InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 19
Posts 3000
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/25/2020

Re: The Man With No Name post# 770426

Tuesday, 10/10/2023 1:25:58 AM

Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:25:58 AM

Post# of 796422
All the officials involved will agree with the Separate Account plan, because we are talking about breach of statutory provisions, which carries prison sentence. All of them covered up by the corrupt litigants, for which they owe us damages.
The evidence that the officials always wanted to make sure that they were upholding the law with every action, either directly or with a Separate Account knowing that the Incidental Power allows the conservator to lie about its actions if the endgame is the rehabilitation of FnF (Justice Alito's prerequisite) as an exit strategy, is found:

-The July 20, 2011 Final Rule "for the transparency of the conservatorship", snuck at the end a shocking surprise. It contemplated the scenario when the SPS are fully repaid with the trick in the law of the exception to the Restriction on Capital Distributions, under the guise of dividends,as it added up new exceptions: deplete capital in FnF for their Recapitalization ("to meet the Risk-Based Capital and Minimum (Leverage) Capital requirements"), that is, a Recap outside their Balance Sheets. This is a separate account wording.
Notice that July 20, 2011 is exactly the Time Limitation for the Acting Director DeMarco. We see the intentionality to make sure that the alibi is enacted in accordance with the law. We also can determine that they were thinking of the NWS dividend as the fastest speed to repay the SPS and they needed another exception to apply the assessments towards (not actual dividends but capital distributions under the guise of dividends)

-Mel Watt lifted the suspension of the 4.2 bps on new acquisitions funneled to 2 Affordable Housing funds managed by the UST and HUD, at the end of 2014. The law only allowed three cases when this payment is suspended. So, when it was lifted it only could be if the FHFA director considered that FnF have achieved some milestone regarding their "financial stability". That milestone can only be the fully repayment of the SPS at the end of 2014 in Fannie Mae (Freddie Mac one year earlier. Watch my signature image below) which is a variable to measure their solvent condition, as the SPS are obligations (debenture). More detail here.

The Separate Account plan is the alibi that legalizes every action. Other examples of alibis, are simple lies not backed up by the law, like Sandra Thompson's "CRT to protect the taxpayer", when it's unauthorized in the Credit Enhancement clause of the Charter Act, the taxpayer doesn't bear credit risk in FnF and even hinders the repayment of the SPS ("obligations in respect of capital stock": also in the SPSPA that you have pointed out), because CRT are expenses that should have been used to repay the SPS instead, hadn't been repaid many years ago, and kept as capital (Retained Earnings) for the soundness of FnF. Likely, a backdoor Commitment Fee to enrich the UST, etc. The sacking of FnF at its finest, with the former Blackrock and Morgan Stanley, Craig Phillips, once sued by the FHFA for selling toxic mortgages to FnF, turned into "counselor for the Treasury" to set up CRT symposiums and hold up this scam (Then, the Bitcoin symposiums popped up. A telltale sign). We request a refund of the amount net (deductable expenses at the time, now they pay taxes) and its posting in the Retained Earnings accounts.
They are officials and bankers attempting to make up for the losses in the money losing 1989 scheme with the FHLBanks, Funding Corp and RTC, with the taxpayer on the hook for a $48.8B losses caused by RTC's complex Public-Private Partnerships for the sacking of the taxpayer, and the scam of the officials back then: "the FHLBanks only had an obligation to pay interests", when that was Funding Corp, not the FHLBanks that had to pay down the principal of the obligation RefCorp.
It turns out that the officials back then, are the same individuals in Fanniegate: DeMarco (GAO and UST), Sandra Thompson (FDIC), Sheila Bair (FDIC, then chairman of the BOD of FNMA to transmit the idea that FNMA was included in the prior RTC scheme, that was managed by the FDIC) and Calabria (Senate staffer)