Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Barron4664]

Thanks kthomp19. Sorry, I was saying you were wrong about the liquidation preference not being able to be paid down because it is not allowed in its current form per the charter act. The LP can’t be paid down because it is not valid. It is a charge attached to the SPS and warrants to have access to funding if needed. It is a concrete life preserver. I am aware of section 3. The Funding, but I have come to the conclusion that these sentences only apply to taxpayer debt appropriated for valid purposes as is stated in the first sentence of Section 3. That is my issue. The purpose for the funding is listed in the sections prior to section 3. The purpose of the funding is for Treasury to purchase FNMA obligations or securities. The “Commitment” does not meet the purpose listed in the Charter. If these sentences you quote were listed as part of the purpose of the funding then I might agree with you. The Commitment is a violation of the very statute you quoted because it is nothing more than the establishment of a fund for the GSEs to borrow from, but at the cost (charge, fee) of the LP attached to 1 million shares of SPS. This is prohibited by the charter. Since congress has previously specified exemptions to the prohibition of fees for paying taxes and Treasury’s ability to purchase corporate obligations, then the absence of an exception for the temporary purchase of securities in section G means the form of funding through the commitment was not anticipated by Congress and thus not a legal appropriation of taxpayer debt. I have 6 years from the material change to the LP as agreed in 2019 to challenge the commitment in district court under the little tucker act. There doesnt seem to be a reason not to also challenge the original PSPA agreement just for the sake of arguing based on the supreme 9-0 ruling. Just a couple extra paragraphs, doesnt matter, as The Justice Departments policy on statute of limitations is valid since under their policy, the 2019 letter agreement creates a new injury. No one to my knowledge has challenged Treasury on the Charter Act yet, hoping for some traction there. Thanks for the response.