
In ending we can conclude we are waiting on final discovery in fairholme 13-465C, and the schedule in fairholme (due Jan-10-2020) that includes the discovery end date, which will release this case as Once the parties in Fairholme file a postdiscovery joint status report, the court will issue an order in this case regarding further proceedings.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
