Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Justice Alito flagged the Separate Account plan, stressing the rehabilitation of FnF as prerequisite (adding: the Marxist way) in his interpretation of the FHFA-C's Incidental Power he based his opinion on. Although he didn't mention it, this "Rehab" is captured in the "authorized by this section" in the same sentence he was reading (the Rehab power), as explained by judge Willett in the prior en banc ruling, 5th Cir.: "Authorized by this section means any action within the conservator's enumerated powers".
This is why it's considered that both were synchronized.
You can read both quotes here.
You should have learned what Rehab means before filing your lawsuits, first with judge Lamberth (You were allowed to change the defendants in the Appellate Court to claim that the management should have stored the dividend on your non-cumulative dividend JPS) and now with judge Sweeney.
Also, you should have learned that they were interpreting an Incidental Power, that, by definition, are actions that help to fulfill the main power.

The rehabilitation in a financial company is related to restoring capital levels (Soundness) and related to the level of debt (Solvency. SPS, a debenture too). That is, put FnF in a sound and solvent condition (the FHFA-C's power)
This is why a dividend is restricted in the law FHEFSSA when a company is undercapitalized: it reduces the core capital. So, a breach of the FHFA-C's Power.
Also, you should have learned that a dividend is a distribution of Earnings and Retained Earnings is Core Capital.
You can't rehabilitate a company allowing dividend payments.
Then, in truth, the FHFA used its Incidental Power (any action...) to lie about these capital distributions that weren't actual dividends due to all of the above.
No actual dividend existed, nada, zero, nitchs.
Justice Alito upheld the Separate Account plan. He just tried to fool us with the objective to change the outcome.

You can only play the fool saying that you didn't know what Rehab means, to be relieved of accountability. It won't make a difference.
Others like Gary Hindes, chose to amend his lawsuit and remove the prior references to a breach of the conservator's Rehab power. This is because he was told that he can't challenge the NWS dividend using the FHFA-C's Rehab power as we can read in the screenshot, while defending at the same time the 10% dividend, as both reduce the same core capital and thus, the same breach of the Rehab power he was crying out loud.

This is why the SCOTUS was activated to use the Incidental Power to authorize the NWS dividend, but it failed again when Justice Alito started off his sentence with: "FHFA may rehabilitate FnF in a way....". All roads lead to Rome and the actions through the Incidental Power must be authorized in the Power.
There is only one way to rehabilitate a financial company and he, in truth, was authorizing the Rehab secretly, the Marxist way: beneficial to the FHFA and the public (a lengthy Conservatorship, more extortion of resources out of FnF to boost the finances of interest groups and cronies, etc.).
At some point, the Common Equity currently held in escrow, which isn't in the best interests of FnF as Justice Alito pointed out as well (Today, there is no rehabilitation whatsoever: awful ERCF tables; $-216 billion Retained Earnings accounts that absorb future losses; $302 billion SPS outstanding; Financial Statement fraud), will have to be returned to their Balance Sheet, for the Rehab in the real world, not in a Separate Account (Justice Alito's prerequisite), and then, FnF resume independent operations.

Justice Alito upheld the third amendment, NWS dividend, explaining magnificently that it was done to prevent the death spiral, that is, the 10% dividend prompted more draws from UST, more SPS, a higher dividend the next quarters and thus, a reduction of the UST funding commitment.
A NWS dividend is the fastest speed for the Separate Account plan.
A NWS dividend is as legal as the 10% dividend (an infinite rate is authorized in the 2nd UST backup of FnF. Subsection (g)). And both, restricted. So, quit cherry-picking the dividend rate you want, because for that, we have the original UST backup of FnF, subsection (c), that takes into consideration the Treasury yields as of the end of the month preceding the purchase, estimated at a weighted-average 1.8% rate after applying a 0.5% spread.
Charter subsection (c): any obligation of subsection (b).
Subsection (b): redeemable obligations, such as SPS (Obligations in respect of Capital Stock)
A Separate Account plan has repaid the SPS using the exception (reduce the SPS, which is not a "refinancing option" as you claim, since the same cash required in the law was raised through the double-entry accounting with the increase in the Common Equity of FnF, as seen in my signature image below) to the Restriction on Capital Distributions in the FHEFSSA and thus, we don't have to wait to the SPSPA's OPTIONAL PAYDOWN upon termination of the funding commitment, if the SPS were fully repaid at the end of 2013 in Freddie Mac (image below) and end of 2014 in Fannie Mae, according to the law, which supersedes an agreement SPSPA, if you weren't aware of. So, quit bringing up an agreement between rogue Federal Agencies, because everything is being unwound to uphold the laws in force, and those laws are the FHEFSSA and the Charter Act, as amended by HERA. Not just HERA, otherwise you are covering up the rest of the law that wasn't amended by HERA.

You are a champion of deception, pro se plaintiff.
What's the point in agreeing with my statement that the capital distributions are forbidden (dividends, today's gifted SPS and the payment of damages), if later you agree with the NWS dividend. Deleting with Tipp-Ex "dividend", after NWS, won't change that it was a NWS dividend.
Then, calling the 10% dividend, "10% interest".
Let alone that you repeat on this board with you 30 different ID's: "THE LAW!", when no law is mentioned in your lawsuits.
Boooo!
You haven't responded to my question yet: How is judge Sweeney doing?