Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, 13-cv-1025.

tzebedee, the legal precedent used in the Perry Capital lawsuit is given below along with links to the Supreme Court decision and a brief summary of the decision. Please note the case similarity between Count II and Count IV and the Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983). Since this is a Supreme Court decision, lower courts will usually follow the precedent if the plaintiffs can adequately demonstrate and prove that the material facts in their suit are similar.

Count I and Count III are specific violations HERA 2008 having no legal precedent. This is where there will be a legal battle over the statutory authority of the FHFA and the US Treasury. If you read the the suit in its entirety it will be clear that the violations were committed and the FHFA and US Treasury will be on the defensive.

Finally, the Prayer of Relief is given at the bottom. This outlines the charges and goals of the lawsuit, which is to vacate the third amendment.

Perry Capital LLC v. Lew, 13-cv-1025.
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/2013/07/perryvus-complaint.pdf
_________________________________________________________

COUNT I
Violation Of The Administrative Procedure Act:
Treasury’s Conduct Exceeds Its Statutory Authority Under The Housing And Economic Recovery Act

COUNT II
Violation Of The Administrative Procedure Act: Treasury’s Conduct Was Arbitrary And Capricious
Precedent
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983)
- http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/29/case.html -

In Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal agency under the Reagan Administration had acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act in rescinding a requirement that automobiles have passive restraints (safety belts).

The Court held that it will not vacate an agency's decision unless it:
"has relied on factors which Congress had not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise."

- http://conservapedia.com/Motor_Vehicle_Mfrs._Ass'n_v._State_Farm_Mut._Auto._Ins._Co.

COUNT III
Violation Of The Administrative Procedure Act: The FHFA’s Conduct Exceeds Its Statutory Authority
Under The Housing And Economic Recovery Act

COUNT IV
Violation Of The Administrative Procedure Act: The FHFA’s Conduct Was Arbitrary And Capricious
Precedent
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983)
- http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/29/case.html -

In Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal agency under the Reagan Administration had acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act in rescinding a requirement that automobiles have passive restraints (safety belts).

The Court held that it will not vacate an agency's decision unless it:
"has relied on factors which Congress had not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise."

- http://conservapedia.com/Motor_Vehicle_Mfrs._Ass'n_v._State_Farm_Mut._Auto._Ins._Co.

_________________________________________________________

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

95. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an order and judgment:

a. Declaring that the Third Amendment, and its adoption, are not in accordance with HERA within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C); and that Treasury and the FHFA acted arbitrarily and capriciously within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) by executing the Third Amendment;

b. Vacating and setting aside the Third Amendment, including its provisions that sweep the full amount of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury, that prevent redemption of the Government Preferred Stock, and that accelerate the Companies’ dissolution;

c. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Third Amendment;

d. Enjoining the FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Third Amendment;

e. Awarding Perry Capital its reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing this action; and

f. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper