InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 9
Posts 1213
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 08/10/2022

Re: FOFreddie post# 752388

Monday, 04/10/2023 3:33:13 PM

Monday, April 10, 2023 3:33:13 PM

Post# of 796792
FOFreddie, I appreciate your contribution to this board.

I am not a Lawyer, and do not claim to understand the in-depth of the Lawsuits. If I am wrong about MR. Thompson, I apologize for that. Why can't MR. Thompson introduce the Charter Act into the argument.? From what I am reading, it's not too late.

Barron put forth this statement:

Quote: “Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Show me any law that allows the Treasury to increase the taxpayers debt to provide the 200 billion commitment. When did Congress amend the Charter Act to allow Treasury and in the future the Federal reserve to assess fees on FNFA not in relation to FNMA corporate debt obligations? The answer to these questions are important. I truly want to be shown I'm wrong before I submit my claim and ask that the SPSPA be nullified.” End of Quote

Reply Quote: “I'll show you one that'll get you sent right out of court, regardless.

28 U.S. Code § 2501” End of Quote

Answer Quote: “The law you site deals with the court of federal claims. This is an Article I federal tribunal created by Congress in the 1980s. The Judges are federal employees with limited terms indirectly answerable to POTUS. No thanks. Shareholders will limit direct money damages to a minimum to preserve their right to have their claim heard in an independent Article III district court.

The 6-year statute of limitations do not apply to constitutional claims.

If Treasury would have left the illegal fee at 10%, then the claim in the first instance would have continued and the 6 years statute of limitations would apply to a common law claim for a violation of statute. But lucky for shareholders Treasury keeps changing the material nature of the fee. Treasuries letter agreement and fourth amendment to increase the LP as earnings are retained is a new injury well within the 6-years.

If the claims are thrown out, then brand new constitutional claims will be put forward. By that point I wont be surprised if a constitutional construction claim of separation of powers on Treasury’s overreach is filed.” End of Quote.

Link to Start of Thread: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171076613