InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 19
Posts 3026
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/25/2020

Re: Guido2 post# 796826

Sunday, 06/30/2024 2:13:15 AM

Sunday, June 30, 2024 2:13:15 AM

Post# of 797062
Senator Padilla is right. The unsophisticated judiciary is a big problem.
No matter how you dress it up. Dividend payments are never interest payments, if this is what they are after, after overruling Chevron.

We saw the example of justice Alito, not only talking about "dividend obligation" in order to turn a dividend payment (Changes in Equity on the Balance Sheet. I.e., a distribution of Earnings -CET1-. Restricted.) into interest payment (An expense on the Income Statement. Without restrictions) like the FHFA, the litigants and the FnF management (all of them in court too), evidence that he was egged on, but also outlining what he wanted the endgame to become, and not the reality of the written text and basic financial concepts.
For instance, with the "beneficial to the FHFA", thinking of monetary benefit, when the written text states "in the best interests of the FHFA". The interests in a regulatory agency, with respect to the regulated entities it oversees, are never monetary.
This is why the "blame DeMarco", that started in the Lamberth trials, was defused in time. DeMarco is the one that legalized their actions. The plotters want the judge to legalize them instead, with their twists.

I bet that Justice Alito still doesn't understand that, either on purpose or inadvertenly, he was talking about the Separate Account plan, 1989 FHLBanks-style, which is what really is "rehabilitating FnF" that he pointed out, and upholding all the statutory provisions and basic Finance.

He authorized also keeping the funds owed to FnF for the Making Home Afforfable program, and the use of FnF for Public policies like nowadays (loan sales to minority- and women-owned businesses, etc.)

Finally, the "for cause" removal restriction is constitutional when the FHFA has very limited powers (mentioned by the SCOTUS-appointed amicus, prof. Nielson, representing the FHFA in the Collins case), both as conservator and as regulator, in congressionally-chartered private corporations and with the FHEFSSA that evaluates the financial condition. For that, first he has to acknowledge that the Charter Act exists.
Justice Alito declared it "unconstitutional", so that now Tim Pagliara, the Conspirator in Chief, can claim that it's the President the one in charge of the resolution of Fanniegate, a President in need of public recognition.
It's Congress for the Privatized Housing Finance System revamp chosen in 2011 for the release, jointly with the FHFA and the UST after coming clean about the Separate Account plan, including the refund of the unlawful Credit Enhancement operations, other than the PMI and the Commingled securities (Credit Enhancement clause. Charter Act).
Let alone a refund of the PLMBS lawsuit settlement, net of attorney's fees.

We stand with DeMarco.