The rebel pro se plaintiff reposts all his thoughts refuted multiple times before, thinking that it will change the outcome.
-No commitment fee was ever assessed or collected. The initial SPS issued for free might well be considered a higher compensation to UST for the SPS, since the subsection (g) allows infinite rate. Then, cancelled due to subsection (c) original UST backup of FnF. The Warrant also issued for free, to skip the prerequisite on purchases of "(iii) to protect the taxpayer" (collateral). So, collateral it is, purchased at $0 cost.
-The SPS aren't new products. It's a security. No activity behind which is what makes a security a product. I explained it to your other you (Barron) once.
-The conservator isn't a trustee.
-The SCOTUS highlighted the prerequisite of "rehabilitation of FnF" with regard of the 3rd amendment. It didn't even mention the NWS dividend by name. Basically, the SCOTUS legalized the Separate Account plan for the extortion of their resources in the meantime. Everything but a dividend, as it is a distribution of Earnings (Core Capital), what rehabilitation is about.
-Shamefully echoing the CBO's take, clueless about the conservatorships of FnF. There is no Nationalization possible during a Conservatorship. Let alone barred in the Charter Act.
-You keep on covering up the laws in force, FHEFSSA and the Charter Act, as amended by HERA. It isn't HERA alone. For instance, the FHEFSSA would declare FnF Critically Undercapitalized as of end of June, 2023. Mnuchin's UST rushed to "recommend Congress to repeal the statutory definitions" (2019 UST Housing Reform plan)
-The repurchase of the SPS in the law isn't a refinancing option as you claim, since the cash required can be achieved through the increase in the Common Equity, which is what has happened (image below)
-You can't understand that a dividend is a capital distribution. Calling it interests to skip the restriction on dividends in the law, doesn't make it interests.
-And what about today's gifted SPS as compensation to UST and your beloved "Lamberth rebate", a payment of Securities Litigation judgment? Both are capital distributions too. Then, restricted in the law.
-A dividend can't possible be paid, out of an account Accumulated Deficit Retained Earnings. A dividend is a distribution of Earnings and you need a positive balance in that account, not just annual income which is the result of operations during a period of time. The actual picture of the company at a determined date, is the Balance Sheet, with the Retained Earnings account. You need to replenish this account before thinking of distributing dividends. Let alone considering all other restrictions: undercapitalized and Table 8 of the Capital Rule (Payout ratio = 0%)
Get a grip and pay us punitive damages for the conspiracy aiming to rip us off, jointly with the rest of your gang.
Separate Account (DOJ) + the peddlers of the government theft story (The Plaintiff Joshua Angel Gang), prevent the stocks from trading at their fair value.
The damage is, thus, the spread Fair Value versus Market Price.
$4.8 billion will do it.
AI
