Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

I am not a lawyer, this my understanding.

The Charter Act and Safety and Soundness Act have not been used by any of the plaintiffs lawyers in going after the illegal conservatorship. Their challenge is the actions of the conservator the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, THE CONTRACT.

The SCOTUS told the Plaintiffs they brought the wrong case and went so far in asking why they didn’t challenge the placement of the companies in conservatorship.

EXAMPLE: MISTAKE

Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP,
Filed 04/03/23

Quote: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September 2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote.

Barron explained it
Quote: Perry, Fairholm and all the other Plaintiffs made the fatal error to not challenge the SPSPA using what I believe are violations of the Charter Act and the Safety and Soundness Act that would nullify the SPSPA outright. Further arguments could be made that the 200 billion commitment where not authorized by The Appropriations act as they werent used to purchase obligations or securities but rather used as a tax payer debt obligation of the GSEs with a rate that also violates the Charter. Potential violations of the CFO act leading to 14th amendment violations could have been argued as well as MQD issues. But none of that was brought before a court.

The Plaintiffs attempted to get around the HERA sand trap by arguing the NWS was ultra vires by way of the APA’s arbitrary and capricious language, or Delaware corporate Law etc etc. All failed except the Common Law implied good faith and fair dealings implicit to contracts that Congress can’t legislate away. So here we are cheering on the last scraps of a failed legal strategy that will do nothing but take cash from the beleaguered GSEs and make some Attorneys more money.

I believe that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th amendments to the SPSPA have created new distinct injuries to the GSEs and shareholders such that under the continuing claims doctrine, the Statute of limitations on the original Charter Act and Safety and Soundness act violations instituted by the SPSPA are still ripe. Would you be willing to help me with this?” End of Quote

Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172532488

JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_3e04.pdf

The link may not work, the quote is from the PDF SCOTUS document.