Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[FFFacts]

I disagree with that legal analysis. Why? In Justice Thomas's 10 page dissent he said that "unauthorized access" is clearly defined in the definitions section of the Statute, describing EXACTLY what that means, and the officers conduct was therefore unauthorized access pursuant to the definitions section of the Statute and the historical usage of unauthorized access to property. Here, HERA has no definitions section specifically answering what the FHFA Director can do under the "may be in the best interests of FHFA" SO HOW DOES THAT BODE NOT WELL FOR THE COLLINS PLAINTIFFS?

All one needs to do is read the first few sentences of the dissent.

"Both the common law and statutory law have long pun-
ished those who exceed the scope of consent when using
property that belongs to others. A valet, for example, may
take possession of a person’s car to park it, but he cannot
take it for a joyride. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
extends that principle to computers and information.

The Court does not dispute that the phrase “exceeds au-
thorized access” readily encompasses Van Buren’s conduct.
It notes, instead, that the statute includes a definition for
that phrase and that “we must
follow that definition, even
if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning.”
Tanzin
v.
Tanvir
, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 3) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The problem for the majority
view, however, is that the text, ordinary principles of prop-
erty law, and statutory history establish that the defini-
tional provision is quite consiste
nt with the term it defines. :

A person is entitled to do something only if
he has a “right” to do it. Black’s Law Dictionary 477 (5th
ed. 1979); see also American Heritage Dictionary 437 (def.
3a) (1981) (to “allow” or to “qualify”). Van Buren never had a “right” to use the computer to obtain the specific license-
plate information. Everyone agrees that he obtained it for
personal gain, not for a valid
law enforcement purpose. And
without a valid law enforcement purpose, he was
forbidden
to use the computer to obtain that information."

"Foremost, that interpretation is contrary to the plain
meaning of the text. Entitlements are necessarily circum-
stance dependent; a person is entitled to do something only
when “proper grounds” or facts are in place. Black’s Law
Dictionary, at 477
.
Focusing on the word “so,” the majority
largely avoids analyzing the term
“entitled,” concluding at
the outset in a single sentence that Van Buren
was
entitled
to obtain this license-plate information.
Ante
, at 5. But the
plain meaning of “entitled” comp
els the opposite conclusion.
Because Van Buren lacked a law enforcement purpose, the
“proper grounds” did not exist. He was not entitled to ob-
tain the data when he did so. "

Here, HERA has no definitions section specifically answering what the FHFA Director can do under the "may be in the best interests of FHFA" SO HOW DOES THAT BODE NOT WELL FOR THE COLLINS PLAINTIFFS?

Definitions of what?
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf

Sec. 1002. Definitions. provides definitions.