Rodney, you need to go back and read my post and contemplate what I am saying. That post is not talking about the NWS but the initial commitment fee in the original SPSPA. You need to follow your advise and read the entire agreement. Especially the terms of the original and the restated terms in addition to the amendments. The seniors and warrants and associated liquidation preference are defined as an initial commitment fee on the part of the seller in consideration for Treasuries pledge to make up to 200,000 billion available. This is a prima facia illegal act according to the Congress in the plain language of the Charter Act. You are stuck in the trap of thinking HERA is the end all be all. Hera is just one part of many laws that were amended in 2008 including the Charter Act. The Supreme court ruled that the actions of the conservator including enacting the 3rd amendment were legal within the narrowly defined statutes concerning the powers of conservator and receiver. Not one Court has ruled on the legality of the NWS or the SPSPA as it relates to the plain language of the Charter Act. That is because no one has bothered to ask a court. Instead they have been asked to rule on the APA, Delaware Corporate Law, HERA, and various Constitutional theories. I predict that when I or someone else files suit, that the case will not go past the district level on merit. Maybe on procedural grounds. Because the language of the SPSPA acknowledges that both parties agree it will not violate the Charter act, if it does then the entire agreement will be null and void. There is also a non severability clause that achieves the same result. Go and read the entire contract. How come Epstein didnt tell us that Congress has a blanket prohibition against an initial commitment fee in consideration of a pledge by Treasury to fund FNMA with cash? This is my last post for today.
