Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Barron4664]

The following is why every lawsuit to date has and will continue to fail. It is called a categorical error. Read and understand. As wiseman correctly states all of these JPS funded lawsuits are doing this:
Since the Chevron precedent, the Courts have deferred to gov agencies on the presumption of correctness whenever a law gives wide latitude to the executive branch to carryout a function of a law that isnt enumerated. Environmental laws are full of this with language such as “as determined by the director”. HERA is exactly this way when trying to change a decision made by the director when acting as Conservator. This is actually a good thing. The problem for shareholders is that all of the JPS challenges are focused on the amendments to the safety and soundness act of 1992 that created FHFA. If you step back to 35,000 ft. You see that the relationship of the statutes involved is as follows. Congress creates the GSEs in the Charter Act. Then Congress creates a regulatory framework for the GSEs in HERA. HERA gives birth to Conservatorship. Ok great so far. Buttttt! All of the JPS lawsuits target actions of a Conservator and they all fail due to the presumption of correctness. This is a failure of the legal strategies. Not a failure of the Judges. If we go back to the Statutes we find that the controlling Statute is the Charter Act. FHFA is a child of this law not the other way around. If there is no GSEs created there is no safety and Soundness. If we look at the SPSPA it is stated that only the Charter Act enables Treasury to enter into the agreement. Not the actions of a Conservator. Further Congress enumerated as Judge Lamberth has said “Clear as Day” that a capital distribution that lowers FNMAs capital below the limits established in the Safety and Soundness Act is prohibited unless prior written approval of the director of FHFA is obtained. This is a direct responsibility of the director enumerated by Congress and predates HERA. If Congress didnt want this in the statute, they could have eliminated it when amending the Charter Act. Instead they changed the the name of the agency to FHFA. This is the proper law to challenge the NWS under. There is no opportunity for a judge to apply the Chevron precedent (presumption of correctness)here. An act of Congress that enumerates a Responsibility of the Director of FHFA supersedes any words on a page of an agreement that violates this direct responsibility. No matter the action is due to conservatorship. This is such a basic fact that I can only assume the attorneys wern’t really interested in reversing the NWS. Does anyone know of any argument put foreword to date in a Court case that argues along these lines? Lamberth would have overturned the NWS sweep on this alone had the argument been made. There would be no appeal because the parties both agree in the SPSPA that the agreement will not contravene any part of the Charter Act. The NWS would have been an interesting footnote on bad government. But instead here we are 14 years later. The money is all coming back.