Thank you for your input. You misinterpret my premise. I blame myself for that. Let me try to explain what I mean by ultra vires. I use the term simply for its literal meaning, not the legal strategy that has failed for 15 years. Ultra vires simply means to do that for which you have no power to do. In the 15 year failed legal strategy, plaintiffs have attempted to challenge the actions of the Conservator that is barred from judicial review by HERA by trying to say that FHFA-C’s actions were ultra vires. All sorts of claims were thrown in. All of these claims were determined to be within the power of FHFA-C as granted by HERA. So I agree with your rebuttal. In fact if you look at my posts for the past 2 years, I have said that the plaintiffs need to stop challenging the actions of the Conservator but to instead challenge the actions of Treasury and FHFA as regulator to avoid the Judicial bar by trying to get a court to rule against the “presumption of correctness” afforded to FHFA-C in the law.
Back to my premise. The Perry appeals case did rule that the NWS potentially violated common law contract rights of the shareholders. The jury trial affirmed this fact. The agreement between Treasury and FHFA is ultra vires in the purest sense of the word. The SPSPA agreement does not have the power to violate the common law contract rights of others. It is merely an agreement between two executive branch agencies. As our friend Rodney likes to say an “Illegal contract”. Treasury knows this. This is why there is language in the agreement to be able to nullify and wind back the entire agreement if a court finds any part of the agreement to be illegal. I argue that the terms and conditions of the amended SPSPA agreements and the SPS share certificates are now invalid. If exercised moving forward, they will continually violate the common law contract rights of the shareholders. It is not a hard concept to understand. The Jury verdict will enable any shareholder moving forward to challenge any action taken by Treasury to enforce the terms of the SPSPA. My premise is that if the NWS violates my contract rights, then why would the latest terms of the SPSPA be ok? The simple solution to avoid this is to follow the agreement already agreed to by Treasury and FHFA back in 2008 to nullify the agreement, claim victory and get re-elected. A couple hundred billion used to seem like a lot but times have changed. Thats chump change now compared to (Ukraine, Green new Deal, student loans, build back better) especially if it means preserving political power and keeping Trump out of the white house.
Will this happen? Probably not. It is the politically expedient thing to do with an election year coming. But if they don’t there is now thanks to the jury verdict, a much easier pathway than before to end this charade to challenge the SPSPA.
